posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 10:04 AM
Here comes the accusations of bias toward me, I'm sure, but read my whole comment first.
Yes, the guy was on the ground, and yes, he had been tased for quite some time, but the reality of the situation is that he kept moving one or both
hands toward the inside of the his jacket near his chest. He did it at these marks that I can see: left 0:38, left 1:09-1:18 (both shots fired during
this time), right 1:23, both 1:53, both 2:01.
Now for the part that you really need to pay attention to before you lambast me...
I'm an absolute advocate of LEOs using deadly force as a last resort, and their training should hone reaction times when they already have their
weapon drawn so that they don't fire until they believe that they see a weapon, not just the possible body movement that may indicate that they're
reaching for one.
BUT...you're being tased, and being told to keep your hand where the officer can see them--multiple times on both accounts. If you are dumb enough to
keep moving one or both hands toward the underneath of your body or inside of a jacket, you have to understand that you could be shot--there are
enough instances in both reality and television/movies to have this reality burned into your subconscious. So to keep ignoring officer's commands to
keep your hands where they can see them is a pure definition of ignorance and stupidity.
Couple those movements with the fact that there is obviously someone angrily screaming at you who is in support of the suspect, escalating the tension
and concern and potential danger of the situation for the officer, I can see how it could be presented to the jury as deadly force used because the
officer determined that there was a threat.
NOW LISTEN REALLY WELL!
It would have taken more than what I see here to indicate to me as a juror that this was murder. However, it would not have taken much more to
indicate to me that the officer is guilty of a lesser offense, such as manslaughter. What I can't seem to find anywhere is whether the prosecutors
took lesser offenses off of the table and only went with murder. If that's the case, as I see it, the jury's hands were tied in this one and they made
the legally appropriate call. But, if they could have gone with a lesser offense, then I think that they missed the mark.
SO, TO RECAP MY POSITION...
Kassick should not have fled the traffic stop, nor the secondary attempt to stop him at his sister's house. Kassick should have been complying with
the Mearkle's commands to keep his hands visible to her. His refusals to do so is what created the officer's concern for her safety and her
interpretation that he was a threat--a perfectly reasonable interpretation by anyone trained to handle these situations. BUT, I think she was
perfectly capable of using her bodyweight to keep him on the ground while she cuffed him and detained him in lieu of firing her weapon. I think it was
reckless since there was no visible confirmation of a weapon, let alone one directed at her. I think she was in the wrong for firing her weapon, but I
think that she was in the right in determining that his actions showed a high possibility that he could be a threat to her physical safety.