Potter convicted

[JohnKSa]

Several officers, and the defense’s use-of-force expert, testified that Potter would have been fully justified in shooting Wright in order to protect the other officer from being dragged by the car.

The problem is that by her own admission she would not have been. When she stated that she didn't mean to shoot him on video, that was equivalent to stating that she did not believe deadly force was justified.

It is not possible to claim that deadly force was justified if you admit that you did not intend to use deadly force. Once you admit that you did not intend to use deadly force, you are also stating that deadly force was not, in your opinion necessary and therefore it was not, in your opinion justified either.

And now, back to Kim Potter's case: Ann Coulter has weighed in, with some details that may have escaped your attention (since the mainstream media don't want to to know about them.

Most of that is irrelevant to the case in terms of legality. The only things relevant to the case would be what Potter knew, or would be expected to know at the time.

That is, she knew why they stopped him and that he had a warrant on a weapons charge. Since that's all she knew, that's all that is relevant to the actions that she took.

 

[Eight_is_enough]

It is not possible to claim that deadly force was justified if you admit that you did not intend to use deadly force. Once you admit that you did not intend to use deadly force, you are also stating that deadly force was not, in your opinion necessary and therefore it was not, in your opinion justified either.

My guess is they were not arguing that SD/DOO should have been argued, but that the situation she was in certainly bears upon whether she was "negligent" or not.

When you are trying to figure out whether your fellow office is about to be run over by a scumbag who couldn't care less whether he killed or maimed a cop, so long as he got away with it, that sort of DISTRACTS you from verifying which tool you are holding.

 

[JohnKSa]

No question that there was a lot going on. I don't think there's any question that she made a mistake. The issue is that the jury felt the mistake sufficiently negligent to be criminal. Like the 23yo who was sentenced to life in prison for making a mistake while driving a semi. He was distracted by a brake failure and made some mistakes that were determined to be sufficiently negligent to be criminal.

 

[Eight_is_enough]

Or, as someone noted above, perhaps they were intimidated by the mobs of protestors screaming for "justice" that could be heard through the courtroom windows and voted to convict out of fear.

All I can say is that I am shocked there were not at least a couple of jurors willing to refuse to convict Potter of anything, much less the more serious charge.

The prosecution also did everything they could to make Potter look as bad as possible to the jury, such as by pointing out minor discrepancies in pre-arrest statements and arguing they showed recklessness.

It is called prosecutorial discretion, and it has been completely absent in not only the two cop-manslaughter trials in that courtroom but also in the Colorado truck crash case you mentioned.

I will give you an example. 15 or so years ago here a pastor heard a break-in of his nearby church (via a baby monitor), went (armed) to investigate and caught two burglars inside. They pushed past him on some stairs and went out the window they had come in. He shot both of them as they ran away, killing one. They were unarmed, but had abandoned a stolen .357 downstairs, left on top of a water-heater, when they heard the pastor come in.

The prosecutor let the jury be told about the .357, even though it obviously had nothing to do with the pastor's decision to shoot and so he probably could have kept it out, because the pastor had no idea it was there when he shot. The jury acquitted.

The prosecutor was a good friend. I never asked him about that his decision to not try to prevent the jury from learning about the .357, but I knew him well enough at the time to guess that whether the existence of the gun was technically admissible or not under the Rules of Evidence, it was something the jury needed to know to reach a just decision.

We don't have that sort of thing going on now. We have the opposite of that, with prosecutors vilifying cops who make mistakes. As Aguila pointed out, don't be surprised if the politically-driven prosecutor in L. A. prosecutes whichever cop fired the bullet that went thru the wall of the dressing room and killed that girl. We can talk about why if you want to expand the rules on permissible posts.

The problem is not the cops, it is the people they are having to deal with, who are getting more and more violent and bold with each passing day.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

In fact, it's even a bit of a stretch to make this incident fit the definition of second degree manslaughter.

Are you evolving from your earlier stmt that she should have been convicted of something?

No, I'm not "evolving" from my earlier statement. The Potter case isn't a perfect fit for the second degree manslaughter charge, but in real life circumstances often aren't a perfect fit with the precise language of laws. That's one of the reasons why we have courts and juries.

My position remains that -- in general -- manslaughter is when someone kills another person without intending to kill them. In the Potter case, that's exactly what happened. For the general populace, we are generally held (and rightly so) to the concept that we own every bullet we fire. I don't subscribe to the notion that police officers are special. Police officers are civilians. We arm them, but we do so with the understanding that they are supposed to use their weapons only when needed, and that they are subjects of the same laws that the rest of us are subject to.

I don't have a problem with the second degree manslaughter charge. I also wouldn't be burning down any courthouses if the jury had acquitted her, and I hope the judge imposes a minimum sentence now that she has been convicted.

 

[Eight_is_enough]

I have a problem with it. Go back to the definitions you quoted above. How can you say she "consciously" took the chance of killing or inflicting great bodily harm when she thought she had a taser in her hand?

This was not some "hunting" or "range games" accident, this mistake was made in the heat of a life-and-death situation, by a "good guy" who had put her life on the line for 27 years to help keep the rest of us safe.

