What Was Wrong With Kim Potter Shooting Daunte Wright ?

[protectionist]

For the millionth time, that is WRONG.
If a cop can shoot a suspect for his hands disappearing, then a suspect can shoot a cop for his hands disappearing.
You are parroting bad training that military experts have ruined the police with.
Police do NOT have any exception legal powers, and only have the exact same ability to use lethal force that ANY ORDINARY citizen has.
Police can NOT use the military rules of engagement, where the enemy is to be killed in order to prevent any risk at all.
With the police, the correct rules of engagement is that the police are required to accept MORE risk than an ordinary person, in order to increase the defense of individual rights from accidents like this.

I don't know where you come up with these idiotic ideas. Aha, New Mexico. A BLUE state. No surprise. NO, a suspect cannot shoot a cop, unless the cop was trying to commit murder upon the suspect, which is extremely unlikely.

FALSE! Police have far more legal powers than ANY ORDINARY citizen. This does vary among states though. In most states, crimes against police, are a seperate law (much more strict) than the same crime committed against an ordinary citizen.

Assaulting a Police Officer

Assault on a police officer is assault committed on a peace officer responsible for perserving public order and preventing and detecting crime. Read more.

www.legalmatch.com

 

[protectionist]

Here is the body cam video page.

daunte wright video - Search Videos

www.bing.com

One of the other cops blocks much of the view, but you have to remember that cop blocking the view could see both hands, as well as the cop in the passenger side door.
There really is absolutely no question Wright could not have accesses a weapon and tried to drive the car at the same time.
And at no time did any cop see any threat.
In fact, Potter put the other cops at risk the most, since she could easily have shot one of them.

Video does not play. I saw another video of this, which allowed time choice, so I slowed to down to 25%, and I still could not see Wright's hands at all times. Generally, any time a suspect foolishly resists arrest, they move very quickly, and as such, present a threat to the officer(s), who cannot reasonably control ther own self-defense.

As I said, it only takes 1/4 second for a suspect to pull a gun and shoot. The whole thing happens too fast.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't know where you come up with these idiotic ideas. Aha, New Mexico. A BLUE state. No surprise. NO, a suspect cannot shoot a cop, unless the cop was trying to commit murder upon the suspect, which is extremely unlikely.

FALSE! Police have far more legal powers than ANY ORDINARY citizen. This does vary among states though. In most states, crimes against police, are a seperate law (much more strict) than the same crime committed against an ordinary citizen.

Assaulting a Police Officer

Assault on a police officer is assault committed on a peace officer responsible for perserving public order and preventing and detecting crime. Read more.

www.legalmatch.com

Since cops have been proven to be racist and violent in many cases, then they are as suspect of deliberate murder as anyone.
How could police legally have any additional legal powers?
The legislators can't give it to them legally, because the legislators are NOT the source of any legal authority.
Since this is supposed to be a democratic republic, the only source of legal authority is the defense of inherent individual rights.
So then police can act on those delegated right to protect one individual from another.

I am not saying there are not laws empowering police beyond that of an ordinary person, but that is ILLEGAL.
States that do that have criminal legislators.
And it is obvious from other legislation as well.
For example, the War on Drugs is totally illegal, because it defends the rights of no one.
It is an arbitrary authoritarian edict that is imposed illegally.
There are lots of laws violating basic constitutional rights, like federal gun control, mandatory sentencing, asset forfeiture, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

Video does not play. I saw another video of this, which allowed time choice, so I slowed to down to 25%, and I still could not see Wright's hands at all times. Generally, any time a suspect foolishly resists arrest, they move very quickly, and as such, present a threat to the officer(s), who cannot reasonably control ther own self-defense.

As I said, it only takes 1/4 second for a suspect to pull a gun and shoot. The whole thing happens too fast.

It was fast, but too fast for Wright to have done any thing more than to start the ignition and shift to drive.

 

[protectionist]

There is no such thing as "police procedures".
Police are just ordinary people who are paid to take extra risks.
That does NOT give than ANY additional authority at all, in any way, because there is no way for them to get any additional authority.
In a democratic republic, government is NOT the source of legal authority.
The individuals of the republic and their inherent rights are the ONLY source of any legal authority.

Wright was a skinny kid.
Anyone could easily have yanked him out, and once you had one arm, he could not have done anything, because the other would have had to have gone to the steering wheel.
Again, he had no gun, there was place for him to get a gun, and there was NEVER any risk at all.

