Kim Potter Found Guilty

[ClaireH]

Was there really any negligence? This reeks of appeasing the mob, it certainly does not appear to be justice.

I agree that negligence could be replaced by a better qualifier; I was going for legal terms. When the gear is always worn on the same side but a cop pulls out one thinking it’s the other idk… maybe confusion? Someone else just mentioned the judge’s instructions to the jury and that does play into each court case scenario. I need more information, I’m behind here but will catch up.

 

[Lastamender]

Kim Potter Found Guilty

Kim Potter Guilty On 2 Counts Of Manslaughter In Daunte Wright's Death

A jury of twelve has found Kim Potter, the former Brooklyn Center police officer who shot and killed Daunte Wright, guilty on counts of both first- and second-degree manslaughter.

minnesota.cbslocal.com

For those playing along at home, she was the the cop who shot Daunte Wright because she couldn't tell the difference between her gun and her taser.

This is a good thing.

Lt. Byrd not even charged and he murdered an unarmed woman. Equal justice is gone.

 

[Stann]

Kim Potter Found Guilty

Kim Potter Guilty On 2 Counts Of Manslaughter In Daunte Wright's Death

A jury of twelve has found Kim Potter, the former Brooklyn Center police officer who shot and killed Daunte Wright, guilty on counts of both first- and second-degree manslaughter.

minnesota.cbslocal.com

For those playing along at home, she was the the cop who shot Daunte Wright because she couldn't tell the difference between her gun and her taser.

This is a good thing.

This is totally wrong, I just realized you're talking about manslaughter not involuntary manslaughter. She never intended to shoot him with a gun. It's a Mistrial, they tried her for manslaughter, it was involuntary manslaughter. A distracted truck driver in here just killed a whole bunch of people they're charging him with involuntary manslaughter. Just like the lady cop, this truck driver never intended to kill anybody.

 

[Stann]

We're not a nation of LAW. We're a nation of public opinion...thanks to democrats.

If you're going to blame politics both parties share the blame everything is f****** political now.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sounds like you favor extra judicial killing.

Only when it is someone else,though. And inly when they are one of the "others".

Daunte Wright carjacked man weeks before he was killed by cop: lawsuit​

By Priscilla DeGregory and Natalie O'Neill
June 9, 2021 | 2:01pm
The 20-year-old black man who was fatally shot by a Minnesota police officer during a traffic stop in April was allegedly involved in an armed carjacking and violent assault three weeks before he was killed, according to a new lawsuit.
Daunte Wright — who was killed when Officer Kim Potter mistook her gun for a Taser — and an accomplice allegedly jumped 20-year-old Joshua Hodges on March 21 while he was sitting in his car in north Minneapolis, the court papers state.
The other man shot Hodges in his left leg, after which Wright allegedly struck him and stole his wallet and cellphone — leaving him with “face, mouth, and teeth injuries,” the lawsuit claims.

^^

Funny how this guy went into all caps tantrum mode over calling this an extra judicial killing.


Then proceeds to type his little heart out just minutes later to argue why he deserved an extra judicial killing.


You guys don't even know what is going to come out of your mouths next. You're like amoeba...

stimulus/response... stimulus/response

We're not a nation of LAW. We're a nation of public opinion...thanks to democrats.

But only when the verdict conflicts with your fetishes.

 

[White 6]

This is totally wrong, I just realized you're talking about manslaughter not involuntary manslaughter. She never intended to shoot him with a gun. It's a Mistrial, they tried her for manslaughter, it was involuntary manslaughter. A distracted truck driver in here just killed a whole bunch of people they're charging him with involuntary manslaughter. Just like the lady cop, this truck driver never intended to kill anybody.

Hard to get involuntary when weapon is drawn, aimed at the live guy and then the defendant pulls the trigger and changes the other guy into a dead guy, if nobody else forced you to pull that trigger. Everybody licensed to carry knows you are responsible for every round that leaves your gun.
Besides, she was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, also. They call in manslaughter 2nd degree in minnesota.

