Simple question about Potter

[George K]

@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.

[Aqua Letifer]

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.

[Doctor Phibes]

@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]

@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.

[89th]

@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.

[89th]

@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?

1. Either voluntary manslaughter or just firing (I give cops a lot of slack when they're dealing with a combative/resistant suspect).

2. Nothing, maybe a cup of coffee for her next shift?

[George K]

Link to video

[Doctor Phibes]

More reality TV. I think I'll pass.

[kluurs]

Potter's immediate reaction post shooting....

This does not appear to be the reaction of someone who intended to shoot someone.

[Doctor Phibes]

I'd be very, very surprised if this was intentional.

[Horace]

@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]

@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.

[89th]

@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.

[Mik]

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.

[George K]

COUNT I – Charge: First-Degree Manslaughter Predicated on Reckless Use/Handling of a Firearm - Guilty

COUNT II – Charge: Second-Degree Manslaughter - Guilty

[Mik]

That’s a shame. It’s going to be increasingly difficult to recruit police officers of any quality.

[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.

[George K]

According to NY Times:

The standard sentence range for the more serious charge, first-degree manslaughter, is between about six to eight and a half years in prison, and the maximum penalty is 15 years.

[Mik]

But what was the proximate cause of his death? His own actions.

[George K]

From the RWEC:

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Earlier today, to my disappointment, a Hennepin County jury convicted former police officer Kim Potter of both first degree and second degree manslaughter in the shooting death of hard-core criminal Daunte Wright. The facts of the case were never in dispute: police officers tried to arrest Wright on an outstanding warrant for a weapons charge, and he attempted to flee in his vehicle. As Wright was starting to get away, Potter meant to tase him, but under the pressure of the moment she drew her gun instead of her taser and fired once, killing Wright. Videos at the scene show that she was horrified and distraught at her mistake. The evidence at trial added little or nothing to what has always been clear.

In my opinion, the verdicts are wrong and should be reversed on appeal. The first degree manslaughter count requires that Potter caused another’s death “in committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense with such force and violence that death of or great bodily harm to any person was reasonably foreseeable…” But Potter was not committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor, she was executing a lawful arrest of a criminal. There was a similar issue in the Derek Chauvin case.

Further, she did not act with “such force or violence” that death or great bodily harm was foreseeable. On the contrary, what was foreseeable to her when she tried to pull her taser was minor injury at worst.

The second degree manslaughter charge requires that death be caused “by the person’s culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.” There was no evidence that Potter “consciously” took the chance of “causing death” to Daunte Wright. Consciously, she was trying to use her taser, which would not have killed or seriously injured Wright.

In my opinion, Attorney General Keith Ellison should not have brought these charges against Potter, and Judge Regina Chu should not have submitted them to the jury. Will Potter’s conviction be reversed on appeal? It should be, but I don’t think anyone holds out much hope that Minnesota’s appellate courts have that kind of courage. The lynch mob atmosphere that prevailed in the Chauvin trial was more muted here, but I assume there would be riots if an appellate court did the right thing.

In recent times, two criminal defendants have had the book thrown at them in Minnesota: Derek Chauvin and Kim Potter. In general, Minnesota is a lenient state–one could almost say, a pro-criminal state. But Chauvin and Potter not only were overcharged (in Chauvin’s case, I don’t think his actions had anything to do with George Floyd’s death from a fentanyl overdose), the prosecution also was taken over by the Attorney General’s office, and the full resources of the state were brought to bear to ensure that convictions would be obtained in an atmosphere of threatened mob violence.

Here in Minnesota, we will be living with the consequences of these actions for a long time. At a minimum, it is hard to see who will want to be a police officer here. Not surprisingly, recruitment has dropped off precipitously. And the perceived alliance between Minnesota’s Attorney General’s office and the world of criminal gangs and drug addicts does not engender faith in law enforcement, to put it mildly.