Cop Accused Of Fatally Shooting Man In The Back Goes On Trial For Murder

[Stuart G]

Source: Talking Points Memo

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Video played Tuesday at a police officer's murder trial shows the 15-year veteran shocking a fleeing suspect with a stun gun, then shooting him twice in the back as he lay face down in the snow

Officer Lisa Mearkle is on trial for shooting 59-year-old David Kassick after he fled from a Feb. 2 traffic stop in Hummelstown, a Harrisburg suburb. The shooting was captured by a camera attached to the officer's stun gun.

The high-definition video shows Kassick's hands repeatedly disappearing underneath his body as Mearkle screams at him to keep them where she can see them, a key point of contention between the defense, which says Mearkle fired in self-defense, and the prosecution, which called the shooting unjustified.

Dauphin County Judge Deborah Curcillo barred authorities from publicly releasing the video, saying it would jeopardize Mearkle's right to a fair trial. Lawyers for PA Media Group, which publishes Pennlive.com in Harrisburg, filed a motion last week asking for release of the video as soon as it is shown at trial.

She's charged with third-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.



Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/lisa-mearkle-david-kassick-hummelstown-shooting

---

At least she is on trial.. What else can be said??

another link with a little more info..(some)

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/11/03/us/ap-us-traffic-stop-shot-in-back.html?_r=0

[Judi Lynn]

1. Amazing they are trying her, as you said!

[center] [/center]

From an earlier article, earlier this year:

Cop Arrested After Video Shows Her Shoot Unarmed Man in Back Lying Face Down in the Snow

By Cassandra Fairbanks on March 25, 2015

. . .

Mearkle had attempted to pull Kassick over for an expired inspection sticker, but the situation escalated when Kassick attempted to flee from the officer.

Eventually Mearkle caught up to the motorist close to his sister’s home where he was staying, but Kassick got out of the vehicle and fled on foot. As he was attempting to run away, he was incapacitated by the officer’s taser which she held in her left hand. With her right hand, she unnecessarily pulled out her service gun and shot the unarmed man twice in the back as he lay face-down on the ground.

The 36-year-old officer claims that she shot the unarmed man because he would not show his hands and she was concerned he may have been reaching in his jacket for a weapon, but the recording from the deployed taser paints a different picture.

District Attorney Ed Marsico has stated that it appeared from the recording that Kassick was simply trying to remove the stun gun probes from his back before his life was taken.

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/pa-officer-charged-criminal-homicide-shooting-unarmed-man/#i8L4Z7ZmCCvrko18.99

[valerief]

2. When is first-degree murder third-degree murder? When a cop commits it. nt

[happyslug]

3. In Pennsylvania it is only third degree murder

In Pennsylvania First degree murder is pre meditated murder. This was NOT premeditated, thus NOT first degree murder. Second degree murder in Pennsylvania is felony murder elsewhere. The officer was NOT committing a felony at the time of the shooting, thus not Second Degree murder in Pennsylvania.

All other murders are third degree murder in Pennsylvania. Murder is not defined in the Pennsylvania Crime code, thus the Common Law defines what is Murder and given this is NOT PREMEDITATED NOR OCCURRED WHILE THE OFFICER WAS COMMITTING SOME OTHER FELONY, it is third degree murder in Pennsylvania. That is how murder is defined in Pennsylvania. Most murders in Pennsylvania are third degree, not just the ones done by police officers.

[jtuck004]

4. Authorities said Mearkle had attempted to pull over Kassick for expired inspection and emissions sti

From the article:


Authorities said Mearkle had attempted to pull over Kassick for expired inspection and emissions stickers and he sped away.

Her "cop bells" started to go off when she turned on her lights and sirens and Kassick failed to pull over, even going around a car stopped at a red light, Perry told jurors. Mearkle followed Kassick a short distance to his sister's house, where he had been living. Kassick parked in the driveway, got out of the car and began fleeing on foot.
...
Even if Mearkle believed she was in danger, that belief was "unreasonable in light of the circumstances," Baer said.
...
It's unknown why Kassick fled, but he had problems with substance abuse and police recovered a syringe near his body that might have been his


_______


Murder.

[grntuscarora]

5. Mearkle aquitted of all charges.

Video of the shooting released:

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2015/11/watch_lisa_mearkle_video.html#incart_most-read_news_article

[Stuart G]

6. What can one say???shoots someone in the back...then aquitted..? no text

[grntuscarora]

7. I know, i know.

I feel sick here in central PA.

