What Was Wrong With Kim Potter Shooting Daunte Wright ?

[protectionist]

Just like a retarded republican.

April 8 2015
Can police officers shoot at fleeing individuals?

Only in very narrow circumstances. A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner, held that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk.

In other words, a police officer who fires at a fleeing man who a moment earlier murdered a convenience store clerk may have reasonable grounds to argue that the shooting was justified. But if that same robber never fired his own weapon, the officer would likely have a much harder argument.

“You don’t shoot fleeing felons. You apprehend them unless there are exigent circumstances — emergencies — that require urgent police action to safeguard the community as a whole,”

You're STILL FOS.

Philip Brailsford.

May 27 2016
Daniel Shaver, a 26-year-old father of two, was staying at the La Quinta Inn & Suites in January on a work trip from Texas.

A 911 call was made claiming a gun was being pointed out the window of a hotel room, according to court records. Police say they found two pellet guns, which he used for his pest-control job, inside the room after Shaver had been killed.

Reports of a gun being pointed out the window, idiot.

May 18 18 2017
On September 16, 2016, Crutcher’s SUV was found stalled in the middle of the street. A witness called 911 and said a man was running away from the vehicle, warning it was going to blow up.

Shelby testified she arrived on the scene and approached the vehicle and cleared it, not seeing anyone inside.

As she turned back to her patrol car, she saw Crutcher walking toward her, she testified. He alternated between putting his hands in his pockets and putting them in the air, Shelby said.

Reports of vehicle blowing up?

November 17 2016
The officer was interviewed July 7 by investigators.

Yanez said Castile told him he had a gun at the same time he reached down between his right leg and the center console of the vehicle, the complaint said.

“And he put his hand around something,” Yanez was quoted as saying. He said Castile’s hand took a C-shape, “like putting my hand up to the butt of the gun.”

WTF, retard, NONE of that happened to Potter.

You STILL don't know shit.

YOU still don't know shit, and every time you post, you show more and more how ignorant and MISeducated you are (probably by anti-gun, anti-cop, liberal idiots).

1. I have been posting about Tennessee vs. Garner for years. What it confirms is that a cop CAN shoot a fleeing felon just about anytime, because all fleeing felons pose a significant physical danger to the community, just by virtue of the fact that they are felons. Yes, you DO shoot fleeing felons, and if you dont, then you are guilty of dereliction of duty, for allowing a dangerous felon to escape back out into the community.

2. I dont need you to tell me about the people whose names I posted in this thread before you did. I have posted about their cases numerous times in the past. I will teach YOU about them, Mr Student.

3. What you posted about Daniel Shaver doesn't mean a thing. He was shot because he reached behind him (maybe to pull his pants up in the back), thereby allowing his hand to disappear. I not only have posted about this case, I also (more than once) posted the video of the shooting as well.

4, In the Crutcher case he was shot when he foolishly put his hand into the window of his SUV, thereby removing it from Shelby's view. I posted the video of this one too.

5. In the Castille case, Castille's hand disappeared when he reached down to the center console.

Blithering idiot: ALL of these are the same as the Potter case, in that the suspects' hands all disappeared from the view of the cop.

Wow. Are these liberals DENSE, or what ?

 

[protectionist]

So you're saying because she was in a Liberal city, she knew she was going to be charged? Whether she said she intentionally shot him or accidentally shot him.

Bingo! You're getting it, finally.

 

[protectionist]

Yes, you said because she was being charged. You literally claimed she lied about which weapon she intended to use because she knew she was being charged.

Which makes no sense. If it was legal to shoot him with his gun, there was no reason for her to lie and claim it was an accident. If it was legal to shoot him, she would have said from the start she intended to use her gun and she wouldn't have been charged.

See Post # 396, 359, 323, 328, 364, 367, 370

 

[protectionist]

Liberals learning about guns & law enforcement, for the first time in their brainwashed lives, after years of FALSE indoctrination, intended to promote hatred of police.

 

[Smokin' OP]

YOU still don't know shit, and every time you post, you show more and more how ignorant and MISeducated you are (probably by anti-gun, anti-cop, liberal idiots).

You can't refute it moron.

1. I have been posting about Tennessee vs. Garner for years. What it confirms is that a cop CAN shoot a fleeing felon just about anytime, because all fleeing felons pose a significant physical danger to the community, just by virtue of the fact that they are felons. Yes, you DO shoot fleeing felons, and if you dont, then you are guilty of dereliction of duty, for allowing a dangerous felon to escape back out into the community.

WTF?
Not even remotely relevant to ..........................ANYTHING, dumbass.

