Kim Potter Found Guilty

[BackAgain]

It was NOT an accident like a fender bender. She did commit manslaughter. If you or I did what she did, we should be charged tried and found guilty. But the question is whether as a law enforcement officer, she should have criminal BUT NOT CIVIL immunity. Does convicting her make good people less willing to become cops? Imo, yes it does, and that's bad.

She pulled the wrong “weapon.” That was an accident. The charge of manslaughter consisting of an element of “recklessness” shouldn’t have even been brought. It should have been tossed by the court, as a matter of law. The conviction cannot be based on the facts AND the correct law. It ought to be overturned on appeal. (That doesn’t mean it will be.)

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Imo she should have been fired for cause and with a loss of benefits, but immunity from civil charges for negligent, and non-intentional harms should not be prosecuted against law enforcement. The only justification for manslaughter is to give the family revenge and deter future conduct by others, and neither really is appropriate here.

Mostly agree with that.
IMO - this case shows the lack of integrity in city/state leadership as well as the court system.
They won't change the laws and statutes governing policing, but if the case has enough outcry, right or wrong -they have no problems going after an officer who didn't break a single law or statute.
The situation is terrible... BUT AGAIN... and completely looked past is the degree of fault the victim has that created the circumstances of their death. He caused his death more than the officer did, pure and simple. And that was clearly given no weight in the decision.

 

[bendog]

She pulled the wrong “weapon.” That was an accident. The charge of manslaughter consisting of an element of “recklessness” shouldn’t have even been brought. It should have been tossed by the court, as a matter of law. The conviction cannot be based on the facts AND the correct law. It ought to be overturned on appeal. (That doesn’t mean it will be.)

And it's an "accident" IF you or I are cleaning a rifle and shoot and kill somebody. And it's manslaughter. The question is simply whether as a cop, she should get some immunity from going to rape you prison

 

[BackAgain]

And it's an "accident" IF you or I are cleaning a rifle and shoot and kill somebody. And it's manslaughter. The question is simply whether as a cop, she should get some immunity from going to rape you prison

Marvelous ^ incoherency.

Your last “sentence” should be taken out back and shot.

Regardless of what else might qualify as an accident, pulling the wrong weapon most certainly does qualify as an accident.

What you choose to ignore is the legal definition of “recklessness” as it is defined in State law as a part of the manslaughter charge. That you choose to ignore it doesn’t make it go away.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

THis case is this simple...

CASE 1 A sober person is driving down a road. A pedestrian who is running away from a scene of a crime runs in front of the car. The driver panics and accidently hits the accelerator instead of the brake, and runs over and kills the pedestrian.
CASE 2 A sober person is driving down a road. They hit and run over a pedestrian, killing them. They didn't see them because they were texting.
If the court that prosecuted this officer used the same criteria they did with her - they would imprison both of these drivers equally.
Period.

 

[JoeB131]

Imo she should have been fired for cause and with a loss of benefits, but immunity from civil charges for negligent, and non-intentional harms should not be prosecuted against law enforcement. The only justification for manslaughter is to give the family revenge and deter future conduct by others, and neither really is appropriate here.

Again, the problem here is everything that led up to that mistake. They didn't pull him over for just cause, they pulled him over for a DWB Bullshit offense of not having tags. Then they escalated with another bullshit offense of the air-freshener hanging off the mirror. In short, the stupidity compounded itself.

It was NOT an accident like a fender bender. She did commit manslaughter. If you or I did what she did, we should be charged tried and found guilty. But the question is whether as a law enforcement officer, she should have criminal BUT NOT CIVIL immunity. Does convicting her make good people less willing to become cops? Imo, yes it does, and that's bad.

Police already have qualified immunity for their conduct. Their conduct has to be especially egregious for their behavior to be held liable.

So here's an idea. How about instead of the cities having to pay for the bad cops, the police unions have to.

 

[bendog]

Again, the problem here is everything that led up to that mistake. They didn't pull him over for just cause, they pulled him over for a DWB Bullshit offense of not having tags. Then they escalated with another bullshit offense of the air-freshener hanging off the mirror. In short, the stupidity compounded itself.



Police already have qualified immunity for their conduct. Their conduct has to be especially egregious for their behavior to be held liable.

So here's an idea. How about instead of the cities having to pay for the bad cops, the police unions have to.

Did Potter have qualified immunity?

 

[Markle]

Again, the problem here is everything that led up to that mistake. They didn't pull him over for just cause, they pulled him over for a DWB Bullshit offense of not having tags. Then they escalated with another bullshit offense of the air-freshener hanging off the mirror. In short, the stupidity compounded itself.



Police already have qualified immunity for their conduct. Their conduct has to be especially egregious for their behavior to be held liable.

So here's an idea. How about instead of the cities having to pay for the bad cops, the police unions have to.

How is not having your vehicle registered and taxes paid a BS charge?

If there are no consequences for not registering your vehicle and paying your taxes, why pay them?

 

[Calypso Jones]

continuing on with the concept of accidental and intentional: This truck driver sentenced to over 100 years for his brakes failing and four maybe more people died as a result of the accident.

One of the Kardashians and the victims' families intervened and asked for a lighter sentence so his sentence was reduced to ten years. The sentence was wrong in the first place so how do you feel about this 'intrusion' into the process.....public opinion? to change a sentence? is there no legal process to set these things right??

