What Was Wrong With Kim Potter Shooting Daunte Wright ?

You have no way of knowing if she shot him by accident, or if she shot him (properly) in self-defense, by reason of his hands disappearing from her view. My guess is the latter, because it would be inconceivable for a 26 year veteran to have not done that.

All the rest of this (taser talk etc) is nothing but a ramification of the law enforcement cluelessness of the left, including those in authoritative prosecutorial positions (as clueless as all the rest, yet dangerously in positions of power).

You are totally off the mark here.
We could all see his hands in the video because he had just started the car, with one hand on the ignition, one hand on the wheel, and then trying to shift into drive.
At no time was there any risk of any unseen hand going for a weapon.

But the reason she was NOT guilty of a crime is lack of intent.
And being a 26 year veteran is irrelevant if such an encounter never happened before, which is likely.
 
Boy, are you stupid. Not stupid because you can't understand what's going on here, but stupid because you DO know (because I explained it to you), and yet you stupidly (and crazily) think you can get away with pretending.

Once again (not for you Faun), but for anyone tuning into this discussion late, nobody knows if Potter shot the guy by accident, or if she was following normal, proper police procedure to defend herself. This being when Wright idiotically resisted arrest, jumped into his car, allowed his hands to disappear from view, and broke every rule in the book of police confrontation, that liberal airheads like Faun are clueless about.

As for what she "admitted", NO she did NOT "admit' anything. The word admit only applies to clear proven cases of something done a certain way. NOTHING is certain, and most likely, knowing that she is working as a cop in a Democrat run jurisdiction, where officials are cop hating morons who are oblivious to police protocol, and being damned of she did and damned if she didn't, she took the path of least resistance (jail time), and claimed accident.

Liberals are so ignorant of police methodology, that they define obvious (to conservatives) cases of self-defense, as being murder. Examples abound.
You're insane, gramps. According to you, she knowingly violated the law by shooting him.

And yes, nutcase, she admitted to shooting him by accident...

"Oh shit, I just shot him. Yes. I grabbed the wrong fucking gun! I shot him. Oh my G-d."
 
You're insane, gramps. According to you, she knowingly violated the law by shooting him.

And yes, nutcase, she admitted to shooting him by accident...

"Oh shit, I just shot him. Yes. I grabbed the wrong fucking gun! I shot him. Oh my G-d."
Leave it to a liberal to be nowhere near the correct assessment of a police shooting. NO, I did NOT say she violated any law, Mr Incapable of Getting Things Right..

I said I guess that she claimed "accident", to minimize the jail time she thought she would get * if she stated that she shot Wright deliberately ....(which was the correct thing to do)

* being aware of liberal cluelessness of proper police self-defense methodology

And no, airhead, she did not "admit" anything.

The only thing that needs to be admitted, is YOU admitting that you are a clueless liberal, who knows nothing about police and guns, and you have no business being in this discussion. You are so ignorant here, you are incapable of comprehending your own ignorance.
 
I never saw Arberry "run" at anyone.
He was "running" down the street and the chasing vehicles were behind him.
I saw vehicles illegally chasing Arberry.
It is totally and completely illegal to point a weapon at anyone who is unarmed, ever.
You can not do it "defensively".
Guns go off accidentally, very easily and often, so it is illegal to even point.
The only time it is legal is pretty much if the other person is armed and on your property, and refusing to leave.
Only then do you have the right to cause offensive risk.
1. It doesnt matter what you "saw". Arberry ran straight at Travis as clearly shown in the video.

2. There is nothing to deduce that any vehicle was "chasing" anybody.

3. You are an empty head liberal, who just like Faun, is clueless about guns and gun law. NO, it is NOT illegal to point a weapon at anyone who is unarmed, and yes, you CAN do it defensively. You not only can point a gun at someone who may be "unarmed", by you can also shoot and kill that person, depending on the circumstances (if he is attacking you).

