Unarmed man shot dead by policewoman whlile lying face down and being tasered

This is one of the most grotesque acts of police murder that I've encountered to date. The unarmed victim, 59-year-old David Cassick, is face-down in the snow and screaming in agony from the relentless application of a "taser" when he is shot twice in the back by one officer Lisa Mearkle.

David Cassick died.

A jury acquitted Lisa Mearkle of all charges.

I can't include a link to the web page because it includes an embedded YouTube video of the murder, so I'd be violating the terms of service by including the link. I'll have to include a properly-acknowledged copy of the text instead.

Caution. If you choose to search for the video and find it, then take this little bit of advice before hitting the Play button. TURN DOWN THE VOLUME of your speakers or headphones. The officer shouts at the top of her voice while committing the murder.

Here's the straight text from an article by thefreethoughtproject.com:

Shock Video: Cop Executes Man as He is Lying Face Down and Complying

By Justin Gardner on November 5, 2015

Hummelstown, PA – Another cop has been cleared of charges for cold-blooded murder.

Officer Lisa Mearkle of the Hummelstown Borough Police Department was found not guilty of criminal homicide for the shooting death of 59-year-old David Kassick on February 2. Video has just been released from the Taser camera which was deployed before she fired two bullets into the man’s back, as he lay face down on the ground in full compliance with her orders.

The video of this cold-blooded killing by a maniacal cop, shown in full detail, somehow did not convince a jury that it was homicide. He had been chased down, shocked repeatedly with a Taser, fallen down face first in the snow, displayed his hands clearly at the officer’s orders, and then shot in the back twice.

Officer Mearkle had attempted to pull Kassick over for an expired inspection sticker, but Kassick fled to his family home, where he tried to run into the backyard. That’s where Mearkle ended his life.

Mearkle seems to be in a hysterical rage as she shoots the Taser into Kassick’s back. He falls to the ground, shouting and writhing in pain as police sirens blare. She applies the Taser continuously for almost 30 seconds as he was on the ground, while shouting for him to “get on the ground.”

He is, in fact, on the ground. She shouts, “Show me your hands!”

Kassick, face down in the snow after receiving 50,000 volts of electricity, holds his hands forward and says, “I am showing you.”

She continues shouting “Show me your hands!” as he is showing his hands, and then fires the Taser and two bullets into Kassick’s back.

Kassick shouts at the officer in disbelief during his last moments of life. Officer Mearkle continues behaving as if this dying man was some sort of a threat.

In the charge of criminal homicide, the arrest affidavit stated:

“At the time Officer Mearkle fires both rounds from her pistol, the video clearly depicts Kassick lying on the snow covered lawn with his face toward the ground, furthermore, at the time the rounds are fired nothing can be seen in either of Kassick’s hands, nor does he point or direct anything toward Officer Mearkle.”

District Attorney Ed Marsico, in bringing the criminal charges against Mearkle, said 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.

This is one of the most egregious displays of Blue Privilege we have witnessed, made all the more depressing because a “jury of peers” gave the verdict of not guilty.

D.A. Ed Marsico should be applauded for attempting to bring a murderer in uniform to justice.

Isn't kinda hard to move your hands when being tasered? I had this impression...

I'm beginning to think that cops shouldn't be armed.

Im surprised about the outcome. I'm pretty sure an officer shouldn't be allowed to shoot a nonviolent suspect or at least if the suspect is detained. Fact is she shouldn't be an officer. A shame that justice wasn't served and shame on the jury.

And another reason why juries are dumb.

One of the most highly-rated comments on the original web page reads as follows:

When the author says the DA should be applauded, he demonstrates his lack of knowlegdge of Pennsylvania. When the DA submitted the case to a grand jury, rather than bringing the charges himself, he had already thrown the case. This was clearly 1st degree murder, not 3rd degree. 3rd degree eliminates intent and thus "walked" the murderer from the start. This was just a staged play with the outcome already determined to invoke double jeopardy protection for the officer, and it could have never happened without the DA's full cooperation. Pennsylvania is organized crime.