Minnesota Second Degree Manslaughter​

Involuntary manslaughter in Minnesota is called manslaughter in the second degree (or second degree manslaughter). This charge covers situations where a person's negligence created an unreasonable risk or where a person consciously took a chance resulting in the death of a person. If convicted, you can face up to 10 years in prison and not more than a $20,000 fine.

Minnesota Involuntary Manslaughter Law

An overview of Minnesota's involuntary manslaughter laws, including penalties for second degree manslaughter and vehicular manslaughter.

www.findlaw.com

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

This is totally wrong, I just realized you're talking about manslaughter not involuntary manslaughter. She never intended to shoot him with a gun. It's a Mistrial, they tried her for manslaughter, it was involuntary manslaughter. A distracted truck driver in here just killed a whole bunch of people they're charging him with involuntary manslaughter. Just like the lady cop, this truck driver never intended to kill anybody.

Except she needs to be held to a higher standard. As a police officer one needs to know the difference between weapons.

 

[Lastamender]

Only when it is someone else,though. And inly when they are one of the "others".

^^

Funny how this guy went into all caps tantrum mode over calling this an extra judicial killing.


Then proceeds to type his little heart out just minutes later to argue why he deserved an extra judicial killing.


You guys don't even know what is going to come out of your mouths next. You're like amoeba...

stimulus/response... stimulus/response

But only when the verdict conflicts with your fetishes.

Other cops are getting away with murder. Byrd for one.

Here is an example. Not murder but it could have been.

FBI Agent Accused of Beating Wife Bloody Serves Just 2 Days in Jail After Pleading No Contest

Richard Trask, the disgraced top FBI agent suspected of entrapping more than a dozen men in a 'kidnapping plot' targeting Gretchen Whitmer, pleaded no contest on Monday to

www.informationliberation.com

 

[Calypso Jones]

She was the one the bullet hit, it could have hit anyone. It was a mob.

oh well that makes it all better now doesn't it. Cops can shoot into 'mobs'...but not antifa mobs...for that they retreat and let that mob set their precinct on fire. How DOES one start thinking with their asses like the left does.

 

[Calypso Jones]

I remember a somali cop that shot a white australian women in the US. No question about his weapon of choice. She's dead. He served little time and is out.

Really odd that the very ones that hate the cops will defend black men shooting white women but scream 'LAW" when it's a black cop shooting a white woman. It's a wonder lefties are able to walk upright considering the knots they have to twist themselves into over these things.

Somali immigrant cop Mohamed Noor, who shot Justine Damond, was 'highly celebrated' by Minneapolis mayor in 2015

The Somali-born Minnesota police officer alleged to have shot and killed an unarmed Australian woman on Saturday had been lauded by Minneapolis’ mayor and feted by the local community when he joined the force in 2015.

www.foxnews.com

It was a accident you see.

US court overturns murder conviction of police officer who shot Justine Damond

Minnesota ruling means former Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor is likely to be eligible for release by end of year

www.theguardian.com

hmmm. idk but i think i detect a bit of a double standard goin' on.


See what he has to say about it?

Noor testified in his 2019 trial that a loud bang on his squad car had made him fear for his and his partner’s life, so he had reached across his partner from the passenger seat and fired through the driver’s window.

Fisher said Wednesday that Noor had “really believed that he was saving his partner’s life that night, and instead he tragically caused the loss of an innocent life … I think just having reaffirmation that a mistake like that isn’t murder will mean more than words can say.”

 

[BackAgain]

I’m not versed on the state laws so will search pertaining to that case. Only going off the cuff here from the video evidence. When I first saw the video and heard her repeat “taser, taser, taser” I honestly thought she was a new cop and later surprised to learn she was not. The nervousness in her voice came across clearly when she was stating these words. It takes an exceptional person to be a skilled cop imo. I’m not claiming that exceptional cops don’t make mistakes when pressured for time, but more training was definitely needed z If that’s true that she never had any training for the taser that’s totally unacceptable and that’s on the department.

My understanding is that she was a training officer. Her mistake is almost incomprehensible. But that doesn’t make it any less a mistake.

Given that she mistakenly believed that the gun was a taser, her “use” of the gun really can’t be reckless. How could anyone be aware of the risk she or he was taking if they are sober but acting under such an obviously mistaken belief?