4. Actually, there is no such thing as unarmed. A person could be armed with many deadly weapons that may not appear so obvious (a ball point pen, a stone from the ground, a sharp stick, a belt or string, their greater size & strength, and your own gun if they grab it from you - As Arberry tried to do)

5. It sounds like you have been indoctrinated by liberalism that is clueless about guns & law enforcement, and running our deficient education system, is one of the prime causes of police shootings, as the undereducated public does not know what to do.

6. Are you aware that police re instructed to shoot, whenever a suspect's hands disappear from the cop's view ? I doubt that you knew that.
 
Leave it to a liberal to be nowhere near the correct assessment of a police shooting. NO, I did NOT say she violated any law, Mr Incapable of Getting Things Right..

I said I guess that she claimed "accident", to minimize the jail time she thought she would get * if she stated that she shot Wright deliberately ....(which was the correct thing to do)

* being aware of liberal cluelessness of proper police self-defense methodology

And no, airhead, she did not "admit" anything.

The only thing that needs to be admitted, is YOU admitting that you are a clueless liberal, who knows nothing about police and guns, and you have no business being in this discussion. You are so ignorant here, you are incapable of comprehending your own ignorance.
LOL

This only goes to prove how insane you are.

You claim she lied about it being an accident to minimize her sentence -- which means two things...

1) she knowingly shot him with a gun but lied to get a lesser sentence.

2) had she not lied, she would have gotten a harsher sentence.

So according to your insanity, she knowingly shot him knowing she would go to jail when she could have easily stopped him with her taser and not gone to jail.

Do you ever feel stupid for the utter nonsense you post, gramps?
 
1. It doesnt matter what you "saw". Arberry ran straight at Travis as clearly shown in the video.

2. There is nothing to deduce that any vehicle was "chasing" anybody.

3. You are an empty head liberal, who just like Faun, is clueless about guns and gun law. NO, it is NOT illegal to point a weapon at anyone who is unarmed, and yes, you CAN do it defensively. You not only can point a gun at someone who may be "unarmed", by you can also shoot and kill that person, depending on the circumstances (if he is attacking you).

4. Actually, there is no such thing as unarmed. A person could be armed with many deadly weapons that may not appear so obvious (a ball point pen, a stone from the ground, a sharp stick, a belt or string, their greater size & strength, and your own gun if they grab it from you - As Arberry tried to do)

5. It sounds like you have been indoctrinated by liberalism that is clueless about guns & law enforcement, and running our deficient education system, is one of the prime causes of police shootings, as the undereducated public does not know what to do.

6. Are you aware that police re instructed to shoot, whenever a suspect's hands disappear from the cop's view ? I doubt that you knew that.
1348488761322-smiley_rofl.gif
 
Police protocols are often illegal.
It does not matter if Wright had possessed guns in the past.
He did not have one in this instance.

Police can not ever have any additional authority or use of force than anyone.
There is no legal means by which that can be created or given.
CHALLENGE: state one police protocol that is illegal, together with the LAW that you think backs up your claim.

It does not matter if Wright had a gun in his possession or not. The mere fact that in his total ignorance of police confrontation, that he allowed his hands to disappear from the cop's view, that is reason enough for the cop to shoot him. If this were not a Democrat jurisdiction, in which police shootings rarely are adjudicated correctly, Potter would have simply claimed self-defense, and would have been cleared, as in the cases of Philip Brailsford, Betty Shelby, Jeronimo Yanez, et al. - all of whom shot dead suspects (Daniel Shaver, Terrence Crutcher, Philando Castile ) whose hands disappeared, and who had no weapon).

You don't know what you're talking about, but you're getting an education.
 
Last edited:
LOL

This only goes to prove how insane you are.

You claim she lied about it being an accident to minimize her sentence -- which means two things...

1) she knowingly shot him with a gun but lied to get a lesser sentence.

2) had she not lied, she would have gotten a harsher sentence.

So according to your insanity, she knowingly shot him knowing she would go to jail when she could have easily stopped him with her taser and not gone to jail.

