FRANKIE
.308 Win
Jury in deliberations
@12 hrs : 45 min : 50 sec (currently)
@12 hrs : 45 min : 50 sec (currently)
Jesus ChristKim Potter trial: Minneapolis jury finds ex-police officer guilty in death of Daunte Wright | Fox News
Jury found Potter guilty on first and second degree manslaughter chargeswww.foxnews.com
If she had just shot the guy without yelling out, on camera, "TASER,TASER, TASER," and "I grabbed the wrong fucking gun", she would be walking free right now, likely without even being disciplined, since it wouldn't have been wrong.
Two thoughts:
1) What you say after a lethal encounter (and maybe even before it), can and will be used against you in the court of law. SHUT YOUR MOUTH. Shut the fuck up. If you used your Second Amendment, use your Fifth Amendment. You don't know if you hung up on that 911 call. You don't know if a camera is running. Don't say you didn't mean to shoot the bad guy. Don't talk to anyone, including yourself. Don't say more than the absolute minimum to the police, even if you are the police. Hell, don't even say you shot him at all until you have a lawyer. You're probably jittery as hell with a flood of adrenaline. Your internal filter is probably broken (not that most people here seem to have one). Those eloquent words in your head might turn into a tossed word salad as they come vomiting out of your mouth.
2) Man, I'm glad I changed my mind about being a cop. That's gotta suck hard these days. Thanks for your service to all the good cops out there who walk the gauntlet between doing their job diligently, minding their Ps and Qs when dealing with scumbags, and refusing to be jack-booted enforcers of the state's illegal policies.
She is guilty, She screwed up and should pay the price, but she does not deserve a severe sentence since it was not intentional.As much as I would have to see her get a not guilty verdict, she did kill an unarmed dude by "mistake".
This mistake should have never occurred. She has been on the job for decades. Gun and taser are located on different sides. Glock feels completely different than the Taser. She panicked, never should have happened.
On the flip side.
The kid is to blame even more. If he had not been such a piece of garbage, he would be alive. If he would have been driving a fully legal vehicle, he would be alive.
If he did not have outstanding warrants, you know, go to court when told, he would still be alive.
If he did not attempt to flee and nearly run over officers, he would still be alive.
Question,As much as I would have to see her get a not guilty verdict, she did kill an unarmed dude by "mistake".
This mistake should have never occurred. She has been on the job for decades. Gun and taser are located on different sides. Glock feels completely different than the Taser. She panicked, never should have happened.
On the flip side.
The kid is to blame even more. If he had not been such a piece of garbage, he would be alive. If he would have been driving a fully legal vehicle, he would be alive.
If he did not have outstanding warrants, you know, go to court when told, he would still be alive.
If he did not attempt to flee and nearly run over officers, he would still be alive.
Possibly, maybe. I would imagine that her team thought of that. I think it was more that she ran her mouth so much after the shooting.Question,
would he be considered armed by using the car as a deadly weapon? And although it was a mistake, from what I read she would have been justified for using deadly force. Wouldn’t that carry some weight? The latter of your post couldn’t be more correct.
Interesting discussion on a YouTube lawyers group. The average layman thinks the cop should have been found guilty but the lawyers all disagreed. The legal definition for reckless (IIRC) means knowing and deliberate disregard for her action. Meaning she knew she pulled the wrong weapon but pulled the trigger anyway. If she made a mistake (which was her testimony) then it was by definition not deliberate. So either the jury disregarded the law or didn't believe she made a mistake.
That's the guy I was referencing. I followed some of his video chats with other lawyers for this trial and the Rittenhouse trial. Very interesting and he does a good job of explaining the law in everyday language.
That certainly makes sense. Consensus is she probably didn't belong in that role and her actions support that consensus.as interesting comment I read was that due to loss of bodies on the force she was put into the field. after perhaps spending most of her career behind a desk...(Don't know if this is true...)