What Was Wrong With Kim Potter Shooting Daunte Wright ?

[mikegriffith1]

The video makes it clear that Officer Potter made an honest mistake, and that she honestly believed she had pulled her taser, a mistake that would not have occurred if violent thug Daunte Wright had not resisted arrest and tried to flee the scene in his car. Here's some info on "Little Daunte" from a recent article in the UK newspaper The Daily Mail:

Daunte Wright had led a life of crime and violence in the years before his death, DailyMail.com can reveal.​

The 20-year-old was involved in the shooting of two of his school friends, a home burglary, and previously assaulted and robbed a woman at gunpoint.​

Jennifer LeMay said Wright shot her son, Caleb Livingston, 18, in the head and at a gas station and left him to die in an incident in Minneapolis in May 2019.​

Caleb now suffers from a traumatic brain injury and respiratory arrest, and is bound to a wheelchair. He cannot speak and requires 24/7 care.​

Daunte Wright victims tell of his violent past

Before Daunte Wright was shot and killed by now former Minnesota police officer Kim Potter, he terrorized his local neighborhood for several years, victims told DailyMail.com.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Lisa558]

The video makes it clear that Officer Potter made an honest mistake, a mistake that would not have occurred if violent thug Daunte Wright had not resisted arrest and tried to flee the scene in his car. Here's some info on "Little Daunte" from a recent article in the UK newspaper The Daily Mail:

Daunte Wright had led a life of crime and violence in the years before his death, DailyMail.com can reveal.​

The 20-year-old was involved in the shooting of two of his school friends, a home burglary, and previously assaulted and robbed a woman at gunpoint.​

Jennifer LeMay said Wright shot her son, Caleb Livingston, 18, in the head and at a gas station and left him to die in an incident in Minneapolis in May 2019.​

Caleb now suffers from a traumatic brain injury and respiratory arrest, and is bound to a wheelchair. He cannot speak and requires 24/7 care.​

Daunte Wright victims tell of his violent past

Before Daunte Wright was shot and killed by now former Minnesota police officer Kim Potter, he terrorized his local neighborhood for several years, victims told DailyMail.com.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Sad that the American media isn’t reporting what a dangerous criminal sweet little Dante was, and we have to go to foreign papers to find out.

The truth is that someone else is going to live out his life because Dante isn’t around. Possibly more than one.

 

[protectionist]

The video makes it clear that Officer Potter made an honest mistake, and that she honestly believed that she had pulled her taser, a mistake that would not have occurred if violent thug Daunte Wright had not resisted arrest and tried to flee the scene in his car. Here's some info on "Little Daunte" from a recent article in the UK newspaper The Daily Mail:

Daunte Wright had led a life of crime and violence in the years before his death, DailyMail.com can reveal.​

The 20-year-old was involved in the shooting of two of his school friends, a home burglary, and previously assaulted and robbed a woman at gunpoint.​

Jennifer LeMay said Wright shot her son, Caleb Livingston, 18, in the head and at a gas station and left him to die in an incident in Minneapolis in May 2019.​

Caleb now suffers from a traumatic brain injury and respiratory arrest, and is bound to a wheelchair. He cannot speak and requires 24/7 care.​

Daunte Wright victims tell of his violent past

Before Daunte Wright was shot and killed by now former Minnesota police officer Kim Potter, he terrorized his local neighborhood for several years, victims told DailyMail.com.

www.dailymail.co.uk

If Kim Potter had made a mistake (highly questionable) by firing her gun, she still would have been doing the proper thing. Under the circumstance (created by Wright) Potter had every right to fire her gun at a suspect who was resisting arrest and failing to keep his hands visible.

If Minneapolis was not a hellhole of liberal lunacy, Kim Potter would probably not have claimed anything about her taser, she would never have been arrested, she would have been congratulated for shooting Wright, and would have been given a medal for defending herself, following police protocol properly.

Every cop working in a Democrat controlled city should quit immediately and move to a conservative city, and het hired to a police job there. All cops working in Democrat cities, are in major jeopardy.

 

[Leviticus]

1. There is no evidence that Slager "didn't feel like chasing him"

2. The taser has nothing to do with the shooting, or the charges that put Slager in prison for 20 years.

3. Slager was justified in shooting Scott (no matter how many shots were fired) by virtue of the fleeing felon rule.

A police shooting isn't justified in the eyes of the law unless there is no reasonable alternative. There was no sign that Scott was armed, and Slager could have easily taken him down in a non-lethal fashion, but chose to kill him instead. The law doesn't allow police to just shoot unarmed people and willfully refuse to take measures to end a situation non-lethally, just because the person is a felon.