Do you ever feel stupid for the utter nonsense you post, gramps?
Police academy training is to shoot a suspect whose hands disappear from view, with a GUN, not a taser. Reason is, the taser is not full protection from the suspect shooting the cop. Tasers are generally used on suspects who have already been searched for weapons, which Wright was not, once he entered his car.

Like Rigby, you also don't know what you're talking about, but you're getting an education. Liberals should never discuss guns & law enforcement. You don't know how pathetically ignorant you are.
 
Police academy training is to shoot a suspect whose hands disappear from view, with a GUN, not a taser. Reason is, the taser is not full protection from the suspect shooting the cop. Tasers are generally used on suspects who have already been searched for weapons, which Wright was not, once he entered his car.

Like Rigby, you also don't know what you're talking about, but you're getting an education. Liberals should never discuss guns & law enforcement. You don't know how pathetically ignorant you are.
You prove to be too stupid to post, gramps.

Again, according to your made up bullshit, she shot him knowing she would go to prison when she could have stopped him legally with her taser and not gone to prison.
 
You prove to be too stupid to post, gramps.

Again, according to your made up bullshit, she shot him knowing she would go to prison when she could have stopped him legally with her taser and not gone to prison.
No, dum dum. As I already explained to you, in this situation, she could NOT have stopped him with a taser. And that isn't the correct procedure, as applied to this situation. (Some people have to be told twice)

Ignorant liberal: it wouldn't do her any good to not go to prison, if she were DEAD.
Get it ?

Having reading comprehension trouble ? Back to the 5th grade for you.
 
No, dum dum. As I already explained to you, in this situation, she could NOT have stopped him with a taser. And that isn't the correct procedure, as applied to this situation. Some people have to be told twice.
Of course she could have stopped him with a taser. It's why cops are armed with tasers.

Your ignorance knows no boundaries, gramps.
 
FACTS, listed with sources are FACTS listed with sources, not "delusions", but keep on babbling, if it makes you feel better.
"Sources"?

RWNJ's who spout BS on FOX but are deathly afraid of testifying, to back up anything they say?

Gullible Trumptards.
 
WTF?
What sank that dumb bitch was her yelling, 'taser, taser, taser'.
While she actually pulled her pistol.

Then trying her damnest to cry, on the witness stand.

If she would have shot him and kept her trap shut, then pursued after him, instead of whining in the road, then she might have had a 'shot'.
So Baldwin should get 25 years; I'll drink to that!!!

Greg
 
You're insane, gramps. According to you, she knowingly violated the law by shooting him.

And yes, nutcase, she admitted to shooting him by accident...

"Oh shit, I just shot him. Yes. I grabbed the wrong fucking gun! I shot him. Oh my G-d."

And since she mistakenly used the real pistol instead of the taser, then the murder was NOT "knowingly" and was not a crime because there was no illegal intent.
An accidental mistake is not murder unless it is from conduct so irresponsible that one should have known better, like DUI.
 
Police academy training is to shoot a suspect whose hands disappear from view, with a GUN, not a taser. Reason is, the taser is not full protection from the suspect shooting the cop. Tasers are generally used on suspects who have already been searched for weapons, which Wright was not, once he entered his car.

Like Rigby, you also don't know what you're talking about, but you're getting an education. Liberals should never discuss guns & law enforcement. You don't know how pathetically ignorant you are.

Police academy training is totally and completely illegal.
They are using military veterans as trainers, and they illegally are transfering the military rules of engagement to civilian police, and that is illegal.

There was absolutely ZERO weapons risk from Wright because his hands were fully occupied, trying to shift and drive.
The ONLY risk was from the moving vehicle, the doors, wheels, etc.

Using a taser on a suspect who has been searched and known to be unarmed, is totally illegal.
Tasers ARE still lethal force, just less lethal than a gun.
About .5% of the time you use a taser, the person will die of a heart arrythmia.
It is NOT legal use to use a taser in order to force compliance.
It is only justified if they have a weapon or are much larger in size, and there is a risk to yourself or others, you want to avoid by using it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top