What Was Wrong With Kim Potter Shooting Daunte Wright ?

[Rigby5]

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.

That is obvious.
Police have ZERO authority beyond that which any citizen has.
That is because this is a democratic republic, and then the only source of any legal authority is from the defense of inherent individual rights.
So then police only have the weaker delegated authority we give them.
And we can not give them any authority we do not already as individuals, have ourselves.
So anyone claiming police can do something ordinary people can not, are clearly wrong.

Which means in an interaction between police and citizens, the same rules apply either way.
If the police can legally shoot if hands disappear, then citizens can legally shoot police if their hands disappear or they go for their weapon.

As for "legislation", that is not at all the basis for legality, otherwise the SCOTUS could not strike down illegal legislation.
And half the legislation out there is obviously illegal.
Like the War on Drugs, asset forfeiture, mandated sentences, federal gun control, etc.
None of these are based on the defense of individual rights, and all violate the Constitution.

You have to learn what the basis for legal authority is before you can even begin.
It does not come from government, as that is only in an autocracy, not a democratic republic.

 

[miketx]

Avoid blacks like a plague.

 

[miketx]

Seriously----I couldn't find any INNOCENT black criminals shot by cops. I looked but found none.

I saw one. Black guy told to get on the ground. He did. On his back. Cops said put your hands in the air. He did. After complying they shot him anyway. He wasn't jumping around and hiding his hands yelling dindus. They had the wrong guy. hope that guy got rich.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Wrong.

1,2. The video clearly shows the Travis and the others chased Arberry in vehicles, from behind.
The fact they got in front of him to cut him off, is irrelevant.
He was then NOT running AT Travis, but trying to get PAST him and escape.

3. When you point a gun at someone, it can easily go off by accident, so it is the felony of "conduct regardless of life", or "wreckless endangerment" to point at someone unless they posed a lethal threat first.
The only times this risk is justified is if there already is a visible deathly threat that you then have the right to counter with an equal threat.
And NO, you can NEVER shoot and kill an unarmed person just because of a physical altercation. If they are unarmed, then you can not legally shoot an attacker.

4. The fact someone can die from a physical attack without a deadly weapon like knife or gun, is irrelevant. You still are NOT allowed to escalate. If they have no specific weapon intended to be deadly, like a knife or gun, then you can NOT use one either. If they have a stone, then you are more than welcome to grab a stone yourself, but you can ONLY achieve parity, not exceed it.

5. I not only have a CCW, but have studied all aspect of law for decades. You on the other hand, sound like a military veteran who is still using entirely wrong rules of engagement that the police frequently are incorrectly taught.

6 When police shoot because hands disappear from view, that is totally and completely illegal. Any cop who does that needs to be jailed for a very long time.

 

[Rigby5]

He thought it wasn't a real firearm; Potter thought it wasn't a real firearm. Same deal quite frankly.

Greg

But it was Potter's mistake when she mixed up weapons.
With Baldwin, it was whomever put life rounds into the revolver who was mistaken, not Baldwin.

 

[Rigby5]

No, it isn't.

A taser weighs 1/4 the weight of a pistol and is plastic.
26 years of experience?

A Glock pistol is also plastic.
And the weight is only more if the magazine is fully loaded and double stack.
The taser is heavy due to the batteries.
The color is more of the giveaway.

 

[Rigby5]

Seriously----I couldn't find any INNOCENT black criminals shot by cops. I looked but found none.

So why was Breonna Taylor not innocent in your opinion?

 

[Smokin' OP]

A Glock pistol is also plastic.
And the weight is only more if the magazine is fully loaded and double stack.
The taser is heavy due to the batteries.
The color is more of the giveaway.

A Glock pistol is also plastic.
And the weight is only more if the magazine is fully loaded and double stack.
The taser is heavy due to the batteries.
The color is more of the giveaway.

NOT likely.

 

[Hellbilly]

Seriously----I couldn't find any INNOCENT black criminals shot by cops. I looked but found none.

I never said anything about criminals.

 

[Faun]

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.

Try to keep up. The OP is claiming it wasn't an accident.

 

[gtopa1]

But it was Potter's mistake when she mixed up weapons.
With Baldwin, it was whomever put life rounds into the revolver who was mistaken, not Baldwin.