And the taser played a major part. In hat proved the act was intional murder. You notice that he doesn't search Scott's body. He assumes he's unarmed and immediately plants the taser on him. That fact like convinced the jury that Slager had no interest in a peaceful or nonlethal outcome, and knew that he had just killed an unarmed suspect (as much as you try to claim otherwise, thats illegal), and planted a weapon on him to make it appear like he was dangerous.


Theres also the fact that Scott was't a felon. He had a warrant for not paying child support, a low level misdemeanor

 

[protectionist]

A police shooting isn't justified in the eyes of the law unless there is no reasonable alternative. There was no sign that Scott was armed, and Slager could have easily taken him down in a non-lethal fashion, but chose to kill him instead. The law doesn't allow police to just shoot unarmed people and willfully refuse to take measures to end a situation non-lethally, just because the person is a felon.

And the taser played a major part. In hat proved the act was intional murder. You notice that he doesn't search Scott's body. He assumes he's unarmed and immediately plants the taser on him. That fact like convinced the jury that Slager had no interest in a peaceful or nonlethal outcome, and knew that he had just killed an unarmed suspect (as much as you try to claim otherwise, thats illegal), and planted a weapon on him to make it appear like he was dangerous.


Theres also the fact that Scott was't a felon. He had a warrant for not paying child support, a low level misdemeanor

FALSE!
1. A police shooting IS justified in the case of a fleeing felon (ex Walter Scott) This was explained in Post # 238 (are you reading the thread ?)

2. there is no evidence that Slager "could have easily taken him down in a non-lethal fashion,"

3. Yes, the law DOES "allow police to just shoot unarmed people" in the case of fleeing felons (see Post # 238)

4. The taser played no part. With or without it, the shooting was justifiable homicide, by reason of the Fleeing Felon Rule.

5. Of course Scott was a felon. He had just a minute earlier been fighting with a cop.

 

[Faun]

Yes it is.
If a cop can shoot a fleeing felon, then anyone can shoot any fleeing suspect in more than $100.

For public safety reasons, police can if they believe the fleeing felon is a threat to others.

 

[Faun]

I stand by my assessment of it. No matter what she said, under the circumstances (created by Wright), shooting him WITH A GUN was the correct procedure. Resisting, and breaking every rule of police confrontation there is (never being taught this subject), he made it impossible for the cops to defend themselves from him.

People in this thread (me too) have never gotten education about police confrontation, as we all should have, but at least I have sought out the information needed to discuss this (and other police shootings) subject knowledgably.

LOLOL

No one cares about your demented assessment, gramps, when she herself disagrees with you. To exemplify your senility, you're literally claiming you know better than she does why she shot him.

 

[protectionist]

Yes it is.
If a cop can shoot a fleeing felon, then anyone can shoot any fleeing suspect in more than $100.

If the suspect is a felon, then yes anyone legally possessing a gun can shoot that fleeing felon, in some states. This was established as permissable in the 1990 Michigan Supreme Court case, People vs Couch.

It was established as not permissable in Nevada by that state's Supreme Court in the case State vs Weddell, 2002.

But it is always permisseble for police to shoot any fleeing felon, (when that felon is determined to be a threat to the community), by ruling of the US Supreme Court.

 

[Faun]

I saw the video too, and have posted it repeatedly in this forum. Arberry clearly attacked Travis McMichael - ran straight at him (when he had no cause to do that- he could have just kept on jogging).

The shotgun was NOT pointed illegally. It was pointed only in self-defense, and fired that way.

Self-defense is not illegal or criminal, for police or anybody else.

You're still lying, gramps. In reality, to which you're allergic, McMichael pointed his gun illegally at Arbery as he approached the parked truck. That provoked Arbery to engage in self-defense.

 

[protectionist]

Incorrect.
I saw the videos, and Arberry never attacked anyone.
The shotgun was often pointed at Arberry illegally.
(Conduct regardless of life.)

The police self-defense procedures that differ from what anyone can and should do, is totally and completely illegal and criminal.

They do not differ from what anyone can and should do. Private citizens are just are susceptible to being shot by someone when their hands disappear as are police. They should follow same self-defense rules.

If you ever find yourself in a serious confrontation, KEEP YOUR HANDS EMPTY & VISIBLE, if you want to stay alive.

Note: in dimly lit situations, a cell phone can easily be mistaken for a gun, Keep you cell phone in your pocket, unitil the confrontation has passed.

