Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I agree that negligence could be replaced by a better qualifier; I was going for legal terms. When the gear is always worn on the same side but a cop pulls out one thinking it’s the other idk… maybe confusion? Someone else just mentioned the judge’s instructions to the jury and that does play into each court case scenario. I need more information, I’m behind here but will catch up.Was there really any negligence? This reeks of appeasing the mob, it certainly does not appear to be justice.
Lt. Byrd not even charged and he murdered an unarmed woman. Equal justice is gone.Kim Potter Found Guilty
Kim Potter Guilty On 2 Counts Of Manslaughter In Daunte Wright's Death
A jury of twelve has found Kim Potter, the former Brooklyn Center police officer who shot and killed Daunte Wright, guilty on counts of both first- and second-degree manslaughter.minnesota.cbslocal.com
For those playing along at home, she was the the cop who shot Daunte Wright because she couldn't tell the difference between her gun and her taser.
This is a good thing.
This is totally wrong, I just realized you're talking about manslaughter not involuntary manslaughter. She never intended to shoot him with a gun. It's a Mistrial, they tried her for manslaughter, it was involuntary manslaughter. A distracted truck driver in here just killed a whole bunch of people they're charging him with involuntary manslaughter. Just like the lady cop, this truck driver never intended to kill anybody.Kim Potter Found Guilty
Kim Potter Guilty On 2 Counts Of Manslaughter In Daunte Wright's Death
A jury of twelve has found Kim Potter, the former Brooklyn Center police officer who shot and killed Daunte Wright, guilty on counts of both first- and second-degree manslaughter.
For those playing along at home, she was the the cop who shot Daunte Wright because she couldn't tell the difference between her gun and her taser.
This is a good thing.
If you're going to blame politics both parties share the blame everything is f****** political now.We're not a nation of LAW. We're a nation of public opinion...thanks to democrats.
Only when it is someone else,though. And inly when they are one of the "others".Sounds like you favor extra judicial killing.
^^Daunte Wright carjacked man weeks before he was killed by cop: lawsuit
By Priscilla DeGregory and Natalie O'Neill
June 9, 2021 | 2:01pm
The 20-year-old black man who was fatally shot by a Minnesota police officer during a traffic stop in April was allegedly involved in an armed carjacking and violent assault three weeks before he was killed, according to a new lawsuit.
Daunte Wright — who was killed when Officer Kim Potter mistook her gun for a Taser — and an accomplice allegedly jumped 20-year-old Joshua Hodges on March 21 while he was sitting in his car in north Minneapolis, the court papers state.
The other man shot Hodges in his left leg, after which Wright allegedly struck him and stole his wallet and cellphone — leaving him with “face, mouth, and teeth injuries,” the lawsuit claims.
But only when the verdict conflicts with your fetishes.We're not a nation of LAW. We're a nation of public opinion...thanks to democrats.
Hard to get involuntary when weapon is drawn, aimed at the live guy and then the defendant pulls the trigger and changes the other guy into a dead guy, if nobody else forced you to pull that trigger. Everybody licensed to carry knows you are responsible for every round that leaves your gun.This is totally wrong, I just realized you're talking about manslaughter not involuntary manslaughter. She never intended to shoot him with a gun. It's a Mistrial, they tried her for manslaughter, it was involuntary manslaughter. A distracted truck driver in here just killed a whole bunch of people they're charging him with involuntary manslaughter. Just like the lady cop, this truck driver never intended to kill anybody.
www.findlaw.com
Except she needs to be held to a higher standard. As a police officer one needs to know the difference between weapons.This is totally wrong, I just realized you're talking about manslaughter not involuntary manslaughter. She never intended to shoot him with a gun. It's a Mistrial, they tried her for manslaughter, it was involuntary manslaughter. A distracted truck driver in here just killed a whole bunch of people they're charging him with involuntary manslaughter. Just like the lady cop, this truck driver never intended to kill anybody.
Other cops are getting away with murder. Byrd for one.Only when it is someone else,though. And inly when they are one of the "others".
^^
Funny how this guy went into all caps tantrum mode over calling this an extra judicial killing.