Colorado Gov Reduces Sentence Of 22-Yr-Old Truck Driver Who Killed Four From 110 Yrs to Only 10 Yrs After Outcry From Kim Kardashian and Victim's Families * 100PercentFedUp.com * by Patty McMurray

In 2019, 22-yr-old Cuban immigrant Rogel Lazaro Aguilera-Mederos was involved in a fiery crash when his brakes went out while […]

100percentfedup.com

But somebody has to pay for accidents in the leftists' minds...unless of course the accused IS a leftist...then...pffft

Colorado Gov Reduces Sentence Of 22-Yr-Old Truck Driver Who Killed Four From 110 Yrs to Only 10 Yrs After Outcry From Kim Kardashian and Victim's Families * 100PercentFedUp.com * by Patty McMurray

In 2019, 22-yr-old Cuban immigrant Rogel Lazaro Aguilera-Mederos was involved in a fiery crash when his brakes went out while […]

100percentfedup.com

go after the deeper pockets.

 

[schmidlap]

That thug wasn’t obeying cops and she had every right to plug him full of lead.

Some who attack jury verdicts do so based upon blatant ideological bias, certainly not a superior grasp of the circumstances and details with which the jury has been intimately acquainted or the motivation to achieve a fair decision.

Police are sometimes confronted with rapidly-unfolding situations where they have the responsibility of making quick judgments.

When the deceased, among a mob of violent goons, persisted in smashing windows and advancing on police, it's remarkable that more of the aggressors were not met with lethal force.

"Those who made this attack on our government need
to be identified and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Their actions are repugnant to democracy."

Lindsey Graham (R) calls for prosecution of rioters​

 

[Rigby5]

How is not having your vehicle registered and taxes paid a BS charge?

If there are no consequences for not registering your vehicle and paying your taxes, why pay them?

It was a BS charge because he did have valid tags.

 

[Rigby5]

continuing on with the concept of accidental and intentional: This truck driver sentenced to over 100 years for his brakes failing and four maybe more people died as a result of the accident.

One of the Kardashians and the victims' families intervened and asked for a lighter sentence so his sentence was reduced to ten years. The sentence was wrong in the first place so how do you feel about this 'intrusion' into the process.....public opinion? to change a sentence? is there no legal process to set these things right??

Colorado Gov Reduces Sentence Of 22-Yr-Old Truck Driver Who Killed Four From 110 Yrs to Only 10 Yrs After Outcry From Kim Kardashian and Victim's Families * 100PercentFedUp.com * by Patty McMurray

In 2019, 22-yr-old Cuban immigrant Rogel Lazaro Aguilera-Mederos was involved in a fiery crash when his brakes went out while […]

100percentfedup.com

But somebody has to pay for accidents in the leftists' minds...unless of course the accused IS a leftist...then...pffft

Colorado Gov Reduces Sentence Of 22-Yr-Old Truck Driver Who Killed Four From 110 Yrs to Only 10 Yrs After Outcry From Kim Kardashian and Victim's Families * 100PercentFedUp.com * by Patty McMurray

In 2019, 22-yr-old Cuban immigrant Rogel Lazaro Aguilera-Mederos was involved in a fiery crash when his brakes went out while […]

100percentfedup.com

go after the deeper pockets.

It was the judge who was the criminal in that case.
There can never legally be something ,like a "mandated sentence" as the judge claimed.
The constitution prohibits mandated sentences, and always requires judicial discretion based on mitigating circumstances.
The judge must have known that, but pass the ridiculously high sentence anyway.

 

[horselightning]

It was the judge who was the criminal in that case.
There can never legally be something ,like a "mandated sentence" as the judge claimed.
The constitution prohibits mandated sentences, and always requires judicial discretion based on mitigating circumstances.
The judge must have known that, but pass the ridiculously high sentence anyway.

She is still not sentence yet.

 

[Rigby5]

Some who attack jury verdicts do so based upon blatant ideological bias, certainly not a superior grasp of the circumstances and details with which the jury has been intimately acquainted or the motivation to achieve a fair decision.

Police are sometimes confronted with rapidly-unfolding situations where they have the responsibility of making quick judgments.

When the deceased, among a mob of violent goons, persisted in smashing windows and advancing on police, it's remarkable that more of the aggressors were not met with lethal force.

View attachment 583035
"Those who made this attack on our government need
to be identified and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Their actions are repugnant to democracy."

Lindsey Graham (R) calls for prosecution of rioters​

Juries tend to be rubber stamps.
That is because the defense lawyers are often inexperienced and suppressed by an oppressive judge.
And most jurist incorrectly think that if it appears the defendant is 51% guilty, that ypu should then render a guilty verdict.
That is not the case.
Beyond reasonable doubt is intended to imply more like 98% probability of guilt before voting for a guilty verdict.

She is still not sentence yet.

I was referring to the truck driver who got over 100 year sentence, that Calypso Jones brought up.
I do not understand how anyone could believe mandated sentences could possibly be legal in a democratic republic?

 

[horselightning]

Juries tend to be rubber stamps.
That is because the defense lawyers are often inexperienced and suppressed by an oppressive judge.
And most jurist incorrectly think that if it appears the defendant is 51% guilty, that ypu should then render a guilty verdict.
That is not the case.
Beyond reasonable doubt is intended to imply more like 98% probability of guilt before voting for a guilty verdict.


I was referring to the truck driver who got over 100 year sentence, that Calypso Jones brought up.
I do not understand how anyone could believe mandated sentences could possibly be legal in a democratic republic?

oooh