 

[protectionist]

You're still lying, gramps. In reality, to which you're allergic, McMichael pointed his gun illegally at Arbery as he approached the parked truck. That provoked Arbery to engage in self-defense.

I watched the video quite closely. As Arbery ran toward the truck, no gun was pointed at him.Clena your glasses, puppy. As he was attacking McMicheal, then it was pointed and fired, as it should be whenever a violent thug is attacking, as Arbery was.

If the appeal trial is held away from Brunswick in a neutral (not black majority) town, chances are good the verdict will be overturned. Ho hum.

 

[protectionist]

LOLOL

No one cares about your demented assessment, gramps, when she herself disagrees with you. To exemplify your senility, you're literally claiming you know better than she does why she shot him.

The picture you posted totally applies to YOU. Try reading the thread before posting. Everything you said has already been said by others, and refuted by me.

Potter, claiming she made a mistake, and meant to use her taser, is a ramification of a cop working in a liberal hellhole like Minneapolis. Typical of liberals to not realize that in such places, court "justice" is often a consequence of politics based on black and/or liberal voting majorities.

Potter, a 26 year police veteran knows the drill. Liberals oblivious to police (and National Guard which I myself learned) protocol, regard shooting somebody whose hands disappear, as murder, rather than the justifiable (by self-defense) act that it is.

So, to avoid a murder rap, in a leftist loon city, one may claim "mistake" and avoid the charge of criminal intent (when the intent should not even be seen as criminal).
Potter now will face (if not sprung on appeal) 6 or7 years in prison, instead of life. Get it ?

All this lunacy, is more and more evidence to support my contention that US liberals and US conservatives should not be citizens of the same country (a community of people who share a distinct culture)

 

[Faun]

I watched the video quite closely. As Arbery ran toward the truck, no gun was pointed at him.Clena your glasses, puppy. As he was attacking McMicheal, then it was pointed and fired, as it should be whenever a violent thug is attacking, as Arbery was.

If the appeal trial is held away from Brunswick in a neutral (not black majority) town, chances are good the verdict will be overturned. Ho hum.

Retard, we've been over this... a) the video is too grainy to discern where the gun is pointing; b) at times in the video, you don't even see Travis at all as the camera pans off to the side; and c) Travis testified he had indeed pointed his shotgun at Arbery as he approached the truck.

Your senility is not a substitute for the facts in the case.

 

[Faun]

The picture you posted totally applies to YOU. Try reading the thread before posting. Everything you said has already been said by others, and refuted by me.

Potter, claiming she made a mistake, and meant to use her taser, is a ramification of a cop working in a liberal hellhole like Minneapolis. Typical of liberals to not realize that in such places, court "justice" is often a consequence of politics based on black and/or liberal voting majorities.

Potter, a 26 year police veteran knows the drill. Liberals oblivious to police (and National Guard which I myself learned) protocol, regard shooting somebody whose hands disappear, as murder, rather than the justifiable (by self-defense) act that it is.

So, to avoid a murder rap, in a leftist loon city, one may claim "mistake" and avoid the charge of criminal intent (when the intent should not even be seen as criminal).
Potter now will face (if not sprung on appeal) 6 or7 years in prison, instead of life. Get it ?

All this lunacy, is more and more evidence to support my contention that US liberals and US conservatives should not be citizens of the same country (a community of people who share a distinct culture)

View attachment 579992

LOLOLOLOL

Poor, deranged gramps. Reality is not refuted because you're too senile to recognize it.



And the reality is she admitted lethal force was not necessary; AND she admitted she mistakenly grabbed her firearm, that she intended to grab her taser; AND she admitted she accidentally killed him by employing the wrong weapon.

It's cute though watching you classify your whiney rejections of that as "refutation."

 

[protectionist]

You're still lying, gramps. In reality, to which you're allergic, McMichael pointed his gun illegally at Arbery as he approached the parked truck. That provoked Arbery to engage in self-defense.

You're lying. Once Arbery, got to the front of the truck, he can clearly be seen suddenly veering to the left, and charging at Travis.

This CBS video is a clear example of biased leftist media, that has permeated this case. Among all its anti-McMichael propaganda, it shows a doctored video (shades of 1993-Rodney King-KTLA), with the Arbery attacking part deleted out. Hey, what happened ABC ? Dog ate the attack part of the video ? Cat scratched it up ?

