Some Facts About the Kim Potter Case... MN Cop on Trial for Manslaughter.

We could have a hung jury as day three of deliberations appears to bring them no closer to a verdict. This is a sham of a trial. This officer should not have been charged with a crime.

 

And there was all that testimony about how he wasn't inside the car and so it leaving would not have endangered him. Maybe that was in the parts you still haven't watched?

 

Are you claiming you watched all of it? Maybe this was the part you did not watch.

 

Again: No thank you, they don't get paid what I get paid. I spent quite a lot of time, effort, money, and sacrificed things to get where I am now. I like it where I'm at, and don't feel the need to go become a cop because you were a 'volunteer deputy' (lol) and think that cops should skate crimes that any other citizen would catch a case on and any person who disagrees with you must go become a police officer post haste.

Do I like trashing cops? Not any more than I like trashing any other occupation. I will point out basic facts when people disregard them though, and law as well. Particularly when they disregard things because they view the occupation as a sacred cow, I'll point out the dirt and grime. The more you get aggravated that I point out basic facts and law that don't go well for your totem, the more necessary it is for me to do so.

 

By definition no jury is ever present for the alleged crime. All we're doing is playing jury here while we talk about it in the court of public opinion.

Calm down there Boss Hogg.

 

I just can't see her being convicted. I really can't. You don't go locking up pilots, doctors, and others for making mistakes that accidentally kill people. Unless you can prove that it wasn't an accident and that, in this case, she premeditated the killing of a black person just because she wanted to. Anyone with a lick of common sense can see that that was not the case here. So, she has to walk.

 

Yet the jury is deadlocked after three days of deliberation. That this woman was ever even criminally charged is a travesty.

 

No need to be cryptic dear. If you find I've used a term wrong, do explain.

The shooting was wrongful and Wright was not an imminent threat: ergo the case is fairly caught.
None of the officers have offered that they thought he was going for a gun and so needed to be shot.
This is becoming less fun the more anemic your argument becomes.

Indeed the consequences will be serious IE she's catching 2nd degree manslaughter.

IDK how much more clear I can be about him being a scumbag or even trying to flee not making it open season on scumbags. He's a piece of ****, so stipulated. You know, I had a probate case one time where my client was the surviving sibling of the deceased and the estranged wife (still married, had filed for divorce though that is not enough) was suspected of basically murdering him by refusing to take him to the hospital when he started coughing up coffee ground style emesis (vomit filled with blood clots). Not enough evidence to make it stick so we couldn't trigger the slayer rule. Client is upset, says she'd been cheating on him ffs moved her boyfriend in to the house as they were wheeling out the corpse (literally). So its contentious. I know the other attorney from around the bar and he lives in my neighborhood so he stops by and we're talking privately. He mentions its been contentious. I agree and explain look chuck the thing is my client thinks your client is a dirty legged whore. He pauses a moment, considers and responds: So stipulated Counsel, but what does that have to do with the legally required outcome of the case?
Same thing here. So stipulated Spirit, dude was a POS and was fleeing: That does not equate to legal excuse to draw down on him and shoot him to death as you have already acknowledged. Now stop this foolishness.

 

The problem is people with limited information trying to influence people with absolutes of condemnation.
Far too much of that going on. You're welcome to your opinion. Not welcome to tell others they aren't, or to try to encourage the public to bypass the jury system and demand a hanging.
Two sides to the story- then theirs yours, and you were not there either.

 

I'm claiming to have seen both parts described. I'm referencing the 2nd part because it rebutted the 1st part which you described.
I referenced it that way for a reason. Were you aware of the testimony which revealed the officer wasn't in the car and so wasn't in danger?

 

They also spent a lot of time effort, money and sacrificed things to get where they are. Now on duty they are jeopardizing it all because all too many people believe they can simply make a decision which hurts no one. They makes those decisions in less than a second and then they are second guessed hours at a time. Not only do they have to fear the bad guys, but they also have to fear the do-good guys. Never mind the fact that the bad guys don't follow the same rule book.

This whole case in insane. In no other profession I know of is the risk so high of getting killed or put in prison for trying to do a good job.

 

He was leaning in the car and in danger of being dragged. Again, you are looking at it like she had hours to make up her mind. In most cases, life or death is a matter of very few seconds.

 

I've seen the trial so I've got the same information (actually more since the jury doesn't get to see out of their presence motions and discussions) the jury does Honored Deputy Fife.

We're not discussing opinion, we're talking about facts adduced at trial. Facts are not a matter of opinion.

Now you're just being defamatory. I encouraged no one to bypass the jury system and demanded no hanging. You're being silly.

 

Kim Potter was the victim of a stress induced “capture” error. It’s a phenomenon that has been studied by experts in multiple different industries and occupations.

If you imprison her, you are imprisoning her for being human.

Explained here ...

https://www.forcescience.org/2021/04/unintended-a-theory-of-taser-weapon-confusion/

 

And nobody says she was entitled to shoot him- including the officer herself. What he was going for is unknown, but the circumstances fit the assumption it was probably for a weapon. The officer acknowledges accountability, she not saying it didn't happen or that he did hold a weapon; she's saying she made a mistake. Given that- why do we need hostile damnation for her? Profit or power, perhaps?
Lawyers and prosecutors sit in their offices and contrive strategies long before court sessions, and with rare exception they don't give a damn about what's right or wrong- only winning and they will do whatever they can to facilitate that.