If the commenter's assessment is correct then, notwithstanding the praise that the article lavishes on the DA, the DA effectively ensured that the officer would get off scot-free.

there is always going to be cop murders. we have 800,000 personnel scattered across dozens of agency's engaging in 4,000,000 interactions a day and with those kinds of numbers it is statistically impossible for cops to not murder the citizenry.

on top of that with a pool of 800K to draw from you are always going to have hundreds of sociopaths, dozens of psychopaths and at least a one or two straight up serial killers that use their position to kill and cause havoc.

plus she shot him after he was digging around at his cargo pocket and that was all the excuse they needed to let her off the hook.

plus what else is a female cop going to do? a female cop can always get away with more because in most situations they have no other choice. was she going to wrestle around with him by herself and get her little neck snapped by someone far stronger than she is?

in the end it was probably sympathy from the jury that saved this chick though. the townspeople just straight up didn't want to see her go to prison over a homeless heroin addict.

I have no idea how this happens but whenever I Bold anything, it just disappears. Weird. I bolded the part where you said that the suspect was digging through his pants, which judging from the video, didn't seem like it at all. According to the story:

"Kassick, face down in the snow after receiving 50,000 volts of electricity, holds his hands forward and says, “I am showing you.”

She continues shouting “Show me your hands!” as he is showing his hands, and then fires the Taser and two bullets into Kassick’s back."

Also, watching the video, he was indeed getting tazed and had his hands out, but he did go back and forth (but wasn't digging through his pants). That woman should never have been a cop, and should have been convicted. Again, jury trials are dumb and she should have been convicted. If it was just your average gun-toting joe, he/she would have been in jail. You're probably right that she got scot-free because she was a woman though.

So why can women be cops then?

Okay. She was put on trial. What do you want us to do about it? That's how the criminal system works. Take it up with the jury. I'm assuming you know all the facts as presented by the prosecution and the defense.

watched the video, it obviously isn't a perfectly clear picture of what was going down but

1) i imagine if you're being electrocuted, it's difficult to have full control over you limbs to the point of complying with what the officer says

2) the officer looked to be at a terrible angle to actually SEE the man's hands and she was standing behind him, but maybe that is how they are trained in order for them to be in the safest position relative to the person under arrest

3) there was one instance while being tased that it did appear he may be trying to reach into his jacket ( maybe 30s before actually being shot ) or it could be a jerk reaction of his limbs to being zapped

as always, not a black and white issue

so because he was homeless meant that his life didnt matter? #allivesmatter# smgdh

African Americans comprise 14% of the U.S's population, yet 1 in 4 unarmed civilians shot dead by the police is black. Furthermore, they account for 38% of all deaths by taser and 32% of deaths in custody. Sources: The Huffington Post and The Guardians.

The jury is in folks, the police corps in the U.S suffers from racism. Although denialism appeals to some people as a valid worldview, in reality it's a mere mental glitch. The world isn't subject to the individual's will; it goes the other way around.

After watching the video, I can't for the life of me understand how that woman was exonerated from criminal homicide. She executed the man, plain and simple. How in the fucking world was she justified in "saving her life that day"? Given the frequency of such police homicides and acts of cruelty, if you still don't believe there's a problem of police brutality then you need a serious reality check.

I don't think female cops should be on their own, but still this is not a regular occurrence is it?

She was definitely panicked and out of control almost hysterical.

She just wasn't ready.

All you can do is twitch - I have been tasered by the cops for being bipolar

Really?

You must have done something... Or been at the wrong place at the wrong time.

From what I heard in the court room later they had two tasers on me and all I did was take a step toward the officers.

@thegerg that's just a nice way of saying I was nuts out of my gourd and had to be taken down.

I agree that it's in everyone's best interest to not be violent with an officer and to cooperate while recognizing your rights and the officer's limitations of authority, but running away from an officer for a nonviolent crime doesn't constitute an officer to shoot a suspect for running away, nor does it allow the officer to abuse his/her authority.

That's what I call getting away with murder. The guy was getting tase, how the hell could he have pull a gun on her. Also why didn't she shot him in the legs or somewhere none lethal

Yeah stepping toward the police will do it. It can be construed as a threat.