Then proceeds to type his little heart out just minutes later to argue why he deserved an extra judicial killing.
You guys don't even know what is going to come out of your mouths next. You're like amoeba...
stimulus/response... stimulus/response
But only when the verdict conflicts with your fetishes.
She was the one the bullet hit, it could have hit anyone. It was a mob.
www.foxnews.com
www.theguardian.com
My understanding is that she was a training officer. Her mistake is almost incomprehensible. But that doesn’t make it any less a mistake.I’m not versed on the state laws so will search pertaining to that case. Only going off the cuff here from the video evidence. When I first saw the video and heard her repeat “taser, taser, taser” I honestly thought she was a new cop and later surprised to learn she was not. The nervousness in her voice came across clearly when she was stating these words. It takes an exceptional person to be a skilled cop imo. I’m not claiming that exceptional cops don’t make mistakes when pressured for time, but more training was definitely needed z If that’s true that she never had any training for the taser that’s totally unacceptable and that’s on the department.
My understanding is that she was a training officer. Her mistake is almost incomprehensible. But that doesn’t make it any less a mistake.
Given that she mistakenly believed that the gun was a taser, her “use” of the gun really can’t be reckless. How could anyone be aware of the risk she or he was taking if they are sober but acting under such an obviously mistaken belief?
In an earlier post (maybe on another thread — I’d have to go back to find it) I cited a case that provided the legal analysis of the terms as defined in that state’s pattern jury instructions. It is my opinion (yep, an opinion only) that her conduct under these tragic circumstances didn’t meet the legal definition of the elements of the crimes.
It was pretty clear Coyote. Potter pretty much admitted to profiling Wright. And the fact is an accidental crime is still a crime.This case was not clear cut, I feel bad for everyone concerned
Wrong. Potter admitted that she shout not have stopped him in her testimony. Police don't have the right to kill somebody because they try to get away unless they pose a real threat. Wright posed no such threat.He should havé cooperated and he wouldn't have been accidentally shot
Your post brings about an interesting concept about the body and mind having separate legal accountabilities. It was indeed a tragic outcome. She did not knowingly use the gun, but did.My understanding is that she was a training officer. Her mistake is almost incomprehensible. But that doesn’t make it any less a mistake.
Given that she mistakenly believed that the gun was a taser, her “use” of the gun really can’t be reckless. How could anyone be aware of the risk she or he was taking if they are sober but acting under such an obviously mistaken belief?
In an earlier post (maybe on another thread — I’d have to go back to find it) I cited a case that provided the legal analysis of the terms as defined in that state’s pattern jury instructions. It is my opinion (yep, an opinion only) that her conduct under these tragic circumstances didn’t meet the legal definition of the elements of the crimes.
Wrong. She was a trained officer and there is no excuse for her to even have pulled a taser.The legal definition of recklessness doesn’t appear to embrace or even consider the mistaking of a gun for a taser. In fact: The converse appears to be true.
There is literally no question that she made the tragic horrifying mistake. The question is whether that particular mistake comports with the legal definition of recklessness. I believe it does not.
If a dolt is playing with a loaded gun (especially knowing that it’s loaded and operable) and stupidly and carelessly fires off some rounds while being unconcerned with the prospect that some living people might be hurt in the process, that’s reckless.
By contrast, here, she had to have both a gun and a taser. She didn’t act recklessly. She made a simple mistake. A tragic one for sure. But just a mistake. By pulling the trigger on the gun (under the mistaken Assumption that she was holding her taser), she didn’t have any reason to believe that anyone was being put at risk of grave injury or death. It wasn’t, in that legal sense, “recklessness” as it is defined in Minnesota’s law.
Because we know that in such thorny legal analyses even judges can make mistakes, there are layers of appellate review. Here, I believe the definition of “recklessness” was either given incorrectly OR the jury failed to apply the actual evidence to the law in a legally acceptable fashion.
I don’t get a vote on their appellate bench. So, we will have to wait and see.
The left hates the causation principle and accountability.He should havé cooperated and he wouldn't have been accidentally shot
