Simple question about Potter
-
@lufins-dad said in Simple question about Potter:
Personally, I wish people would understand that bad shit happens when you resist arrest. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is. Once we recognize that, we can begin the other conversations.
Hell, there are loads of Youtube videos telling people to be completely un-cooperative if pulled over by Johnny Law. How does that philosophy work if the fuzz decides to up the ante and arrest the alleged drunk driver/speeder/really obnoxious bloke with the dodgy tail-light who smells of weed?
As far as skin colour goes, if somebody has grown up in an environment that sees the police as the enemy (possibly, it has to be said, with some justification), then it's perhaps not that surprising if more of them fail to do what they're damn well told in a stressful situation.
wrote on 6 Dec 2021, 18:08 last edited by@doctor-phibes said in Simple question about Potter:
@lufins-dad said in Simple question about Potter:
Personally, I wish people would understand that bad shit happens when you resist arrest. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is. Once we recognize that, we can begin the other conversations.
Hell, there are loads of Youtube videos telling people to be completely un-cooperative if pulled over by Johnny Law. How does that philosophy work if the fuzz decides to up the ante and arrest the alleged drunk driver/speeder/really obnoxious bloke with the dodgy tail-light who smells of weed?
As far as skin colour goes, if somebody has grown up in an environment that sees the police as the enemy (possibly, it has to be said, with some justification), then it's perhaps not that surprising if more of them fail to do what they're damn well told in a stressful situation.
Prison isn't that bad compared to the sub average male existence. It must be told. Now let's bring into it the selection process of the females.
-
wrote on 6 Dec 2021, 18:38 last edited by
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.
wrote on 6 Dec 2021, 19:57 last edited by@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?
wrote on 6 Dec 2021, 20:06 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 7 Dec 2021, 02:18 last edited by
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.
wrote on 7 Dec 2021, 04:07 last edited by@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.
wrote on 7 Dec 2021, 04:17 last edited by@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.
wrote on 7 Dec 2021, 12:21 last edited by@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?
wrote on 7 Dec 2021, 12:23 last edited by@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?
-
-
wrote on 8 Dec 2021, 18:13 last edited by
-
wrote on 8 Dec 2021, 18:19 last edited by
More reality TV. I think I'll pass.
-
wrote on 9 Dec 2021, 17:32 last edited by
Potter's immediate reaction post shooting....
This does not appear to be the reaction of someone who intended to shoot someone.
-
wrote on 9 Dec 2021, 18:01 last edited by
I'd be very, very surprised if this was intentional.
-
I'd be very, very surprised if this was intentional.
wrote on 9 Dec 2021, 21:11 last edited by@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.
wrote on 9 Dec 2021, 22:22 last edited by Doctor Phibes 12 Sept 2021, 22:23@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.
wrote on 10 Dec 2021, 00:23 last edited by@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.
-
topic:timeago-later,14 days
-
wrote on 23 Dec 2021, 19:31 last edited by
I would never vote to convict on this one. This kid made his own bed. When you fight with police the outcome is never good.
-
wrote on 23 Dec 2021, 19:32 last edited by
COUNT I – Charge: First-Degree Manslaughter Predicated on Reckless Use/Handling of a Firearm - Guilty
COUNT II – Charge: Second-Degree Manslaughter - Guilty
-
wrote on 23 Dec 2021, 19:33 last edited by
That’s a shame. It’s going to be increasingly difficult to recruit police officers of any quality.
-
wrote on 23 Dec 2021, 19:54 last edited by LuFins Dad
@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.