On October 3, 1974, two police officers responded to a late night call. A woman had heard glass breaking in her neighbor’s house and believed a “prowler” to be inside. One of the officers went around the back of the house. Someone fled across the backyard, stopping by a 6-foot fence. In the darkness, the officer could see that it was a boy and reasonably believed the boy to be unarmed. The officer yelled, “Police, halt.” The boy jumped up and began to climb the 6-foot fence. Out of fear that he’d lose the arrest, the officer opened fire, striking the boy in the back of the head. The boy, Edward Garner, died at the hospital. Garner had stolen a purse and $10.

The officer’s conduct was legal under Tennessee law. The state’s law read, "If, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest."


Garner’s death sparked over a decade of court battles resulting in a Supreme Court ruling in 1985.

In Tennessee v. Garner (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may not use deadly force against a fleeing, unarmed suspect. The fact that a suspect does not respond to commands to halt does not authorize an officer to shoot the suspect, if the officer reasonably believes that the suspect is unarmed.

MORON.

2. I dont need you to tell me about the people whose names I posted in this thread before you did. I have posted about their cases numerous times in the past. I will teach YOU about them, Mr Student.

3. What you posted about Daniel Shaver doesn't mean a thing. He was shot because he reached behind him (maybe to pull his pants up in the back), thereby allowing his hand to disappear. I not only have posted about this case, I also (more than once) posted the video of the shooting as well.

More BS.

The reported threat the cop believed Shaver had a weapon, no such thing with Potter, idiot.

4, In the Crutcher case he was shot when he foolishly put his hand into the window of his SUV, thereby removing it from Shelby's view. I posted the video of this one too.

Again, the reported threat was the vehicle was set to blow up, idiot.

5. In the Castille case, Castille's hand disappeared when he reached down to the center console.

More BS you ignore that Castille stated he had a weapon, idiot.

Blithering idiot: ALL of these are the same as the Potter case, in that the suspects' hands all disappeared from the view of the cop.

NOT even close, retard.

Did Wright claim he had a weapon?
Was there a complaint Wright had a weapon?
Did Wright claim his vehicle was going to blow up?

Wow. Are these liberals DENSE, or what ?

Yeah, WOW, Trumptards are denser than Granite.
Trump REALLY LOVES YOU.

 

[protectionist]

You can't refute it moron.

WTF?
Not even remotely relevant to ..........................ANYTHING, dumbass.

On October 3, 1974, two police officers responded to a late night call. A woman had heard glass breaking in her neighbor’s house and believed a “prowler” to be inside. One of the officers went around the back of the house. Someone fled across the backyard, stopping by a 6-foot fence. In the darkness, the officer could see that it was a boy and reasonably believed the boy to be unarmed. The officer yelled, “Police, halt.” The boy jumped up and began to climb the 6-foot fence. Out of fear that he’d lose the arrest, the officer opened fire, striking the boy in the back of the head. The boy, Edward Garner, died at the hospital. Garner had stolen a purse and $10.

The officer’s conduct was legal under Tennessee law. The state’s law read, "If, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest."


Garner’s death sparked over a decade of court battles resulting in a Supreme Court ruling in 1985.

In Tennessee v. Garner (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may not use deadly force against a fleeing, unarmed suspect. The fact that a suspect does not respond to commands to halt does not authorize an officer to shoot the suspect, if the officer reasonably believes that the suspect is unarmed.

MORON.


More BS.

The reported threat the cop believed Shaver had a weapon, no such thing with Potter, idiot.

Again, the reported threat was the vehicle was set to blow up, idiot.

More BS you ignore that Castille stated he had a weapon, idiot.

NOT even close, retard.

Did Wright claim he had a weapon?
Was there a complaint Wright had a weapon?
Did Wright claim his vehicle was going to blow up?

Yeah, WOW, Trumptards are denser than Granite.
Trump REALLY LOVES YOU.

Maybe you could take up painting or guitar playing. Looks like computer forums are not your forte. You are completely lost in this thread.

All my posts that you responded to, look like refutes of your clueless responses. In fact, they ARE just that. lol.

 

[protectionist]

Of course she could have stopped him with a taser. It's why cops are armed with tasers.

Your ignorance knows no boundaries, gramps.

Fool! I meant she could not have "stopped" him from SHOOTING HER. God, you are stupid.

 

[Faun]

We've been all through that weeks ago, and the scenario you claim is FALSE. Put it to rest. For the 10th time, the video does NOT verify what you say. It does NOT show Travis pointing the shotgun at Arberry before Arberry attacked him.

You can make your idiotic (anti-video) claim 1,000 times if you like, and I will refute it every time. Ho hum. Yawn*****

And you will be wrong 1000 times. He testified he pointed the shotgun at Arbery and that was an effective deterrent which caused Arbery to change the direction he was running...