If you are a lawyer, thinking in terms of the wrongful damage suits possible, it would explain your position. I've been asked by lawyers "How much justice can you afford?" and I've won cases where the legal fees were three times what it would have cost to have just paid off an unjust claim. Been an expert witness several times- and lawyers don't like the way I do that, because I know how to play the game. Part of that game is to disqualify or hide facts that hurt your case and emphasize points that you can imply are facts that benefit your case. Lawyer tries to cut me off, and I turn to the judge and tell him I;m sworn to tell the whole truth- and I get to provide the rest of it. Witnesses lie, but next to most lawyers, they are usually gross amateurs.

EVERY case is about justice for all as well as justice in the case at hand. The objectives suffer because people tend to have situational ethics and character instead of a consistent moral compass. That may be a widespread human failing, but it's one detrimental to everyone. If you give a damn about tomorrow- you have to do the right thing today. We are failing that. I'm not going to help those doing so.

 

Again: There was about an hour of cross and direct examination of other officers, with video tape played and discussed, where we learn he was not in fact in danger of being dragged and was not in fact inside the car, leaned or otherwise.

 

I've seen a lot more BS "facts" at trials than truth. The jury's biggest job is literally to sort those lies out, and they often can't because of the skills of distortion and manipulation the lawyers have in constructing them. I think you are just adding fuel to the process.

 

So. You did not actually watch all the trial either and are taking one small part of the testimony as being the truth. I can find nothing different than what I quoted.

 

Indeed she was not entitled to plug him, which is why she's catching the case. Pointing this out when others would excuse, exculpate, or acquit her, is not hostile damnation. I'm not cursing her name. I'm pointing out she's over the line and we must therefore mark it zero. I derive no profit from a discussion on the internet about an interesting court case ffs.

And police get to lie in the course of their duty whereas if I get caught lying I get my card pulled. They also are 40% domestic violence perps. See there? We can bring up many generalizations about each other's occupations which are irrelevant to the case at hand.

Dude I don't practice in Minnesota ffs. I have no dog in this fight other than that I enjoy discussing interesting legal cases.

No officer claimed they thought he was going for a weapon. He was driving off. Stop inserting things. You talk about lawyers lying or obscuring things, and here you are guilty of it. Projection is often a sign of a person crying for help. Do you need help?

I'm rather consistent: You kill someone without legal excuse, and everyone including the officer agree there was no legal excuse, then you catch a case based on the mens rea that applies. Here its negligence and recklessness and 2nd degree manslaughter fits that exactly. Situational ethics are what you endorse by saying she's a cop so we should let her off because we have to think of 'justice for all' and 'give a damn about tomorrow'.

 

Guess what I don't do as an attorney? Step across the line that my ethical and legal requirements hold is the limit to my remit. If I do that, I get ****ed to death (figuratively speaking).
I had to pay around a 100K for school once you lump in undergrad, thousands for lsat and bar prep. Going to law school and working full time during a good part of it (after 1st year) aggravated a condition I have and put me in the hospital. Preparing for the bar and pounding through 3 days of testing that some people commit suicide over was rough.
I wouldn't risk that by violating my ethical duties or exceeding the bounds of my authority under the law. But lawyers do it every day. I make a point to read the disbarment and disciplinary notices in the state bar journal every month. Those people sacrificed similarly to me, they made mistakes, and they got the punishment for that the law prescribes. I don't see why a police officer should be different.

Theoretically its an occupation, not a profession, because it is not amenable to what is known as the 'professional standard' of torts. Plenty of jobs are dangerous as **** in the normal course of their duties. Often the people who take those jobs up do so fully aware of the risks and often they take a pride in braving that risk. It comes with the territory. Don't take that job if you're worried about it, its a CBA like anything else.

 

I watched the trial, recall that its you who freely admits you haven't seen the whole thing. Go watch the testimony of the other officers, all several hours of it, and then come tell us you could find nothing different.

 

Dude you literally just accused me of demanding a lynching. Come off it.

 

Where was the recklessness. In the heat of the moment, she thought it was necessary.

This case may be being prosecuted according to the law, but it is not justice. You have a person who was already in violation of the law who then then evaded arrest and gets killed. He was killed because of an innocent mistake. I say innocent because the intent was not to kill him. The intent was to stop him and prevent the injury of death of a fellow officer. You can claim that other officer was not in danger, but that is based on inconclusive evidence when everyone has time to investigate at their leisure. She did not have a leisure. Then the wolves throw it all on a public servant who was trying to do her job under circumstances that most of us never encounter. It is disgusting.

 

You watched the whole thing? The lawyering business must be slow. See my comments above.

 

She admits and so do you and so do the other officers that lethal force wasn't on the table. She's been trained that she might confuse her taser and pistol in the heat of the moment and that she must be on guard against that. That she should check to ensure what's in hand. She has 5-8 seconds to decide, that's a bit of time not a split second. She knows she should check, knows if she doesn't she might shoot someone erroneously, disregards that training and possibility, and pulls the trigger on what turns out to be that pistol she disregarded she might be holding erroneously and kills a man.
There's your recklessness.

Its not innocent just because she lacked an intentional mens rea. Recklessness is a criminally culpable mental state and she had it.

People are charged all the time for reckless mistakes they make. None of them get the defense of "they're a cop so
The law is the law man, and this ain't some piddling prohibition statute or other petty thing its a law against recklessly killing a man.
You don't take someone's life and plead oops and skate. That's not how we deal with homicides. You either had a legal excuse, which we all freely admit she didn't, or you catch a case.