officer kim potter jury asking what hapens when they dont reach a consensus

[horselightning]

Jurors in Kim Potter's trial for killing Daunte Wright end day of deliberations after asking about not reaching consensus | CNN

Jurors in the manslaughter trial of Kim Potter, the White former Minnesota police officer who says she mistook her firearm for her Taser and fatally shot Daunte Wright, concluded deliberations for the day Tuesday after earlier asking what they should do if they can't reach a verdict.

www.cnn.com

sounds like deadlock to me folks.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I think it's more than evident this shooting was accidental. I don't think this woman is a criminal in any way, shape, or form, but here's the problem. When you're entrusted by the state with the permission to carry a deadly weapon and use that against someone there is no room for error. "Oops, I grabbed the wrong weapon" really doesn't cut it. I don't know what the right solution is here and I think that's what the jury is likely struggling with.

 

[progressive hunter]

I think it's more than evident this shooting was accidental. I don't think this woman is a criminal in any way, shape, or form, but here's the problem. When you're entrusted by the state with the permission to carry a deadly weapon and use that against someone there is no room for error. "Oops, I grabbed the wrong weapon" really doesn't cut it. I don't know what the right solution is here and I think that's what the jury is likely struggling with.

fact remains she was also able to use the gun instead of the tazer in that situation,,

 

[Billy_Bob]

Jurors in Kim Potter's trial for killing Daunte Wright end day of deliberations after asking about not reaching consensus | CNN

Jurors in the manslaughter trial of Kim Potter, the White former Minnesota police officer who says she mistook her firearm for her Taser and fatally shot Daunte Wright, concluded deliberations for the day Tuesday after earlier asking what they should do if they can't reach a verdict.

www.cnn.com

sounds like deadlock to me folks.

What's next...

The judge will go over the charges and question the jury. The judge may recommend a lesser charge to consider. He will then send them back to deliberate one last time.

IF they remain hopelessly deadlocked, the judge will have no other choice to declare a mistrial.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I think it's more than evident this shooting was accidental. I don't think this woman is a criminal in any way, shape, or form, but here's the problem. When you're entrusted by the state with the permission to carry a deadly weapon and use that against someone there is no room for error. "Oops, I grabbed the wrong weapon" really doesn't cut it. I don't know what the right solution is here and I think that's what the jury is likely struggling with.

I agree. It was a bad situation all around. I can only hope the prosecution's angle is incompetence on the job rather than any sort of malice (for the reasons you outlined).

 

[mudwhistle]

I think it's more than evident this shooting was accidental. I don't think this woman is a criminal in any way, shape, or form, but here's the problem. When you're entrusted by the state with the permission to carry a deadly weapon and use that against someone there is no room for error. "Oops, I grabbed the wrong weapon" really doesn't cut it. I don't know what the right solution is here and I think that's what the jury is likely struggling with.

Better training for officers would help prevent this happening again.
I seriously don't think she ever had the proper temperament to be a police officer in the first place.
You have to be tough-minded and cool-headed........and she isn't tough minded at all....as evidenced by her testimony.
Clearly she was provoked.......but her reactions were more in a panic than anything else.

 

[mudwhistle]

What's next...

The judge will go over the charges and question the jury. The judge may recommend a lesser charge to consider. He will then send them back to deliberate one last time.

IF they remain hopelessly deadlocked, the judge will have no other choice to declare a mistrial.

She's what Dirty Harry was talking about when he questioned a female officer about becoming a Detective.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Better training for officers would help prevent this happening again.

HOW, specifically? LEOs have training on use of force. Especially Taser vs. Sidearm. Almost to a fault. LEO has plenty of departmental checks and balances. I see this as a gross negligence/on the job incompetence sort of thing.

 

[BackAgain]

I think it's more than evident this shooting was accidental. I don't think this woman is a criminal in any way, shape, or form, but here's the problem. When you're entrusted by the state with the permission to carry a deadly weapon and use that against someone there is no room for error. "Oops, I grabbed the wrong weapon" really doesn't cut it. I don't know what the right solution is here and I think that's what the jury is likely struggling with.

The discussion might be better analyzed by contemplating the law as the jury got the law from the judge. The judge, in turn. gets the law from several sources including the pattern jury instructions.

I am not about to predict a jury verdict. Juries often ask about what happens when they can’t reach a unanimous determination. It could mean a hung jury. But they get a special set of charges which e plain that their duty is to talk with each other, keep an open mind and to feel free to change their mind if they are honestly persuaded that they should.

In the Potter trial, the cop’s absolutely tragic mistake does not necessarily mean (under the legal principles of law) that she is “guilty” of reckless manslaughter.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

The discussion might be better analyzed by contemplating the law as the jury got the law from the judge. The judge, in turn. gets the law from several sources including the pattern jury instructions.