​

​

​

Prosecutor: You've raised your shotgun at him at this point...​

​

Travis: At that point I did, yes, ma'am.​

​

Prosecutor: And he's 30 to 40 yards away from you...​

​

Travis: That's what I put on the uh ... that's what I said in the statement, I believe. Thinking back on it now, I think it was 30 to 40 feet, it was closer to 30 or 40 yards, about 120 feet. He was not that far away from me.​

​

Prosecutor: And at this point right here, hasn't said anything to you...​

​

Travis: No, he hasn't said anything.​

​

Prosecutor: hasn't verbally threatened you...​

​

Travis: Verbally, no.​

​

Prosecutor: Still running with his hands at his sides...​

​

Travis: Directly towards me, yes ma'am...​

​

Prosecutor: Hasn't pulled out a gun...​

​

Travis: I haven't seen a gun, weapon yet, no, ma'am.​

​

Prosecutor: And hasn't shown you a weapon this entire time...​

​

Travis: He has not.​

​

Prosecutor: Hasn't said a word the entire time...​

​

Travis: Not one time.​

​

Prosecutor: All he's done is run away from you...​

​

Travis: Running past me, yes, ma'am.​

​

Prosecutor: And you pulled out a shotgun and pointed it at him?​

​

Travis: Running directly towards me and this is now the second time on the road coming directly and then watching how he interacted with the pickup truck. And that general location when I pulled up the first time attacking the truck and seeing him interact with the vehicle on Burford ... seeing that the police were coming ... him turning and running ... on top of seeing Mr. Albenzy pointing and the whole February 11th episode. I was under the impression that I was ... at this point, this guy can be a threat and he is coming directly to me. I was under the impression that I was... at this point this guy could be a threat as he is coming directly to me. Yes, I pointed the shotgun at him to deter him from coming directly to me, which was effective at that point.​

​

[... 2:19:48 ...]​

​

Prosecutor: But this time you're not letting him run away, you're pointing a shotgun at him, correct?​

​

Travis: I am not letting him run to me, directly to me​

​

Prosecutor: And he doesn't ... he runs around there, right?​

​

Travis: He did.​

​

Prosecutor: And comes around that corner... and you have closed the distance yourself on him, haven't you?​

​

Travis: I had gone to the front of my truck. I did not go to the passenger side of my truck at that time. I was trying to keep an eye on him to make sure that he didn't try to get into my truck ... or try to get to my dad. Or who knows, get into the passenger side or what. I was trying to keep an eye on him. And, I would think that, he's avoided me once I pulled ... once I aimed the shotgun at him, he sees me at the front of the truck that he'll not come back around, which I was thinking was more than likely was gonna happen and that he would continue to go.​

 

[Faun]

Bingo! You're getting it, finally.

Which proves what a moron you are.

According to you she knew she was going to go to prison no matter what if she shot him with a gun but she did so anyway.

Exactly how retarded are you? What cop is going to shoot someone knowing they're going to prison for it??

 

[Faun]

Fool! I meant she could not have "stopped" him from SHOOTING HER. God, you are stupid.

Poor gramps, she could have stopped him with her taser and not gone to prison.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Maybe you could take up painting or guitar playing. Looks like computer forums are not your forte. You are completely lost in this thread.

Awww, maybe you should take up, Alphablocks, about the right speed for Trumptard special-ed kids.

All my posts that you responded to, look like refutes of your clueless responses. In fact, they ARE just that. lol.

You're delusional, get started on those Alphablocks.

 

[22lcidw]

Which proves what a moron you are.

According to you she knew she was going to go to prison no matter what if she shot him with a gun but she did so anyway.

Exactly how retarded are you? What cop is going to shoot someone knowing they're going to prison for it??

In another era, Chauvin would have not been charged. And there are questions if he should have been charged. In today's era, we have Chauvin's because we have Potter's. Chauvin's do their jobs. The job could be dirty. And of course, outside people sit in judgement and do not do any of the dirty work themselves.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Which proves what a moron you are.

According to you she knew she was going to go to prison no matter what if she shot him with a gun but she did so anyway.

Exactly how retarded are you? What cop is going to shoot someone knowing they're going to prison for it??

Just when you think a Trumptard can't get any more retarded, they surprise you.

 

[Faun]

In another era, Chauvin would have not been charged. And there are questions if he should have been charged. In today's era, we have Chauvin's because we have Potter's. Chauvin's do their jobs. The job could be dirty. And of course, outside people sit in judgement and do not do any of the dirty work themselves.

Hence the need for BLM.

 

[protectionist]

And you will be wrong 1000 times. He testified he pointed the shotgun at Arbery and that was an effective deterrent which caused Arbery to change the direction he was running...