[happyslug]

8. I watched the video, and it really did not show anything.

Last edited Thu Nov 5, 2015, 08:44 PM - Edit history (1)

About half way through the video is when the shooting occurred, just before that the Officer is clearly saying "show me your hands" and the victim had done so earlier in the video, but then the victim put his hands inside his coat, the Officer repeats the command to show her his hands, but the Victim continues to have his hands in the coat, then the officer shoots the victim. From that point onward, the victim keeps his hands viable and that is the last half of the video.

My biggest problem is at times the camera is pointed NOT at the victim but on the ground. This is NOT the fault of the Officer, she did as she was trained, but it breaks up the view of the victim so you do NOT see how cooperative or noncooperative the victim was or was not. Given it is up to the prosecution to show that a crime took place and that the officer used excessive force, I just do NOT see that level of evidence. Remember Shooter/Officer is a Police Officer and as such the duty to retreat had NEVER been applied to Police Officers is such situations. Thus the officer had the legal right to stop this man and even arrest him and any resistance to such an arrest the Officer had the right to counter with whatever force the officer deemed necessary.

Thus the Officer ORDERED the Victim to show his hands was within the Officer's power to ask the victim comply. When the Victim put his hands inside his coat, the Officer had no idea, at that period of time, why the Victim did that and under various court rulings the Officer had the right to assume that the victim was going for a weapon. Since, in the opinion of the Officer, the Victim was going for a weapon the Officer had the right to defend herself by shooting the victim.

That the victim was later found to be unarmed is NOT a factor, the relevant issue it was how THE OFFICER PERCEIVED the situation to be when the Officer shot the victim. As long as that perception was reasonable, it was self defense.

Please note this rule is different from the rule that applies to NON police officers. In cases involving Non-police officers most people have the duty to retreat. Thus no chase, not tasering of the victim and no shooting. The problem is the Officer saw something she wanted to pull the victim over for but he refused to stop (and actually made a turn AROUND another car with the officer chasing him). The victim arrived at his residence and then began to run, the officer finally stopped the victim with the taser. Civilians are NOT expected to do the above and if they do, it is clear evidence that they were provoking the victim, but this is an OFFICER OF THE LAW doing the chasing and she had to right to chase him in her patrol car and later on foot. She had to right to use whatever force she deemed necessary. Once he was stopped, she had the right to put handcuffs on him or otherwise secure him, but he did put his hands in his coat, in a way that COULD be seen as going for a weapon. At that point the police officer had to right to defend herself.

Sorry, I would not even have brought the charges against this officer, I would have released the tape and pointed out that the victim, in the eyes of the officer, presented a threat to the officer ONCE HE HAD BEEN TASED. Prior to being tased, his hands were clearly visible and thus NOT going for a weapon. Thus the Officer did NOT shoot him till he reached inside his coat. That act changed the whole situation, to one where the Victims failure to comply with order of the Officer to show his hands, justified the shooting.

[grntuscarora]

9. We must be watching different videos.

From 1:23 on, every time the camera is on him, his hands are visible.
As you say, there are times when the camera is not. But the last shot with him in it, at about 2:35, his hands are clearly visible.

But whatever. The fine people of Pennsyltucky have spoken. She's in the clear, and will likely be back the job soon.

[happyslug]

10. The two shots fired are at about 1:14 and 1:18 of the video

Thus from 1:19 onward his hands ARE VISIBLE and he is complying (He even says he had been shot and going to get his attorney), the issue was for the time period of 1:08 to 1:20, that is when his hands go inside his pockets. His hands first disappear at 1:08, thus you are looking at 7 seconds between his hiding his hands and her shooting.

[grntuscarora]

11. Thanks for 'splainin it to li'l ol' me.

My faith in our gallant pd force is restored. Glad to know they're on the job protecting me from traffic violators.

[happyslug]

12. This is one of the reasons female Police officers were NOT favored for decades.

I hate to say it, once the victim was on the ground, a man (a well trained police officer who happened to be male) would have walked up to the Victim, secure all of officer's weapons first, then put his knew in the middle of the back of the victim and then man handled the victim's hands till the officer had cuffed both of the victim;s hands. A man would have relied on his physical strength to be able to man handle the victim, since the victim was already down, but no cooperating.

Women are NOT as strong as a man, and thus I would be less willing to train them to put their knee onto the back of the victim and fight him for his hands. Thus this officers (who is female) decision NOT to knee the victim, but instead demanded to see his hands and to shoot the victim when those hands were in his coat.

