What Was Wrong With Kim Potter Shooting Daunte Wright ?

[protectionist]

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.

You are talking moronically. Police academy training (and the same training in National Guard armories) is NOT illegal.

The training is 100% civilian, and has nothing whatever to do with US military.

You do not know if Wright's hands were occupied "trying to shift and drive". The video is sketchy, and doesnt show that. Chances are high that at some point, as Wright foolishly entered his car, his hands disappeared, and that's when he got shot. Potter was at risk of her life to not shoot him.

None of this has anything to do with a taser. Those who keep yammering about it, are only displaying their cluelessness (so typical of liberals regarding guns and law enforcement).

 

[protectionist]

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.

The case does not involve a taser. You are DUPED.

 

[Faun]

The case does not involve a taser. You are DUPED.

LOL

Of course the case involves a taser. Potter said she intended to use a taser and the jury got to hold her taser. Here's a photo provided by the prosecution of her taser and her service weapon. Why on Earth would we see her taser if the case didn't involve a taser??

As always, you prove to be fucked in the head.

That aside, you still claimed she shot him intentionally knowing she would go to prison. It was just a matter of her admitting she grabbed her gun intentionally and go to prison for murder; or deny she grabbed her gun and go to prison for manslaughter.

 

[protectionist]

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.

She shot him intentionally-LEGALLY, you liberal airhead, clueless idiot, bereft of all knowledge of guns and law enforcement. Shooting someone LEGALLY (in self-defense) does not (under normal conditions) send someone to prison for murder (except in clueless, idiotic Democrat jurisdictions, where the fools don't know what the hell they're talking about).

 

[Faun]

She shot him intentionally-LEGALLY, you liberal airhead, clueless idiot, bereft of all knowledge of guns and law enforcement. Shooting someone LEGALLY (in self-defense) does not (under normal conditions) send someone to prison for murder (except in clueless, idiotic Democrat jurisdictions, where the fools don't know what the hell they're talking about).

If she shot him legally, why did she say it was an accident because she meant to use her taser? If it was legal, she would have just said she meant to use her service weapon.

As always, you're so senile, you make no sense.

 

[Smokin' OP]

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

Clearly COLOR is the biggest difference.

No, it isn't, the handles don't even resemble each other.

Potter, a 26-year veteran of policing, reportedly shouted threats that she would shoot Wright with a taser during the altercation but ended up firing one round from her Glock 9mm into Wright’s left side, killing him.

Officers are instructed to carry the taser on their non-dominate side. In other words, a police officer who is right-handed will place their service gun in their right holster, while the taser will go on the left side.

“Most officers place the taser on their weak side, non-drawing hand or non-shooting hand side,”

26 years and she is still confused?

Not likely.

 

[protectionist]

LOL

Of course the case involves a taser. Potter said she intended to use a taser and the jury got to hold her taser. Here's a photo provided by the prosecution of her taser and her service weapon. Why on Earth would we see her taser if the case didn't involve a taser??

As always, you prove to be fucked in the head.

That aside, you still claimed she shot him intentionally knowing she would go to prison. It was just a matter of her admitting she grabbed her gun intentionally and go to prison for murder; or deny she grabbed her gun and go to prison for manslaughter.

No it does NOT. It appears that Potter, like many other cops before her, shot a fool, who was unaware that he had to keep his hands visible. Except that this is in a far-left jurisdiction (where cops should NEVER be employed), this case is not much different than many other cases (I cited in a previous post) where the cop shot and killed a suspect who allowed his hands to disappear, and those cops were all cleared on basis of justifiable homicide.

Only exception I can think of offhand, is the case of Ashely Babbitt and the cop who shot her, Lt Michael Byrd, whose defense was that she was criminally suspect, and he couldn't see her hands. That was in a Democrat jurisdiction where the judges sided with the cop.

Apparently, you are so deeply steeped in Leftist, lunacy ideology, that you cannot comprehend what I have been telling you, and what has been happening in this case. You are a poor student, You get an F.

 

[Smokin' OP]

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.

Of course, there wasn't a taser involved.
You don't know shit.

 

[Smokin' OP]

The SOURCES I listed. You heard right.

Scared little Trumptards, yeah, I read that right.

 

[protectionist]

If she shot him legally, why did she say it was an accident because she meant to use her taser? If it was legal, she would have just said she meant to use her service weapon.

As always, you're so senile, you make no sense.

I already TOLD you why, and I've explained it about 10 times in this thread. Are you DENSE ?

"IF" it was legal ? HA HA HA. Listen to the liberal knowing nothing about law enforcement. So you don't know that it was legal ? That it is legal for cops to defend themselves, and how ?