I am stunned that people here of all places want to focus on technicalities and say, there it is, she's gotta go to prison.

You wrote: "My position remains that -- in general -- manslaughter is when someone kills another person without intending to kill them."

So if a drunk wearing black clothes lies down in a poorly lighted section of a thoroughfare, and you come along and hit and kill him, you committed manslaughter?

No, classic manslaughter was when you punched a guy and he fell, hit his head and died. It has always required at least some bad act to go with the fact of killing.

Here the requirement was "consciously took a chance of death, etc."

I don't see it.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

How can you say she "consciously" took the chance of killing or inflicting great bodily harm when she thought she had a taser in her hand?

Because tasers are not non-lethal weapons and have killed numerous people. They are 'less lethal' weapons.
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/n...undreds-deaths-like-daunte-wright/7221153002/
https://cvpcs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/content/projects/Taser Media CPP.pdf

I am stunned that people here of all places want to focus on technicalities and say, there it is, she's gotta go to prison.

The law is nothing if not 'technicalities.'

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I have a problem with it. Go back to the definitions you quoted above. How can you say she "consciously" took the chance of killing or inflicting great bodily harm when she thought she had a taser in her hand?

The definition of Second Degree Manslaughter -- the only part of the definition that could possible apply in this case is the first:

(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or

I understand your position. In my opinion, it's arguable ... which is why I wrote that I would not have been upset if she had been acquitted. My perspective is that she was a senior officer, a 27-year veteran of the force, and a (or maybe "the") departmental training officer, yet she was so unprepared for when the balloon went up that in a stressful situation she reached for her firearm when what she wanted to do was reach for her Taser. Being unprepared to do the job you're paid to do is, in my view, a conscious choice.

With all that said, I mentioned Coulter's article and the Los Angeles officer-involved-shooting because it's another case in which an officer, acting in the line of duty, killed someone they didn't intend to shoot. And my thought is that, (a) if we are supposed to always be mindful of what's beyond our target, and (b) Potter was charged with [essentially] taking a careless risk -- shouldn't the LA officer be likewise charged? Or, conversely, if the LA officer isn't charged because "he was just doing his job," then I'd have to say that Potter should not have been charged, either.

To bring in another parallel: At least one of the charges against Kyle Rittenhouse was negligence, and that was charged because when he shot one of his assailants there was someone behind the aforementioned assailant. Same thing -- if Rittenhouse was charged, then the LA officer should be charged.

Discussion welcome -- but please keep it civil.

 

[zukiphile]

Like BornFighting, I say when you are in the process of being arrested for an outstanding warrant on a firearm violation, and you suddenly break away, jump behind the wheel and try to speed away, mistakes may be made. I said the little JA perp felon brought it on himself.

This was not some "hunting" or "range games" accident, this mistake was made in the heat of a life-and-death situation, by a "good guy" who had put her life on the line for 27 years to help keep the rest of us safe.

Your analysis appears dominated by who the people were rather than what they did. There is something perfectly natural about that, to wish good results for good people and cosmic punishment for the bad. Yet, that isn't law.

I'd resist the sentiment that a felon with a warrant assumes the risk of police misconduct, whether it's an accident on the way to the station, a wood shampoo once he arrives or a PO who is confused by stress.

I am stunned that people here of all places want to focus on technicalities and say, there it is, she's gotta go to prison.

The court saw enough evidence to support the charge, deny the motion to acquit and let the jury deliberate.

Why would send someone like Potter to prison? Who are we "deterring" with her imprisonment? Other cops?

Yes.

 

[Jim Watson]

How about trashing the yellow gadgets and letting it be known that fighting cops is not survivable?
I know, not PC now, but as Jerry Pournelle said, when something cannot go on, it will stop.

 

[ghbucky]

Like a lot of you, I was a bit confused by the verdict. But I then put myself in the shoes of a juror, and what did I see?

I saw a cop shoot someone (potentially justifiably), but then immediately begin wailing about shooting him and exclaiming "I'm going to prison!".

Then she got on the witness stand and cried AGAIN "I didn't want to hurt anyone!" At that point, she just blew up any attempt to convince me that she was actually justified.

Now, I'm a juror who just went through having my life completely disrupted during the holidays and I'm also faced with the potential of backlash for acquittal.

If the defendant keeps saying she is guilty, why would I want to argue with her? What I want to know is why the hell did she plead not guilty?

With all that said, I mentioned Coulter's article and the Los Angeles officer-involved-shooting because it's another case in which an officer, acting in the line of duty, killed someone they didn't intend to shoot. And my thought is that, (a) if we are supposed to always be mindful of what's beyond our target, and (b) Potter was charged with [essentially] taking a careless risk -- shouldn't the LA officer be likewise charged? Or, conversely, if the LA officer isn't charged because "he was just doing his job," then I'd have to say that Potter should not have been charged, either.

I will be completely shocked if the Soros DA in LA county doesn't go after that cop with everything.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Who are we "deterring" with her imprisonment? Other cops?