@magicalclick:

So a suspect should be shot over a citation if he runs away? Or over a broken taillight? Your post makes absolutely no sense.

No one is saying that officers shouldn't exercise their authority but it doesn't give them the authority to shoot an unarmed suspect over a nonviolent crime. There was a Supreme Court decision over this and officers are trained (or at least supposed to trained) not to use excessive force usually depending on the crime committed.

Cops still enforce the law but the issue here is excessive force. This isn't Judge Dredd you know.

Bipolar doesn't mean what most people think. It's not like "sometimes im sad and sometimes im happy" or what ever. Basically you are crazy, irrational, hallucinate, but you CAN be reasoned with. In fact if you want to know my real mental illness it's Bipolar-psychotic. I guess I should have said that.

Oh, haha! I get what you mean now. No, it's not because I had bipolar stamped on my head or anything. You're right, I should have said "acting crazy" or whatever. I'll be more careful with how I word things next time.

Oh my... this cop is a dumb one.

This completely ignores the complexity of American societal reality. Yes, blacks are only small percentage of US population but they also disproportionally represented among violent criminals; almost a quarter of violent crimes are committed by black people [source]. Plus vast majority of those shootings took place in inner cities and/or impoverished neighborhoods, probably (I can only guess since you never posted sources), where black are also disproportionally represented [source]. Furthermore your bare presentation of statistics is incredibly skewed as they contain no details of percentage of justified shootings; what's the definition of unarmed here? just because an individual doesn't have weapon doesn't mean they are not a threat or can be perceived as a threat.

Granted, I'm not saying there race doesn't factor into EVERY LEO encounter or that US police are not a corrupted entity but simply claiming race of police shooting victims is definitive proof of institutionalized racism (I'm of the opinion that the ONLY racism is institutionalized racism, individuals have their own prejudices; that's not racism) in US' LE organizations is intentionally misconstruing the data.

@-Blasphemy-: bullshit. All lives do not matter. Now I'm not saying that specifically for this guy because he seems a decient enough guy for a piece of shit herion addict but the sooner you guys let go of this childs morality mindset the better off everyone will be. If you are a merciless criminal predator that spreads misery and danger everywhere you go your life is detrimental to the citizens around you and your life holds no value. This is not some shocking new revelation this is the reason why we as a society still have capitol punishment.

Where in my post did I say that I encourage people to run away? Where did I say that the police should be polite when you run away? You're putting words in my post and making idiotic assumptions because either you lack the comprehension to read or you got your head stuck up your ass.

What percent of african americans commit crime?

Police officers in the United States are trained to shoot to the largest body mass, the trunk. That's just how they are trained.

We always speak about knowing all of the facts. How many times do policemen have to murder unarmed people before it is decided enough is enough?

apparently ( according to riverwolff ) until we get rid of allivesthatdontmatter

To my discredit, you readily conjure the complexity of American societal reality into whatever discussion that doesn't align with your worldview. Is the American society complex? yes, sure, but so is every other societal arrangement in which everybody doesn't know everybody else. Yet the world, from plebs to pundits, maintains the audacity to comment on world's affairs to varying degrees of veracity. Books are written, research is published, and conferences are convened vis-a-vis the affairs of people of the olden days, let alone our temporal peers. Entire disciplines and careers are erected on that notion. If you have any interest in continuing to engage me in future discussions, I implore you to retire that argument already, as it signals bankruptcy and deters from your indulgence.

The American society isn't complex enough to defy empirical evidence. The cited statistics leave no room for assumptions and talks about skewed data; they unequivocally point at institutionalized racism. I acknowledge that African Americans have a disproportionate representation in violent crimes without ignoring how institutionalized racism significantly contributes to their immiseration and marginalization, which in turn promote crime and violence among their ranks. Most importantly, however, what does any of it have to do with a reality in which African Americans are significantly more likely to die in police custody? Likewise, how does any of your cavils affect the disproportionate representation of African Americans in deaths among unarmed civilians? An unarmed civilian is a civilian who wasn't bearing arms during his unfortunate confrontation with the police. Was this supposed to render me speechless?

