Simple question about Potter
-
I agree with Ken but think the “she’s suffered enough” is a question more for sentencing than charges. Involuntary manslaughter seems correct.
Re LD’s questions I think if she hadn’t said ‘taser taser’ it would be hard to believe her story.
Question 2, no punishment at all if he died from a taze, bro.
-
I agree with Ken but think the “she’s suffered enough” is a question more for sentencing than charges. Involuntary manslaughter seems correct.
Re LD’s questions I think if she hadn’t said ‘taser taser’ it would be hard to believe her story.
Question 2, no punishment at all if he died from a taze, bro.
@jon-nyc said in Simple question about Potter:
I agree with Ken but think the “she’s suffered enough” is a question more for sentencing than charges. Involuntary manslaughter seems correct.
Re LD’s questions I think if she hadn’t said ‘taser taser’ it would be hard to believe her story.
Question 2, no punishment at all if he died from a taze, bro.
Involuntary Manslaughter sounds about right to me, too.
As for question number 1, my point is this. Wright was clearly attempting to escape. Once he's in that car does he have a weapon? Does he attempt to use the car as a weapon? Does she have a right to use potentially lethal force at that point?
-
@jon-nyc said in Simple question about Potter:
I agree with Ken but think the “she’s suffered enough” is a question more for sentencing than charges. Involuntary manslaughter seems correct.
Re LD’s questions I think if she hadn’t said ‘taser taser’ it would be hard to believe her story.
Question 2, no punishment at all if he died from a taze, bro.
Involuntary Manslaughter sounds about right to me, too.
As for question number 1, my point is this. Wright was clearly attempting to escape. Once he's in that car does he have a weapon? Does he attempt to use the car as a weapon? Does she have a right to use potentially lethal force at that point?
@lufins-dad said in Simple question about Potter:
Once he's in that car does he have a weapon? Does he attempt to use the car as a weapon? Does she have a right to use potentially lethal force at that point?
Cops in Kenosha might have an answer.
-
It's kind of simple, really: because Voldemort assumed Harry was the child spoken of in the prophecy, he essentially set the latter in motion by going after Harry in the first place.
-
It's kind of simple, really: because Voldemort assumed Harry was the child spoken of in the prophecy, he essentially set the latter in motion by going after Harry in the first place.
@aqua-letifer said in Simple question about Potter:
It's kind of simple, really: because Voldemort assumed Harry was the child spoken of in the prophecy, he essentially set the latter in motion by going after Harry in the first place.
Apparently, he meant to cast a Petrificus Totalus, but inadvertently let slip an Avada Kedavra. Or so he freaking claims. If his nose hadn't rotted off like some syphilitic old tramp, it would be a clear double Pinocchio.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Simple question about Potter:
It's kind of simple, really: because Voldemort assumed Harry was the child spoken of in the prophecy, he essentially set the latter in motion by going after Harry in the first place.
Apparently, he meant to cast a Petrificus Totalus, but inadvertently let slip an Avada Kedavra. Or so he freaking claims. If his nose hadn't rotted off like some syphilitic old tramp, it would be a clear double Pinocchio.
@doctor-phibes said in Simple question about Potter:
@aqua-letifer said in Simple question about Potter:
It's kind of simple, really: because Voldemort assumed Harry was the child spoken of in the prophecy, he essentially set the latter in motion by going after Harry in the first place.
Apparently, he meant to cast a Petrificus Totalus, but inadvertently let slip an Avada Kedavra. Or so he freaking claims.
It would take sherry glasses of Trelawneyan volume to even entertain the possibility.
-
Our local NPR station did a story on this and had a law school professor as part of the discussion. Both the professor and announcer used the word "murder" in describing the action. The professor went so far as to state that it was "impossible" for Potter not to know she was not holding a gun - based on his knowledge of firearms. I sent an email to the professor asking him why she would call out "taser, taser, taser" if she "knew" she was holding a gun - no response. Listening to the broadcast, I was angered at the stupidity of both of them - pretty much saying she deliberately killed the guy.
