Officer-involved shooting in PA justified "because she couldn't know if he had a weapon"

[malthaussen]

According to my local news station, the defenders of Lisa Mearkle of Dauphin County, who is shown on video shooting David Kassick twice in the back as he lies on the ground, is justified because the officer "couldn't know if he had a weapon." If this argument is a real one, and not a garbled media version, then any shooting is justifiable on the same grounds. The Little Old Lady From Pasadena better park her car henceforth and take the bus.

-- Mal

[Daemonaquila]

1. The intellectual dishonesty burns.

When will people finally just say "enough BS already?"

[lame54]

2. When did cops stop taking risks?...

they are all afraid of their own shadows

probably because their shadows are darker than they are

[Eleanors38]

3. Metaphysics and logic. A crappy mix.

[Lurks Often]

4. I don't expect that explanation to fly with the jury

Barring some surprise, she will be found guilty of second degree murder

[malthaussen]

6. I would hope so, too...

... if society were rational. Alas, she already has claimed the deceased was "reaching for his waistband," and that is a capital crime these days.

-- Mal

[libdem4life]

5. Yes, it's difficult to aim and shoot backwards when you are face down.

When I go to the store or wherever, no officer can tell if I have a weapon...true for most people unless they are open carry, then it best be in the right state.

Says her Defenders...might that be her family and friends? Bring in the Feds. Civil Rights Violation.

[randome]

7. That's a perfectly valid argument to make...

...if you're in a dark alley with a suspect jumping out at you and trying to take your weapon. Not in this case.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[gratuitous]

8. "Shoot first and ask questions later (or never)"

Not exactly the policy I want the police to be following. Since we're a democracy and everything, can we have a vote on this?