How is that relevant to the statistics cited?

If you can't correlate the two, there's no conversation to be had.

Haven't I always maintain that position? I don't ever remember saying a large diverse population such as the one in US isn't complex. IIRC that was in fact one of my supporting points in the whole legalization/prohibition debate. And yes, other societies are complex as well, but the topic is issues here in America so not sure how that claim is relevant or serves as counterpoint to mine. If you want to reference material from those American societal subject matter experts to reinforce your point then you are free to do so, but the matter of fact is you are NOT one. If you aren't even able to regurgitate their arguments in a way that make sense then they aren't very convincing to begin with, aren't they? Furthermore simply issuing a blanket but unsubstantiated claim that bulk of these expert commentaries back your point is a poor form of argument and flies against the academic reality; there are no consensus supporting this notion that police are racially discriminating in their shooting. The statistic you cited but never bothered sourcing, absolutely does not reflect that claim, not when you place the data into proper context. Not only are black males more likely to commit violent crimes but black people and Latino in general represent a more significant proportion of impoverish neighborhoods where vast majority of violence take place. Thus, black people encounter with police increases. I'm not ignoring the fact that a history of racism in this country contributes to their condition nor am I claiming that police brutality isn't a problem but that's simply not the context of the discussion which is you misinterpreting the bare statistics in your OP.

Again I would like to see the source of statistics supporting the claim that there are more black death while in police custody. Was this data aggregated by regions (again poorer neighborhoods correlate with violence)? Arresting offenses (more violent arrestees obviously represents higher risk of injuries to themselves and others)?

Not sure why you want to continue this debate if you already agreed that blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes. It's not a distant logical leap from because they are more likely to commit violent crimes to the conclusion that they are more likely to be shot. It more accurate to say that anyone is more likely to be shot by police if they are inclined to commit violence, regardless of race.

An unarmed individuals are still capable of causing grave injuries or incapacitation, at which point they would be armed with the disabled cops weapon. Also there are instances where the individuals behaviors led the police to perceived weapons as the case with unfortunate shooting of the teen with toy gun (that why I asked for the definition of unarmed).

Now you are just intentionally dodging the gaping hole in your initial argument. Black crime percentage is more relevant than the black percentage in the overall population. 1 in 4 victims of police shooting are black because black are more likely to have encounter with police. That has nothing to do with your original assertion that police are somehow choosing black people to shoot.

Lest I be accused of non-factuality, here are the sources of those statistics:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerome-karabel/police-killings-lynchings-capital-punishment_b_8462778.html

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/01/black-americans-killed-by-police-analysis

Beyond that, I feel no desire to continue to indulge you any further.

Are black people more likely to have encounters with police because they are cast as criminals? Or because black people commit crimes? There are FAR more convicted white criminals than black ones. Why aren't there pictures and perceived wrongful convictions of them splashed across the evening news daily?

@sayyy-gaa: still they make up 60% of the prison population. They commit more violent crime than whites then? Point still stands though that they are more likely to end up in encounters that could end deadly with the police If that is true.

A quick note:

You are asking two questions with two different kinds of answers.

The first question, whether racial profiling is an influence in police encounters, undoubtedly asks why there are cons to African American-police situations. As the legitimacy of racism as a concept of natural science is considered pseudoscience by the majority of the scientific community, it is mostly viewed as false by professional naturalists. There is, irreducibly, a non-physical (mental) answer to that. Now, without elaborating on the idea of racism as a mental concept, we can move on to the next question with the aforementioned question type in mind.

Secondly, you ask whether African Americans are more likely to engage with police officers due to committing crimes. This inquires about how people are detected by officers in terms of what they are trained to counter. This is a question regarding the present in order to determine the future. The answer to this would be based on physical actions thus, if its premises are true, the conclusion is irreducibly non-mental.

I think that cases within which issues with race relations transpire when people attempt to interchange the two as doing so results in situations based on untrue premises which conclude, invalidly.