My personal opinion is that the officer has suffered a great deal already. I would hope that regardless of the charge, that she serve minimal or no time for what seems to have been an accidental shooting.
It might seem amazing to some that she could mistake a gun for a taser, but those are likely people who have not served in a combat setting where the brain can get hyper-focused on what's happening in front - and not at what's in her hand.
@kluurs said in Simple question about Potter:
Our local NPR station did a story on this and had a law school professor as part of the discussion. Both the professor and announcer used the word "murder" in describing the action. The professor went so far as to state that it was "impossible" for Potter not to know she was not holding a gun - based on his knowledge of firearms. I sent an email to the professor asking him why she would call out "taser, taser, taser" if she "knew" she was holding a gun - no response. Listening to the broadcast, I was angered at the stupidity of both of them - pretty much saying she deliberately killed the guy.
My personal opinion is that the officer has suffered a great deal already. I would hope that regardless of the charge, that she serve minimal or no time for what seems to have been an accidental shooting.
It might seem amazing to some that she could mistake a gun for a taser, but those are likely people who have not served in a combat setting where the brain can get hyper-focused on what's happening in front - and not at what's in her hand.
Very good post. ZERO chance she knew she was holding her gun. Not only from the chaos and her yelling 'Taser" 3 times (which is evidence enough) but also her surprise/anguish in the moments following.
-
Question 1: What do you guys think would be appropriate if she never said a word about Taser. If she just pulled the gun and fired?
Question 2: What if it had been the taser she pulled but the kid stroked out from the shock and died. What would have been appropriate?
@lufins-dad said in Simple question about Potter:
Question 1: What do you guys think would be appropriate if she never said a word about Taser. If she just pulled the gun and fired?
Question 2: What if it had been the taser she pulled but the kid stroked out from the shock and died. What would have been appropriate?
-
Either voluntary manslaughter or just firing (I give cops a lot of slack when they're dealing with a combative/resistant suspect).
-
Nothing, maybe a cup of coffee for her next shift?
-
-
-
More reality TV. I think I'll pass.
-
I'd be very, very surprised if this was intentional.
-
I'd be very, very surprised if this was intentional.
@doctor-phibes said in Simple question about Potter:
I'd be very, very surprised if this was intentional.
The only intentional part is the leftist framing as systemic white supremacy. Unity! They're all about unity, just ask them.
-
@doctor-phibes said in Simple question about Potter:
I'd be very, very surprised if this was intentional.
The only intentional part is the leftist framing as systemic white supremacy. Unity! They're all about unity, just ask them.
@horace said in Simple question about Potter:
@doctor-phibes said in Simple question about Potter:
I'd be very, very surprised if this was intentional.
The only intentional part is the leftist framing as systemic white supremacy. Unity! They're all about unity, just ask them.
I'm a bit of a leftie. I believe very little of the shit that I'm frequently told that I should believe as a leftie.
So maybe I'm not leftie. But I am. I'm just not a freaking nutjob.
-
@horace said in Simple question about Potter:
@doctor-phibes said in Simple question about Potter:
I'd be very, very surprised if this was intentional.
The only intentional part is the leftist framing as systemic white supremacy. Unity! They're all about unity, just ask them.
I'm a bit of a leftie. I believe very little of the shit that I'm frequently told that I should believe as a leftie.
So maybe I'm not leftie. But I am. I'm just not a freaking nutjob.
@doctor-phibes said in Simple question about Potter:
So maybe I'm not leftie. But I am. I'm just not a freaking nutjob.
You’re a leftie. Just as I’m a rightie. Except we both fall within one standard deviation of the good old bell curve. The media covers 3+ sigma.
-
@george-k said in Simple question about Potter:
COUNT I – Charge: First-Degree Manslaughter Predicated on Reckless Use/Handling of a Firearm - Guilty
COUNT II – Charge: Second-Degree Manslaughter - Guilty
The bad part? If she had intentionally discharged her pistol and just stated that he was a threat and the car was a deadly weapon then she walks. She's not going to jail because the dude's dead. She's going to jail because she was not well enough equipped to make that call in that position.