I am not about to predict a jury verdict. Juries often ask about what happens when they can’t reach a unanimous determination. It could mean a hung jury. But they get a special set of charges which e plain that their duty is to talk with each other, keep an open mind and to feel free to change their mind if they are honestly persuaded that they should.

In the Potter trial, the cop’s absolutely tragic mistake does not necessarily mean (under the legal principles of law) that she is “guilty” of reckless manslaughter.

No one seems to have said what you're saying. Fuck off, magaturd. Go watch cartoons or something.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Jurors in Kim Potter's trial for killing Daunte Wright end day of deliberations after asking about not reaching consensus | CNN

Jurors in the manslaughter trial of Kim Potter, the White former Minnesota police officer who says she mistook her firearm for her Taser and fatally shot Daunte Wright, concluded deliberations for the day Tuesday after earlier asking what they should do if they can't reach a verdict.

www.cnn.com

sounds like deadlock to me folks.

Hope so--------she made a simple human mistake---the criminal caused the situation.

 

[whitehall]

A CNN source might not be accurate.

 

[BackAgain]

No one seems to have said what you're saying. Fuck off, magaturd. Go watch cartoons or something.

Oh it’s you again. Go back to munch another bag of dead donkey dick.

Now back to the topic. “Nobody said” what I’m saying? What the fuck are you grunting this time? Man are you a retard.

What I posted was a discussion about what a jury gets instructed on by a judge. I don’t give a damn if you have enough brains to have previously addressed that. In fact, I doubt you’d even have the intellectual ability to see why it matters.

come back when you have something intelligent to say. 10 20 years. Whatever.

 

[Yarddog]

Seems to me she is guilty of some sort of negligence however it happened during a lawful police stop where a suspect disobeyed and increased the risk level. It didn't happen for instance as she was walking down the street and decided to pull out her fire arm and play around with it accidentally discharging it killing someone while there was no need for police interaction. That may be an extreme example but there should be different levels of negligence.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

What I posted was a discussion about what a jury gets instructed on by a judge.

Yeah. It pretty much sucked. Lamentations from an ignorant idiot. What do you know about law, magaturd?

Nothing. I say, nothing.

Sorry (not sorry) if you're triggered about it.

 

[pknopp]

She is guilty and the state is guilty for having a law in place that criminalizes an air freshener hanging from your rear view mirror. This is nothing but a law that gives a cop an excuse for pulling someone over for having a "wide spread nose". It's no coincidence that this trial is being held in the same courthouse that found Derek Chauvin guilty.

There is no way I could ever pull someone over for having an air freshener hanging from their rear view mirror and IMO there is something inherently wrong with anyone that would.

 

[mudwhistle]

Seems to me she is guilty of some sort of negligence however it happened during a lawful police stop where a suspect disobeyed and increased the risk level. It didn't happen for instance as she was walking down the street and decided to pull out her fire arm and play around with it accidentally discharging it killing someone while there was no need for police interaction. That may be an extreme example but there should be different levels of negligence.

She needs to be sent to personnel and put behind a desk.

 

[struth]

fact remains she was also able to use the gun instead of the tazer in that situation,,

From the video I saw, there was never a need for deadly force.

I am not quite sure what the jury is dealing with her, it's a clear case of invol manslaughter...she never had the intent to kill, but she was clearly grossly negigent in causing his death

 

[mudwhistle]

She is guilty and the state is guilty for having a law in place that criminalizes an air freshener hanging from your rear view mirror. This is nothing but a law that gives a cop an excuse for pulling someone over for having a "wide spread nose". It's no coincidence that this trial is being held in the same courthouse that found Derek Chauvin guilty.

There is no way I could ever pull someone over for having an air freshener hanging from their rear view mirror and IMO there is something inherently wrong with anyone that would.

I'm reading that there was an outstanding warrant for a weapons violation.

BTW,.....
Somebody put a uniform on this woman, gave her a gun, and put her behind the wheel of a patrol car.
Seems to me that when you put social-workers out to do a cop's job you get the predictable result.

 

[pknopp]

I'm reading that there was an outstanding warrant for a weapons violation.

BTW,.....
Somebody put a uniform on this woman, gave her a gun, and put her behind the wheel of a patrol car.
Seems to me that when you put social-workers out to do a cop's job you get the predictable result.

She was a cop. He was pulled over because of the air freshener. More precisely because he was black with an air freshener. One might argue "well it worked" but that doesn't take into consideration the 5000 people stopped simply minding their own business because the cop was out on a fishing expedition.