How did this happen: Officer charged with killing unarmed driver lying facedown

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2009
168,037
16,519
2,165
Officer charged with killing unarmed driver lying facedown - Yahoo News

She will probably be convicted of voluntary manslaughter and lose her pension. She is 59. She should have handled it right.

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A Pennsylvania police officer was charged Tuesday with criminal homicide after investigators concluded she shot an unarmed motorist in the back as he lay facedown after a traffic stop over an expired inspection sticker. Authorities accused Hummelstown police Officer Lisa J. Mearkle of shooting 59-year-old David Kassick twice on Feb. 2 without legal justification. She was released on $250,000 bail.

Her attorney, Brian Perry, said Mearkle acted in self-defense, and he warned the case could cause police officers to hesitate in high-pressure situations.

"She felt like she had to do what she did," Perry said. "This person was being commanded, begged, 'show me your hands,' and he kept going to his waist."

Authorities said Mearkle had attempted to pull over Kassick for expired inspection and emissions stickers before he sped away. She caught up to Kassick near his sister's home where he had been living for a short time.

He got out and ran before Mearkle incapacitated him with a stun gun, held in her left hand. He was on the ground when she shot him twice in the back with the gun in her right hand, police said.

Mearkle, 36, told investigators she fired because he would not show her his hands and she thought he was reaching into his jacket for a gun. Perry said she did not know Kassick before the shooting.
 
Any time somebody is shot in the back, it is automatically murder.
 
Based on the OP, sounds like a good shoot to me. Fleeing from police puts everything that happens thereafter on the suspect. You then start gettng squirly sticking your hands in your pockets or waistband you're gonna get shot.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
Based on the OP, sounds like a good shoot to me. Fleeing from police puts everything that happens thereafter on the suspect. You then start gettng squirly sticking your hands in your pockets or waistband you're gonna get shot.
That is what she is saying. Let's see what other evidence might exist.
 
Based on the OP, sounds like a good shoot to me. Fleeing from police puts everything that happens thereafter on the suspect. You then start gettng squirly sticking your hands in your pockets or waistband you're gonna get shot.
That is what she is saying. Let's see what other evidence might exist.

Gee, waiting for more evidence before passing judgement, what a novel idea. :)
 
MaryL., can the corn, please. The facts don't look good for the officer.
 
However, typically people cannot fire a weapon behind their back.

They don't have to. There is no requirement to be shot at or shot in order to shoot back. And if the perp is running for cover in order to be able to take up a position to shoot at you, absolutely you can shoot them in the back. You think if a guy is firing on a cop and he quickly turns his back that cop is going to immediately stop firing?

I just don't get where some people think that the only justified shooting is if the perp is in your face with bullets flying at you. Um no. Fear for your life is all that is required. What if the guy goes and hides after you exchange gunfire with him, and you find him hiding behind your boat, weapon drawn facing the other way so his back is to you? You don't think you can shoot him in the back, knowing that he can turn in a half second and put a round between your eyes?
 
Last edited:
am, please stay with the situation. The guy was flat on his stomach, had just been shot in the back, and Ms Officer waited four seconds and shot him again.
 

Forum List

Back
Top