In an earlier post (maybe on another thread — I’d have to go back to find it) I cited a case that provided the legal analysis of the terms as defined in that state’s pattern jury instructions. It is my opinion (yep, an opinion only) that her conduct under these tragic circumstances didn’t meet the legal definition of the elements of the crimes.

 

[Calypso Jones]

New report out says that the vaxxine may be responsible for psychological problems in those that take it. Well....i coulda told ya that.

 

[Calypso Jones]

you disagree. LOLOLOLOL of course you do.

 

[Mindful]

My understanding is that she was a training officer. Her mistake is almost incomprehensible. But that doesn’t make it any less a mistake.

Given that she mistakenly believed that the gun was a taser, her “use” of the gun really can’t be reckless. How could anyone be aware of the risk she or he was taking if they are sober but acting under such an obviously mistaken belief?

In an earlier post (maybe on another thread — I’d have to go back to find it) I cited a case that provided the legal analysis of the terms as defined in that state’s pattern jury instructions. It is my opinion (yep, an opinion only) that her conduct under these tragic circumstances didn’t meet the legal definition of the elements of the crimes.

Speaking from afar, I can’t help but see a racial element to it.

 

[IM2]

This case was not clear cut, I feel bad for everyone concerned

It was pretty clear Coyote. Potter pretty much admitted to profiling Wright. And the fact is an accidental crime is still a crime.

 

[IM2]

He should havé cooperated and he wouldn't have been accidentally shot

Wrong. Potter admitted that she shout not have stopped him in her testimony. Police don't have the right to kill somebody because they try to get away unless they pose a real threat. Wright posed no such threat.

 

[ClaireH]

My understanding is that she was a training officer. Her mistake is almost incomprehensible. But that doesn’t make it any less a mistake.

Given that she mistakenly believed that the gun was a taser, her “use” of the gun really can’t be reckless. How could anyone be aware of the risk she or he was taking if they are sober but acting under such an obviously mistaken belief?

In an earlier post (maybe on another thread — I’d have to go back to find it) I cited a case that provided the legal analysis of the terms as defined in that state’s pattern jury instructions. It is my opinion (yep, an opinion only) that her conduct under these tragic circumstances didn’t meet the legal definition of the elements of the crimes.

Your post brings about an interesting concept about the body and mind having separate legal accountabilities. It was indeed a tragic outcome. She did not knowingly use the gun, but did.

 

[IM2]

The legal definition of recklessness doesn’t appear to embrace or even consider the mistaking of a gun for a taser. In fact: The converse appears to be true.

There is literally no question that she made the tragic horrifying mistake. The question is whether that particular mistake comports with the legal definition of recklessness. I believe it does not.

If a dolt is playing with a loaded gun (especially knowing that it’s loaded and operable) and stupidly and carelessly fires off some rounds while being unconcerned with the prospect that some living people might be hurt in the process, that’s reckless.

By contrast, here, she had to have both a gun and a taser. She didn’t act recklessly. She made a simple mistake. A tragic one for sure. But just a mistake. By pulling the trigger on the gun (under the mistaken Assumption that she was holding her taser), she didn’t have any reason to believe that anyone was being put at risk of grave injury or death. It wasn’t, in that legal sense, “recklessness” as it is defined in Minnesota’s law.

Because we know that in such thorny legal analyses even judges can make mistakes, there are layers of appellate review. Here, I believe the definition of “recklessness” was either given incorrectly OR the jury failed to apply the actual evidence to the law in a legally acceptable fashion.

I don’t get a vote on their appellate bench. So, we will have to wait and see.

Wrong. She was a trained officer and there is no excuse for her to even have pulled a taser.

There were other options available. Such as letting him drive home then go arrest him since they had his tags.

 

[BrokeLoser]

He should havé cooperated and he wouldn't have been accidentally shot

The left hates the causation principle and accountability.

 

[IM2]

I felt sorry for the lady, but she didn't have to use her taser or gun. In fact, the stop wasn't necessary. This sets a precedent and police are just going have to be less reckless in regard to using lethal force.