You are talking like an idiot. Sound like the goofball talk often spewed on CNN and MSNBC. Of course there are police procedures. There are DOZENS of them. They are taught in police academies all over the USA, that cops have to graduate from before becoming a cop.

In addition, they have more procedures that are bestowed on them by the individual departments in which they work.

And of course, they have additional authority well above the ordinary citizen. Even armed and licensed security guards do not have as much authority as police. for instance, only police make arrests, wherin armed security guard do not have that power, and at most, can only detain suspects, until police arrive.

Sure, "individuals of the republic and their inherent rights are the source of any legal authority." But those same individuals delegate authority to legislators to enact laws, and to delegate authority to police to enforce them.

I hope what I've said here deprograms you from the the lunacy talk you seem to have received, from leftist loon propaganda.

It doesn't matter if Wright had a gun or not. It is the mere possibility and risk of a suspect having a gun, that creates the procedure for cops to shoot, to defend themselves from the possibility of being shot. Terrence Crutcher didn't have a gun when he was shot and killed. Neither did Daniel Shaver. Neither did Philando Castille. Yet all these officers were cleared by the same reason. The suspect allowed his hand to disappear. Looks like the same with Duante Wright.

And of course, there were MULTIPLE places for Wright to pull out a gun from. Suspects pull guns on cops from their waistband, their pants pockets, an ankle holster, from inside a jacket or shirt, from a car's center console, from a glove compartment, from under a driver's seat, or even sitting right on the seat (covered by a cloth). In police academies, actual cases involving all of these scenarios are discussed and taught.

 

[protectionist]

It was fast, but too fast for Wright to have done any thing more than to start the ignition and shift to drive.

FALSE! It takes 1/4 second for a suspect to grab a gun, point it and shoot. all in one quick movement.

 

[protectionist]

Since cops have been proven to be racist and violent in many cases, then they are as suspect of deliberate murder as anyone.
How could police legally have any additional legal powers?
The legislators can't give it to them legally, because the legislators are NOT the source of any legal authority.
Since this is supposed to be a democratic republic, the only source of legal authority is the defense of inherent individual rights.
So then police can act on those delegated right to protect one individual from another.

I am not saying there are not laws empowering police beyond that of an ordinary person, but that is ILLEGAL.
States that do that have criminal legislators.
And it is obvious from other legislation as well.
For example, the War on Drugs is totally illegal, because it defends the rights of no one.
It is an arbitrary authoritarian edict that is imposed illegally.
There are lots of laws violating basic constitutional rights, like federal gun control, mandatory sentencing, asset forfeiture, etc.

You just proved your prejudice against cops (again leftist loon indoctrination). There is no proof that cops are racist or violent in many cases, and that sounds dumb and ridiculous.

Nobody is suspect of deliberate murder unless facts point to that, which for cops is almost never the case.

Your post is one of philosophy, not practical facts. As for laws that aren't correct, I know of some, and also many things where laws are badly needed, and they dont exist (like rent control). But this thread is not interested in that.

The TOPIC here is the shooting of Daunte Wright. That's all.

 

[Rigby5]

You are talking like an idiot. Sound like the goofball talk often spewed on CNN and MSNBC. Of course there are police procedures. There are DOZENS of them. They are taught in police academies all over the USA, that cops have to graduate from before becoming a cop.

In addition, they have more procedures that are bestowed on them by the individual departments in which they work.

And of course, they have additional authority well above the ordinary citizen. Even armed and licensed security guards do not have as much authority as police. for instance, only police make arrests, wherin armed security guard do not have that power, and at most, can only detain suspects, until police arrive.

Sure, "individuals of the republic and their inherent rights are the source of any legal authority." But those same individuals delegate authority to legislators to enact laws, and to delegate authority to police to enforce them.

I hope what I've said here deprograms you from the the lunacy talk you seem to have received, from leftist loon propaganda.

It doesn't matter if Wright had a gun or not. It is the mere possibility and risk of a suspect having a gun, that creates the procedure for cops to shoot, to defend themselves from the possibility of being shot. Terrence Crutcher didn't have a gun when he was shot and killed. Neither did Daniel Shaver. Neither did Philando Castille. Yet all these officers were cleared by the same reason. The suspect allowed his hand to disappear. Looks like the same with Duante Wright.