You may not like how the officer handled this situation, but given her sex and his sex (and the strength difference between the sexes) she could NOT afford to get into a wrestling match with this guy in the snow. A man, could run the risk, given men's superior upper body strength. This was the main argument against female police officers for decades, and is still a valid argument. At the same time, explains her decision to shoot as oppose to manhandle the victim.

Side Note: I do not want to get into any attack on sexual Equality, but in areas where physical strength is a factor, males are superior. In areas where endurance is required, females are superior. The sexes are NOT equal, both are superior to some aspects and inferior on others. Traditionally, those areas where Males are superior have been emphasized, while those areas where females are superior downplayed. As a rule equally should be the rule, but lets not be blind to areas where it is not and when it comes to using physical strength men are superior and thus what women and men will do in a situation often varies based on what is the physical demands of the situation. In this shooting that appears to be a factor, through I suspect training was also a factor.

[grntuscarora]

13. Wow.

Of all the stories of excessive use of force by police officers that have been in the news lately, this is one of the rare ones involving a female officer. Your well trained menfolk of superior physical strength seem no better able to handle a confrontation than Ms. Mearkle, if the news is any indication. Frankly, today's officers (men AND women) are at a loss to defuse situations without their stun guns , firearms and other toys. I remember when they were better trained.

[happyslug]

14. If you remember a time period when they were better train, it was a time period I missed.

Today's police are subject to the most extensive training the Police in the US have even had. The reason for this is the various lawsuits over the last 50 years holding police officers (and their employer) liable for acts that were the result of poor or no training. The reason you hear of the incidents today is as follows:

1. The Net. Prior to the widespread adoption of the net after 2000, most police stories were local in nature unless they were something big about it, i.e. a police officer killed a lot of people, not just one criminal. Sorry, but police killed people extensively -prior to 2000 but most killings were viewed as a local story almost no one heard about them (and most local reporters relied on Police for information on other crimes, so they learned to cover up any misconduct by police officers, for if they did not, the police would NOT give them information on ANY criminal activity, and a reporter without something to report is quickly fired thus reporters quickly learn NOT to question police misconduct).

2. Prior to about 2000, most Camera were film based and most people did not carry one on them. Without something other then the word of witnesses, Courts would always go with a police officer no matter how many witnesses you had UNLESS they was physical evidence to support those witnesses. Thus, unless you had Video or other physical evidence of police misconduct, the courts would rule no such misconduct had occurred. Police brutality had become a joke, often alleged but impossible to prove. That all changed with cell phones with video capacity, now you have videos of what the Police Officers were doing, Such Video are "Physical Evidence" of police misconduct. It is no longer your word against the word of a Police Officer, it was your word, the word of the police officer and whatever video exists of the incident.

For these two reasons, we have more non eyewitness evidence of Police Misconduct (Eye witness testimony was never given much weight in the first place) AND a means to spread that evidence around independent of the media. Thus you get more and more reports of such incidents. The legal issue remains the same, was the conduct of the officer in excess of what was needed in the situation, but instead of having what the officer said happen and a dead body, we have video.

Remember the burden of proof is NOT on the Officer to show that her conduct was correct, but on the Prosecution that it was excessive AND it was excessive do to her desire to be excessive (Mere excessive action is NOT liable by itself, you have to show an INTENT to commit such excessive conduct and other than an intent to make sure the victim was NOT carrying a weapon, no other intent was shown in this video).

Sorry, I have read story of Police misconduct going back to the days of the Coal and Iron Police (A police force OUTLAWED due to its use of excessive force). The problem is almost all of the cases was proving not only did the officer commit the misconduct, but that it was the officers intent to do the misconduct. That second requirement is hard to prove, given police are given the LEGAL RIGHT to use force when force is required.

This is not like the Ohio Case where the Officer just drove up to a kid sitting on a bench playing with a pistol. The kid was NOT pointing the pistol at anyone and that was clear in the video. The officer just pulled up in his patrol car, exited the patrol car and shot the kid dead. In that case the officer never ever gave the victim the ability to show his right to have a weapon, the police officer just shot him dead (The pistol turned out to be a toy, but that is irrelevant to that case). The Ohio DA decided not to prosecute for his "experts" told him that is what the officer should have done. I disagree with that case, for I see it as Murder for the victim in that case was given no opportunity to cooperate with the officer.

