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

I have serious doubts about your objectivity given the way you refer to law enforcement officers.

 

That is not the same as reckless. I assume you have never made a mistake in court and said the wrong thing at the wrong time. Was that reckless?

 

Its called a weekend my dude. I'm not a very interesting person really, big legal nerd and me and the wife are both introverts so its not like we have a whirlwind social calendar other than date nights. We also work together (she closes files in my title company) so we need a bit of alone time and this is normally what I choose since it lets me get out all the urges to be impolite or testy that I accrue over the course of a day having to put the mask on and not let people know what I really think of their stupid ****ing ideas since I'm running a business.
I also like to listen to things like that while I'm unwinding with a little turn based video game playing in the evenings. Sue me.

 

You could not watch it in a weekend.

 

Please don't cut the quotes dear, what I write is there for a reason.

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.

Now to your question: No, no mistakes I have made in court amount to the criminally culpable mental state known as 'recklessness'. At no time in court did I consciously disregard a risk someone might be physically harmed and proceed with actions which then caused physical harm.

I have driven recklessly before however, disregarding the possibility that someone might be hurt while I operated a motor vehicle in a dangerous manner (at age 1 and had I been caught I would've caught a felony for it.

 

You're forgetting "and evenings" but then you have a habit of leaving things out which is rather interesting I think.

Add up how long the trial has been going on... choooga chooga chooga I think you can I think you can I think you can chooga chooga chooga

 

From a person demanding that status as law enforcement should act to exculpate her or otherwise demands an acquittal, I think I'll take that as a compliment.

 

As a lawyer, you must be able to find where I said that.

You did not say "and evenings".

 

Please don't make me go drag up all your she's a cop you can't do this to her bullshit. You know what you said. If you'd like to invoke me as a lawyer, please pay my hourly rate and standard retainer charged to clients who refuse to follow instructions or advice, $5,000.00. Its only 20hours at my hourly rate which I'm sure we'll go through pretty quickly discussing your foolishness. You have the minerals for that?


Reading is fundamental dear.

 

I never once said it was because she was a cop.

I can hire an idiot a lot cheaper than that.

 

It's called wokism, par for the course for Minnesota.

 

I wouldn't argue that lawyers violate the letter of their rules- but I would argue that they violate the spirit of the law with intent and consistency. Not a pursuit of justice, but a pursuit to win.
The "rules" are often convenient ways to block defense, used as an adversary weapon. For example I had sued a guy who owed us money, and as we looked into his legal record it was littered with people he was trying to stiff. He had 12 judgments entered in 12 months with nobody collecting a dime. He had positioned himself and his assets to be judgement proof- even as CEO of a corporation. Now while that clearly establishes a pattern of character, you can't use that in court. At the completion of the trial, the judge called us into chambers and said- "I can't decide. You two will have to settle this between yourselves"..... My attorney looked at me and said- "what the hell do I do with that?" At least the judge was being honest about his incompetency. So- we moved to chambers.

After pushing the judge on how he would decide if he had to decide, he admitted it would be for me. The defendant then told me I could take a cashier's check for 10% of what he owed, or take the judgement and wipe my ass with it. SAID THAT IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE. His attorney was of course complicit in his method of operating. He had helped him make his assets untouchable, told him how to word things and do things in a way that would allow him to screw people. All legal.

I once had stored property in a building destroyed by a fire- and the building owner said under oath that he knew nothing about it. I found the arsonist he hired and brought him to court, where he testified to the deal and the act. I brought estimates of value and of replacement value for lost goods, plus actual deposit checks on some of the goods that had already been sold and pending delivery. That would seem like a tight case, and I won. But the judgement was for- nothing; the judge said we hadn't established the merchandise was worth anything. They didn't charge the building owner with perjury nor the arsonist with arson. The defendant remarked on the way out of court that I had paid the wrong person. I hired a lawyer, he hired a judge.

Like I said- i understand how the game works. The last thing a person should expect from the justice system system is that things will be just and fair. Maybe someday- we will stop putting up with that crap.
In the meantime it will continue to be abusive. My one advantage over many people is that I know what to expect.

 

How's the saying go? I'd rather be judged by twelve than carries by six? Not so sure about that any more.

 

And did this fantastic anecdote occur on 123 Fake Street?

What you describe is basic business structuring. Obtaining a judgment is different than enforcing it, and offering to pay you in full to settle it now or you could take your chances with collection is a standard thing.

 

Sorry, was rushing through here and didn't edit my error: pay you 10% rather than in full

 

Well, Mr Perfect. You made a mistake. You had many minutes to think about it, but in a moment of carelessness, you made a mistake. Fortunately, no lives were involved, but that was just luck.