Legislators and police only have delegated authority, and that is WEAKER than the original authority that all individuals have.
You are wrong about who can arrest.
All citizens can always arrest, and if they could not, then they could not delegate it to police to be able to arrest then.
Legislators and police are NOT superior to ordinary individuals, but beneath them as hired servant.
Legislators can not confer superior authority to police because they do not have it themselves, to confer.
They can not, in a democratic republic.
And this is easily understood once you look at the history records and realize that police essentially did not exist in significant number until AFTER 1900 or so.
So we went over a century essentially without police.
And I think it went much better then.
Police are a modern construct who have presumed way too much and made this far too dangerous of a country, with the single larger percentage of people imprisoned in the whole world.
Again, most laws are just plan illegal.
Like the War on Drugs.
Whether you like drugs or not, the only legal authority comes from the defense of the rights of others, and drugs harm no one else.
So there is no legal means by which drugs can be make illegal.
Anyone attempting to pass or enforce drug laws, are criminals who do not understand law at all, in a democratic republic.
They are acting as arbitrary authoritarians and are criminals.

 

[protectionist]

Legislators and police only have delegated authority, and that is WEAKER than the original authority that all individuals have.
You are wrong about who can arrest.
All citizens can always arrest, and if they could not, then they could not delegate it to police to be able to arrest then.
Legislators and police are NOT superior to ordinary individuals, but beneath them as hired servant.
Legislators can not confer superior authority to police because they do not have it themselves, to confer.
They can not, in a democratic republic.
And this is easily understood once you look at the history records and realize that police essentially did not exist in significant number until AFTER 1900 or so.
So we went over a century essentially without police.
And I think it went much better then.
Police are a modern construct who have presumed way too much and made this far too dangerous of a country, with the single larger percentage of people imprisoned in the whole world.
Again, most laws are just plan illegal.
Like the War on Drugs.
Whether you like drugs or not, the only legal authority comes from the defense of the rights of others, and drugs harm no one else.
So there is no legal means by which drugs can be make illegal.
Anyone attempting to pass or enforce drug laws, are criminals who do not understand law at all, in a democratic republic.
They are acting as arbitrary authoritarians and are criminals.

Philosophy...off topic. But I will say that certainly police DO HAVE superior authority above the average citizen. They can get a warrant from a judge to bust your door in and enter your home. Let's see you get that same warrant to do that. Lots of luck.

You sound like the recipient of a lot of anti-police propaganda. Clear as a bell.

 

[Rigby5]

Philosophy...off topic. But I will say that certainly police DO HAVE superior authority above the average citizen. They can get a warrant from a judge to bust your door in and enter your home. Let's see you get that same warrant to do that. Lots of luck.

You sound like the recipient of a lot of anti-police propaganda. Clear as a bell.

It is philosophy, but that is where all law comes from.
It essentially comes from our DNA, that determines what is right and wrong for a human being.
For example, if we were carnivores, like a tiger, our concepts of right and wrong would likely be totally different.
We are social because of our primate DNA.
And that is what law comes from.

And YES, any citizen is supposed to be able to get a warrant from a judge, the same as police.
That is obvious because again, there were no significant police before 1900.
Before 1900, about the only places with police were towns with harbors, where goods had to be left out at night, and police were mostly like night watchmen.

You are likely correct that current judges would not issue to non-police, but that is illegal.
The fact they issue no-knock warrants that are going to be served in the middle of the night, like with Breonna Taylor, is also completely illegal.
The ONLY legal excuse for a no-knock warrant is if there is a hostage situation.
The claim drug arrests need no-knock warrants is a lie because they are required by law to already have all the evidence they need.
Warrants to get evidence is not legal.
In fact, no drug law is actually legal at all.
There is no legal means by which a behavior that harms no one else, can be criminalized.

 

[Rigby5]

FALSE! It takes 1/4 second for a suspect to grab a gun, point it and shoot. all in one quick movement.

Nope.
It actually takes 2 hands to access a hidden gun, one to hold the gun, while the other hand wraps the grip and gets a finger on the trigger.
The only exception is with a visible gun in a holster that exposes the handle and trigger.
But then it would be obvious to everyone.

Pointing a gun is not the rotation of the wrist.
It has to be brought up to eye level, with arm extended, and the whole arm rotated until target acquisition.
Very slow and obvious.