In this case from Pennsylvania, the officer did give the victim the opportunity to cooperate but when the victim did not, the victim was shot. Sorry, the circumstances all indicate that the Officer feared the victim was going for a weapon, and that was enough for her to shot the victim in an act of self defence.

Yes, I am drawing a line, but it is line the courts have basically made for police officers over the last 100 years. The Police have the right to use force to arrest people and that include the use of firearms if the officer fears the person they are arresting may be armed. Some people will die because of this rule, but the opposite rule, that the police officer must wait to make sure the victim is actually armed is equally deadly, but this time for police officers.

It has been shown time after time, that the delay in seeing a danger and pulling a trigger is longer than pulling a gun and pulling the trigger. The difference is the speed of neutrons from the eyes to the brain and then to the trigger is a lot longer than from finger to trigger. Experts have done this in trials over and over again. What experts have done is have someone (Who I will call the "Shooter) stand in front of the expert with a gun loaded with a blank. The Expert will tell the Shooter to pull the trigger as soon as they see the expert go for his gun. The experts then waits a few minutes and pull his gun and "shots" the Shooter with a blank from the expert's gun.

The Shooter later says he pulled the trigger as soon as he saw the expert go for his gun, but he heard the bang of the expert's gun before his finger pull the trigger on his gun. This is do to fact that when someone decides to pull a gun, his hand actions is what tips off the person holding the other gun over him. The Shooter then has to process what his eyes has seen and send a message to his finger to pull the trigger. Notice the expert has the same eye to brain to trigger delay as the shooter, but the eye to brain to finger message is already processed when the expert pulls his gun. The Shooter is just starting that process at that point and will almost always lose the subsequent race to get the first shot off.

This delay in shooting do to processing what you are seeing is the main reason Police Officers are trained to either secure someone they are arresting OR otherwise make sure they hands are seen and are NOT grabbing anything. Thus the kneeing on the back and in this case the shooting once the hands are not visible.

[grntuscarora]

15. In post 12

you indicate the victim would likely be alive if the officer had been male. In post 14 your implication is that he'd be dead no matter the time or place, because of how the court system is rigged (my words, not yours), and that this state of affairs is the best that can be expected. Oh, and we've got the best trained officers ever!

I beg to differ.

And I respectfully request our glorious pd officers to stop shooting unarmed citizens.

eom

[joshcryer]

17. The hand movements are suspect.

But the taser effectively immobilized him each and every time she fired. There is no indication that the taser was out of juice and he was completely immobilized (not only on the ground but facing away from her) when she shot.

[joshcryer]

16. Your nickname suits the situation here.

Cold blooded murder plain and simple.

[Humanist_Activist]

19. How much motor control did he have of his hands in the first place?

He was being repeatedly tased, and from the many videos I've seen of tasing someone, motor control, particularly of arms and legs, go out the window. It doesn't just freeze you, but depending on where on the body the probes hit, can cause muscle contractions and relaxations, almost randomly.

I saw the video and it appeared he was struggling to comply with keeping his hands visible, as if he had to try to resist the effects of the taser. Surely she would have been trained on the effects of the taser on the human body, wouldn't she? If not its poor training and manslaughter, if so and ignored, then its murder.

[happyslug]

20. The law at her impression at that time period.

She had chased him, he had run, she had tased him. At that point his hands are visable. Then he puts his hands inside his coat. She had the right to assume he was going for a weapon. Whether he was or not is NOT relavent. What is relevant is her impression of his actions at that time period. Since it is POSSIBLE he was going for a weapon she had the right to assume he was and thus when he failed to show his hands she had the right to shot him.

Notice the test is from her perspective since she was on trial. The Officers had told the victim to show his hands and he had not done so. She thus had enough cause to assume the worsr and thus had the right to sot him in self defence.

Please remember she is a police officer and thus had no duty to retreat. She could stand her ground. We may dislike the outcome but we have to look at the incident from her perspective and if you do the victim was going for a weapon is a valid assumption.

[Humanist_Activist]

21. He was already tased and mostly immobilized, and obviously, from the video, had little control...

over his body movements.

She was in control, it appeared he had little control over the movement of his hands, but rather it was an involuntary reaction. She was not equipped to deal with the situation and shot him because of it.

[Bonx]

18. This officer displayed an egregious lack of judgement and ability

in handling a moderately difficult physical situation.
Her commands sounded hysterical and confused, all the way though the voluntary manslaughter she committed when she shot him unnecessarily.
She should be fired and prevented from working in front-line law enforcement again.