True, but BOTH thought they were firing non-lethal weapons. Baldwin should have checked. He was negligent not to do so as was she though in Potter's case she had urgency on her side.

Greg

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 589660

NOT likely.

I just said that "color is more of the giveaway", so what are you claiming is "not likely"?

Clearly COLOR is the biggest difference.

 

[g5000]

It has become a common thing to see young black men being shot by police, when they behave erratically, don't keep their hands visible, resist arrest, etc. Police have to protect themselves. It only takes a 1/2 second for someone to pull a gun out of a car console, or from under a seat.

So now Kim Potter is convicted of 2 counts of manslaughter, adding up to 25 years of prison time. This is ludicrous. Once again, the city fathers in a Democrat town go after a cop who shot a black thug goofball, who was resisting arrest, and asking to be shot. From the rather chaotic video, it does show Daunte Wright was resisting arrest, he jumped back into his car, hands disappeared from the officers' view, and there was good reason to shoot him WITH A GUN, following normal police protocol.

I don't think Kim Potter should have even been charged at all, but Minneapolis is a Democrat city, and what should be, isn't the determining factor. What appeases the anti-police, radical element of the black voting population seems to be that. Another bad case added to the growing list (Zimmerman, Wilson, Shelby, Slager, McMichaels, etc)

Potter's conviction is total horseshit. I hope she appeals and wins.

 

[Faun]

A Glock pistol is also plastic.
And the weight is only more if the magazine is fully loaded and double stack.
The taser is heavy due to the batteries.
The color is more of the giveaway.

You're lying again.

The jury held both weapons in their hands and literally said the difference between the two was the primary reason for convicting.

 

[Rigby5]

You're lying again.

The jury held both weapons in their hands and literally said the difference between the two was the primary reason for convicting.

You're obviously lying.
The jury NEVER allows any official transcript, group interview, or explanation.
Some isolated juror may have been asked questions by the press, but that does not mean they got the right answer or transcribed the answer they did get, correctly.
There is an obvious difference between a plastic Glock and a plastic tazer, but it is COLOR, not the fact they are both plastic.

 

[Faun]

You're obviously lying.
The jury NEVER allows any official transcript, group interview, or explanation.
Some isolated juror may have been asked questions by the press, but that does not mean they got the right answer or transcribed the answer they did get, correctly.
There is an obvious difference between a plastic Glock and a plastic tazer, but it is COLOR, not the fact they are both plastic.

Juror in Kim Potter trial speaks about how jury found ex-officer guilty in Daunte Wright's death

Potter, a 26-year police veteran, was convicted of first- and second-degree manslaughter last week by a Minnesota jury.

www.nbcnews.com

A big turning point for the jury was when it had the opportunity to hold Potter's gun and her Taser to feel the differences between them. KARE reported that the gun is about twice as heavy as a Taser and that it is unholstered and fired differently from a Taser.

 

[protectionist]

"Sources"?

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

Gullible Trumptards.

The SOURCES I listed. You heard right.

 

[protectionist]

No, it isn't.

A taser weighs 1/4 the weight of a pistol and is plastic.
26 years of experience?

There is no taser involved here. She shot him to defend herself from an idiot who let his hands disappear. Standard police academy training.

Also National Guard training, which I received myself.

 

[protectionist]

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.

She did not "mistake" anything, nor was there a "murder". Everything she did was in accordance with proper police procedure. Justifiable homicide.

She just had the misfortune of doing it in a Democrat city, where things are done and officiated insanely, by deranged Democrats. Are you reading the thread ?

 

[Faun]

She did not "mistake" anything, nor was there a "murder". Everything she did was in accordance with proper police procedure. Justifiable homicide.

She just had the misfortune of doing it in a Democrat city, where things are done and officiated insanely, by deranged Democrats. Are you reading the thread ?

Of course there was murder. You said yourself she lied about it being an accident to get a smaller sentence. That means she shot him with her service weapon intentionally and knew she either had to tell the truth and say she intentionally reached for her service weapon, which would send her to prison for murder; or she lied and claimed it was an accident which would send her to prison for manslaughter.

Makes no sense but then again, you are senile, gramps.