The only time a gun can be fired more quickly is when the people are actually in contact, but if in contact, all you have to do is grab the hands of the suspect.
You never have to shoot them.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nope.
It actually takes 2 hands to access a hidden gun, one to hold the gun, while the other hand wraps the grip and gets a finger on the trigger.
The only exception is with a visible gun in a holster that exposes the handle and trigger.
But then it would be obvious to everyone.

Pointing a gun is not the rotation of the wrist.
It has to be brought up to eye level, with arm extended, and the whole arm rotated until target acquisition.
Very slow and obvious.

The only time a gun can be fired more quickly is when the people are actually in contact, but if in contact, all you have to do is grab the hands of the suspect.
You never have to shoot them.

Let me guess! You have never held a hand gun in your entire life, so to you that makes sense. Tie on hand behind my back and if needed I will shoot you between the eyes!

You don't even watch TV to know that is a lie?

 

[Dragonlady]

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)

Resisting arrest is not a capital offense. Police should not be killing anybody in arresting them.

 

[Rigby5]

Let me guess! You have never held a hand gun in your entire life, so to you that makes sense. Tie on hand behind my back and if needed I will shoot you between the eyes!

You don't even watch TV to know that is a lie?

We are specifically talking aout the Dante Wright situation, where he was out of the car, frisked, and had no weapon or holster.
So then what others are speculating about is how long is would take to each a hiding place somewhere in the car, with 2 cops standing outside the open driver's door, and another cop halfway into the passenger door.
And I am saying the chances of Wright being able to reach a gun before the cops, was nill.
And besides, it is obvious his intent was starting the engine and putting it into drive, which took both hands.

 

[Faun]

After everything I taught you in this thread, you now come up with a totally mindless thing like that. Sheesh. Nothing could be more obvious than your total lack of understanding of policing. If you were ever a cop, you wouldnt be in this discussion at all. You would have been killed long ago.

LOL

Yeah, according to your insanity, she shot him knowing she would go to prison for it when she could have stopped him with her taser and not gone to prison. You're out of your mind, gramps.

 

[Faun]

Got some evidence to SHOW that (both hands visible) ? A video ? If so, let's see it.

 

[FA_Q2]

LOL

Yeah, according to your insanity, she shot him knowing she would go to prison for it when she could have stopped him with her taser and not gone to prison. You're out of your mind, gramps.

Racists gona be racists. Not much can be done about it.

I cannot find a single, solitary plausible reason to defend this action other than an outright dismissal of black people. Aubrey's killers as well. Some of these cases are rather convoluted. Those 2 are CRYSTAL CLEAR and beyond even a reasonable suspicion let alone outright defense.

There is something to be said about this case that it was not murder, I do not think she 'murdered' him as in premeditated the action. She is CLEALY guilty of manslaughter though, as in unlawfully killing someone out of sheer negligence.

How the fuck does a cop not know INSTANTLY when they put a gun in their hand and thought it was a taser. At that level of responsibility, you should have the restraint and competence to only shoot what you intend to kill.

 

[Rigby5]

Racists gona be racists. Not much can be done about it.

I cannot find a single, solitary plausible reason to defend this action other than an outright dismissal of black people. Aubrey's killers as well. Some of these cases are rather convoluted. Those 2 are CRYSTAL CLEAR and beyond even a reasonable suspicion let alone outright defense.

There is something to be said about this case that it was not murder, I do not think she 'murdered' him as in premeditated the action. She is CLEALY guilty of manslaughter though, as in unlawfully killing someone out of sheer negligence.

How the fuck does a cop not know INSTANTLY when they put a gun in their hand and thought it was a taser. At that level of responsibility, you should have the restraint and competence to only shoot what you intend to kill.

The fact she said, "taser, taser, taser" show that she had been programmed a little like a robot.
Police are not encouraged to actually think, but instead to just do what they are told, like the military.
And in this case, it is possible that instructions got crossed.
I am not defending the result, but that I put the blame more on the bad military style training than the individual cop.
I think she was over whelmed by a situation she had not been trained for.
The correct response to someone trying to get back into their car and drive away is a football tackle.
She should have at least been grabbing hands, arms, legs, head, or anything she could.
But they have saddled cops with so much stuff, they are easily confused over all the options.
Too many procedures to memorize.