Yeah, she "would have just said she meant to use her service weapon" IF SHE WERE IN A CONSERVATIVE CITY. THAT is the differenciating factor here.

 

[protectionist]

Scared little Trumptards, yeah, I read that right.

And you've been educated from it.

 

[protectionist]

Of course, there wasn't a taser involved.
You don't know shit.

YOU are the ignorant liberal fool, who shouldnt even be in a thread like this

 

[protectionist]

No, it isn't, the handles don't even resemble each other.

Potter, a 26-year veteran of policing, reportedly shouted threats that she would shoot Wright with a taser during the altercation but ended up firing one round from her Glock 9mm into Wright’s left side, killing him.

Officers are instructed to carry the taser on their non-dominate side. In other words, a police officer who is right-handed will place their service gun in their right holster, while the taser will go on the left side.

“Most officers place the taser on their weak side, non-drawing hand or non-shooting hand side,”

26 years and she is still confused?

Not likely.

She was not confused. She shot him LEGALLY in self-defense, but she was misfortunate to be in a Democrat city ruled by idiots, who don't understand what she was doing (just like some of the posters in this thread)

 

[Faun]

No it does NOT. It appears that Potter, like many other cops before her, shot a fool, who was unaware that he had to keep his hands visible. Except that this is in a far-left jurisdiction (where cops should NEVER be employed), this case is not much different than many other cases (I cited in a previous post) where the cop shot and killed a suspect who allowed his hands to disappear, and those cops were all cleared on basis of justifiable homicide.

Only exception I can think of offhand, is the case of Ashely Babbitt and the cop who shot her, Lt Michael Byrd, who defense was that she was criminally suspect, and he couldn't see her hands. That was in a Democrat jurisdiction where the judges sided with the cop.

Apparently, you are so deeply steeped in Leftist, lunacy ideology, that you cannot comprehend what I have been telling you, and what has been happening in this case. You are a poor student, You get an F.

Of course it involves a taser. You've beyond fucked in the head now.

What do you think she was screaming when she yelled, "taser! taser! taser!" if not a taser??

 

[Smokin' OP]

I already TOLD you why, and I've explained it about 10 times in this thread. Are you DENSE ?

No, you are moron.

"IF" it was legal ? HA HA HA. Listen to the liberal knowing nothing about law enforcement. So you don't know that it was legal ?

The jury, attorneys, and judge found that it was, moron.

That it is legal for cops to defend themselves, and how ?

Yes, when there is an imminent threat of injury or death to themselves or their partners

Yeah, she "would have just said she meant to use her service weapon" IF SHE WERE IN A CONSERVATIVE CITY. THAT is the differenciating factor here.

She was as stupid as you are.

 

[protectionist]

Of course it involves a taser. You've beyond fucked in the head now.

What do you think she was screaming when she yelled, "taser! taser! taser!" if not a taser??

You still don't get it. The CRUX of the case is simple. The dum dum having zero education regarding police confrontations, allowed his hands to disappear, and thus, he got shot. That's really all there is to it. The taser talk is deflection.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Of course it involves a taser. You've beyond fucked in the head now.

What do you think she was screaming when she yelled, "taser! taser! taser!" if not a taser??

WTF? RETARD.

The taser never left it's holster.

Potter saying "taser" doesn't mean the taser is involved.

 

[protectionist]

No, you are moron.

The jury, attorneys, and judge found that it was, moron.

Yes, when there is an imminent threat of injury or death to themselves or their partners

She was as stupid as you are.

I already addressed that multiple times. " jury, attorneys, and judge" in a Democrat jurisdiction. Are you reading the thread ?

Anytime a suspect's hands disappear from the view of the officer, that is "an imminent threat of injury or death to themselves or their partners". You didn't know that ?

 

[Smokin' OP]

You still don't get it. The CRUX of the case is simple. The dum dum having zero education regarding police confrontations, allowed his hands to disappear, and thus, he got shot. That's really all there is to it. The taser talk is deflection.

AGAIN, you don't know shit.

If police shot everyone that didn't have their hands in plain sight, there would be more deaths than covid, retard.

 

[Faun]

I already TOLD you why, and I've explained it about 10 times in this thread. Are you DENSE ?

"IF" it was legal ? HA HA HA. Listen to the liberal knowing nothing about law enforcement. So you don't know that it was legal ? That it is legal for cops to defend themselves, and how ?

Yeah, she "would have just said she meant to use her service weapon" IF SHE WERE IN A CONSERVATIVE CITY. THAT is the differenciating factor here.

It's what you said gramps. You said she claimed grabbing her service weapon was a mistake because she was wrongly being charged.