Notice how the CBS story interviews Arbery's mother and her lawyer. We don't see Travis' mother being interviewed, or some member of HIS family do we ? We don't see any mention of Travis' lawyer and what he says.



Here, below is the full video. At 0:15 Arbery is running toward the truck. A dark, blurry image of Travis can be seen in the distance. No evidence whatsoever of Travis pointing his shotgun at Arbery. At 0:18, Arbery is seen beginning his charge at Travis.
I slowed this down to 25% speed, and the events are the same.

 

[protectionist]

LOLOLOLOL

Poor, deranged gramps. Reality is not refuted because you're too senile to recognize it.



And the reality is she admitted lethal force was not necessary; AND she admitted she mistakenly grabbed her firearm, that she intended to grab her taser; AND she admitted she accidentally killed him by employing the wrong weapon.

It's cute though watching you classify your whiney rejections of that as "refutation."

"Admitted" ? HA HA. Looks like you haven't read my refutes. That's OK. Live in ignorance, little boy.

 

[protectionist]

Retard, we've been over this... a) the video is too grainy to discern where the gun is pointing; b) at times in the video, you don't even see Travis at all as the camera pans off to the side; and c) Travis testified he had indeed pointed his shotgun at Arbery as he approached the truck.

Your senility is not a substitute for the facts in the case.

Travis testified that he was attacked. He did not testify that he pointed his gun before the attack at Arbery, and you haven't produced a shred of evidence that he did.

In addition, in Post 249 you wildly claimed >> "McMichael pointed his gun illegally at Arbery as he approached the parked truck"

Then, a few minutes later (Post 253) you contradicted yourself and said >. a) the video is too grainy to discern where the gun is pointing;"

Faun: you're a basket case.

 

[Faun]

Travis McMichael did not testify that he pointed his shotgun at Arberry when Arberry was running toward the truck.

You're beyond deranged, gramps.

Yes, he testified he pointed his gun at Arbery running down the road towards him, hoping it would deter Arbery...

Man who shot Arbery testifies: ‘He had my gun. He struck me’ - Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News

BRUNSWICK, Ga. (AP) — The man who fatally shot Ahmaud Arbery spoke publicly about the killing for the first time Wednesday, testifying at his murder<a class="excerpt-read-more" href="https://whdh.com/news/man-who-shot-arbery-testifies-he-had-my-gun-he-struck-me/">Read More</a>

whdh.com

McMichael testified that he pointed his gun at Arbery — saying his intent was to get him to back off — and Arbery then turned and ran around the passenger side.​

 

[Faun]

I watched part of the McMicheal trial, but none of it needed to be watched. All that needed to be watched was the video of the attack against Travis McMichael, and the self-defense shooting of Amaud Arberry.

Travis McMichael did not testify that he pointed his shotgun at Arberry when Arberry was running toward the truck. He testified that he pointed it at Arberry when Arberry was alongside the truck, and was charging at him.

Faun is a warehouse of misinformation. Sure Potter lied about the shooting being accidental. She knows that the liberal courts in Minneapolis are filled with liberal airheads like Faun, who are oblivious to how police work. They act like any shooting of a black man by police, is murder (or in this case manslaughter), and have no idea about police self-defense procedure. Ho hum. Same old clueless Faun.

LOLOL

You're insane, Gramps. You're literally claiming Potter shot him knowing she was going to go to jail.

 

[Faun]

You're lying. Once Arbery, got to the front of the truck, he can clearly be seen suddenly veering to the left, and charging at Travis.

This CBS video is a clear example of biased leftist media, that has permeated this case. Among all its anti-McMichael propaganda, it shows a doctored video (shades of 1993-Rodney King-KTLA), with the Arbery attacking part deleted out. Hey, what happened ABC ? Dog ate the attack part of the video ? Cat scratched it up ?

Notice how the CBS story interviews Arbery's mother and her lawyer. We don't see Travis' mother being interviewed, or some member of HIS family do we ? We don't see any mention of Travis' lawyer and what he says.



Here, below is the full video. At 0:15 Arbery is running toward the truck. A dark, blurry image of Travis can be seen in the distance. No evidence whatsoever of Travis pointing his shotgun at Arbery. At 0:18, Arbery is seen beginning his charge at Travis.
I slowed this down to 25% speed, and the events are the same.

LOL

Moron, again... the video is too grainy to see where the gun is pointed ... AND ... there are times on the video where Travis is not seen ... AND ... Travis testified he pointed his gun at Arbery as Arbery was approaching the truck.

You're inability to recognize reality, even when it's shoved in your face, reveals your senility.