​

​

​

Prosecutor: You've raised your shotgun at him at this point...​

​

Travis: At that point I did, yes, ma'am.​

​

Prosecutor: And he's 30 to 40 yards away from you...​

​

Travis: That's what I put on the uh ... that's what I said in the statement, I believe. Thinking back on it now, I think it was 30 to 40 feet, it was closer to 30 or 40 yards, about 120 feet. He was not that far away from me.​

​

Prosecutor: And at this point right here, hasn't said anything to you...​

​

Travis: No, he hasn't said anything.​

​

Prosecutor: hasn't verbally threatened you...​

​

Travis: Verbally, no.​

​

Prosecutor: Still running with his hands at his sides...​

​

Travis: Directly towards me, yes ma'am...​

​

Prosecutor: Hasn't pulled out a gun...​

​

Travis: I haven't seen a gun, weapon yet, no, ma'am.​

​

Prosecutor: And hasn't shown you a weapon this entire time...​

​

Travis: He has not.​

​

Prosecutor: Hasn't said a word the entire time...​

​

Travis: Not one time.​

​

Prosecutor: All he's done is run away from you...​

​

Travis: Running past me, yes, ma'am.​

​

Prosecutor: And you pulled out a shotgun and pointed it at him?​

​

Travis: Running directly towards me and this is now the second time on the road coming directly and then watching how he interacted with the pickup truck. And that general location when I pulled up the first time attacking the truck and seeing him interact with the vehicle on Burford ... seeing that the police were coming ... him turning and running ... on top of seeing Mr. Albenzy pointing and the whole February 11th episode. I was under the impression that I was ... at this point, this guy can be a threat and he is coming directly to me. I was under the impression that I was... at this point this guy could be a threat as he is coming directly to me. Yes, I pointed the shotgun at him to deter him from coming directly to me, which was effective at that point.​

​

[... 248 ...]​

​

Prosecutor: But this time you're not letting him run away, you're pointing a shotgun at him, correct?​

​

Travis: I am not letting him run to me, directly to me​

​

Prosecutor: And he doesn't ... he runs around there, right?​

​

Travis: He did.​

​

Prosecutor: And comes around that corner... and you have closed the distance yourself on him, haven't you?​

​

Travis: I had gone to the front of my truck. I did not go to the passenger side of my truck at that time. I was trying to keep an eye on him to make sure that he didn't try to get into my truck ... or try to get to my dad. Or who knows, get into the passenger side or what. I was trying to keep an eye on him. And, I would think that, he's avoided me once I pulled ... once I aimed the shotgun at him, he sees me at the front of the truck that he'll not come back around, which I was thinking was more than likely was gonna happen and that he would continue to go.​

All this UNSOURCED, UNLINKED jibberish has no standing whatsoever, as compared to my SOURCED, LINKED video, which refuted it.

 

[protectionist]

Which proves what a moron you are.

According to you she knew she was going to go to prison no matter what if she shot him with a gun but she did so anyway.

Exactly how retarded are you? What cop is going to shoot someone knowing they're going to prison for it??

Exactly how retarded are YOU? Going to prison is not the criterea. STAYING ALIVE is.
You still are caught up in the idiot, liberal mindset that ignores the fact that it takes 1/4 second for the cop to be DEAD, if the suspect pulls a gun from his hidden hand.

There is no reason for you to not get that, other than you are a complete moron.

 

[protectionist]

Poor gramps, she could have stopped him with her taser and not gone to prison.

FALSE! Being tased does not stop someone from shooting at you. Even shooting a person with a gun, doesn't always stop them (ex. Jacob Blake shooting), however it is far more effective, far more often.

That's why it is police academy doctrine fir cos to shoot suspects (WITH A GUN), whose hand(s) disappear, and it's why cops always shout "Show me your hands"

 

[protectionist]

Awww, maybe you should take up, Alphablocks, about the right speed for Trumptard special-ed kids.

You're delusional, get started on those Alphablocks.

View attachment 589958

View attachment 589959

Not worth a response.

 

[protectionist]

In another era, Chauvin would have not been charged. And there are questions if he should have been charged. In today's era, we have Chauvin's because we have Potter's. Chauvin's do their jobs. The job could be dirty. And of course, outside people sit in judgement and do not do any of the dirty work themselves.

Chauvin's police manual vindicates him - approves and advocated knee on the neck.
Chauvin is another victim of liberal pandering to the mindless masses, who foam at the mouth at every mention of a black guy being subdued by a cop.

 

[protectionist]

Just when you think a Trumptard can't get any more retarded, they surprise you.

Lost. Pathetically.