 

Point 1 is actually a point that justifies manslaughter. Manslaughter is an accidental and negligent act that results in death. That fact actually supports manslaughter.

Point 2 is not a point at all. It was history. Being an ex con doesn’t strip you of rights to life

Point 3 is a valid point but I doubt it will outweigh the neglect in her actions.

I am going to politely disagree. Cops who do cause death that was unwarranted should be held accountable. Not because the perp was black but because they are citizens as well.

 

"10% or you can wipe your ass with the judgment". That's the kind of support you can expect from law. I'm all in favor of the law- providing the process respects honesty and protects it. When a member of the bar thinks screwing someone out of justly owed money constitutes justice, that's not a "win", and it's neither justice nor respectable. And that is precisely why the system is not trusted- it's not trustworthy. It a damn game. It's also why lawyer jokes are popular- they represent real life perceptions of their game.

I didn't ask the law to enforce a judgment- but I do expect it to recognize a pattern of theft protected by shyster moves. The legal profession, or should I say industry- is mostly a cash cow being milked at the expense of people trying to get justice. I've known some good lawyers, and was a good friend of a district judge for many years- and the good ones look at the bad ones just like I do; as a plague on the system.

I've been a business owner and operator since 1967, founded 8 companies and do business all over the world today. So my experience covers a lot of time and territory- quite possibly some before you were out of diapers. Things continue to get worse because character continues to degrade in the system. That's not an accident, it's their choice. Integrity is not a respected principle- it's just a negotiable, saleable cosmetic tool. You can make yourself the exception, but since your opponents and the courts have made honor a deficit, few will.

 

It is a very good point. He was released and given a second chance (or third or fourth or whatever). He blew that second chance. Then he turns around and resists arrest which set the whole thing in motion. The people who let him loose and the ex-con themselves share blame for this because they set this whole situation up to start with. In spite of the left's good intentions, there are people in this world who are just bad people and any attempt to help them is apt to end in failure or disastrous failure like this one.

 

While I can agree with that, the very people pushing to hang the cops- are the ones giving the career thugs get out of jail free cards. That is also an act of negligence that has resulted in a great many deaths, and that makes them complicit to crimes- an accomplice, because they know they are releasing a dangerous threat on the public. How about we hold them accountable for that?
If they dumped rattlesnakes in a crowd, it would be similar- but less tolerated by the public.

This cop probably does fit the manslaughter charge. I think the same charge- being complicit in a death through negligence... fits a number of DA's and prosecutors as well, but we'll not see that admitted, let alone charged. Equal justice is not equal yet- and not getting better.

 

Good thing my recklessness was confined to dicking around with honored members of the brain trust on the internet for literally zero stakes, no?
Good thing I wasn't walking around clothed in the majesty of the law and armed with various weapons and training chanting a litany that will magically make me not pull my pistol and plug someone if I don't check what's in my hand, eh?

 

But you made a mistake. It was a mistake you should have never made because that is the sort of thing you do routinely. But you still made it. And you weren't even under any stress with the adrenalin going. No other distractions of having to be concerned with what other people were doing at the time. A single task under no stress and you screwed it up.

 

If he doesn't have the assets then yeah you can basically wipe your ass with that judgment. You can't get blood out of a stone and it seems you should've understood that before you incurred the expense of litigation.
It seems more like you don't understand entity theory or how corporate structuring works.
It also seems like you were unwilling to pay for a lawyer that is much good or to pay to collect on the judgment which is a separate action. Or to have a receiver appointed over any interests he has to get you paid, or to deal with the eventual bankruptcy trustee.
You didn't take the steps to protect your interest and you want to complain about it. I get it.
You didn't ask the court to enforce the judgment and you blame "memberof the bar" for lack of payment?
You wanted to admit propensity evidence to justify your case? And you're surprised whether he ****ed someone else sometime has no relevance on whether or not he ****ed you?
O my.
Don't take up your own interests, talk **** and blame everyone involved but yourself, and you want to talk about dishonorable conduct?

Stop this foolishness.

 

Lol do you think lawyers don't have to do drafts?

Do you think you get my 100% attention, focus, or skill without payment? Do you think the strippers like you too? My task was a danger to nothing and no one, hence it received little attention and focus. It was not maybe shooting a man to death.
Nuanced difference there bud.
The fact you're linking the two is sort of adorable though. Keep trying sport

 

Law enforcement does not have time for drafts.

We don't get paid on this forum.
You expect law enforcement to be right one hundred percent of the time. Not only that you expect them to be right one hundred percent of the time under stress when conditions are changing by the second. And yet you had all the time in the world and you still screwed it up.