We may not be deterring anybody. The notion of passing sentence or not passing sentence because of how it will impact society instead of worrying about whether or not the person is actually guilty of a crime is pretty absurd. No doubt it may happen and when it does, justice is not actually being served.

I have seen plenty of LEOs and DAs speaking after some sort of success legal action about how "We have sent a clear message to those who have or will do X, Y, and Z..." when they haven't done squat. "Clear messages" don't seem to affect crime one iota.

Will other cops be deterred by a singular conviction? Not really. They are not apt to think that they would make such a major mistake.

Think about it this way. How many news reports have we seen about a driver driving the wrong way on a highway and getting killed? Does that deter any of us from driving? Nope. How about drivers crossing over the center line and killing an entire family? Does that deter anybody from driving? No. When the survivors of these acts get convicted, does that deter any of us from driving? Nope.

Will this deter cops? Nope.

How about trashing the yellow gadgets and letting it be known that fighting cops is not survivable?

Yes, let's put cops above the law where they can use lethal force on anybody that simply fights with the cops or resists arrest. What a great idea!

 

[Eight_is_enough]

Your analysis appears dominated by who the people were rather than what they did. There is something perfectly natural about that, to wish good results for good people and cosmic punishment for the bad. Yet, that isn't law.

Not at all. It has nothing to do with "who they were" and everything to do with "what they were doing."

I don't care if they are black, white, green or pink, or whether they are cops or felons out on parol -- if they are trying to do the right thing (you know, like protecting another innocent person while apprehending a fugitive felon) and accidentally kill someone in the process, I'm probably not going to be in favor of sending them to prison.

 

[Jim Watson]

Yes, let's put cops above the law where they can use lethal force on anybody that simply fights with the cops or resists arrest. What a great idea!

That is the way it used to be before Tasers were invented.

But Plan B: Furnish only Tasers to the Criminal Response Social Workers and let them call real cops if they can't handle it. This used to work in England, the Bobby had his truncheon and they only gave out Webleys to Firearms Officers in dire cases.

Real 21st Century. Carry on. There will be no real changes in procedures, just lip service to "more training" and a big legal bill.

 

[Metal god]

IMO, she is probably not competent to be a cop.
She did not measure up to the stress and skill required. She is responsible for killing someone who probably should not have been killed.

Some accountability is necessary.

I agree completely , with great power comes great responsibility . As a LEO with all that "training" you don't get to make mistakes that end in loss of life then say oops sorry my bad and walk away .

I did follow the trial quite a bit and thought the prosecution did not do a very good job and the defense did quite well . That said I never fully understood the charges or how they applied . I've read and been told several times about the charges but still don't get the conscious aspect or maybe better said would be don't bye that reasoning . I don't like legal definitions that by simply lying gets you out of the responsibility .

If I'm hearing some of you right , all a cop or anyone for that matter needs to say is . I intended to do this and accidentally did that . I never consciously intended to do the really bad thing , I was only trying to do the kinda bad thing . Oops sorry can I go home now ?

NOPE - sorry nobody that we allow to have some power over the citizenry including politicians , prosecutors , judges whomever gets to say oops my bad lets act like this never happened . I'm going home now for a good night sleep while that family , community , country sits in there devastation .

WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY . And I don't mean politicians type of responsibility where they say I take FULL responsibility but suffer NO consequence . That's not taking responsibility , that's simply saying oops sorry my bad and going home for that good night sleep they so deserve

That all said I'm not sure what all the consequences should be for Potter . As a LEO I don't think losing your job and not being liked by the community is quite enough consequence for wrongly taking a life . The one thing I do know is I'm glad I was not on that jury . The Rittenhouse and Aubrey cases seemed easy to agree with based on the evidence and the law as described in each case. The Potter case not so much or maybe this is all a moral thing to me . You don't get to attack me and I not be able to defend my self , You don't get to chase me down and try to arrest me for a crime you have no knowledge of and you don't get to kill me because you accidentally pulled the wrong weapon . Maybe it's just me but these seem like common sense types of arguments .

That all said again , that all does not get into the idea that if she had said nothing and just shot him . She likely would not have faced any charges and that's where being on the jury would have been very confusing to me . How can you convict someone for accidentally/ wrongfully/recklessly doing something they in all actuality legally could do had they not misrepresented what they intended to do .

IDK every time I think about this case I get all conflicted on what the outcome should have been . Like the real question that needs answering . Who caused the death of Mr Write . Potter for shooting him or Mr. Write for trying to flee a legal arrest and putting multiple officers in harms way ?

 

[Metal god]

Think about it this way. How many news reports have we seen about a driver driving the wrong way on a highway and getting killed? Does that deter any of us from driving? Nope. How about drivers crossing over the center line and killing an entire family? Does that deter anybody from driving? No. When the survivors of these acts get convicted, does that deter any of us from driving? Nope.

There is so much to say to that I don't even know where to begin except eer-wait what ????

I've seen A LOT and it causes me pause EVERY time I'm diving on a divided road with no barrier . In fact I'll often drive in the far right lane because of that . So yes it matters a great deal when I see things like that just like when a cop sees they will be convicted for doing what they believe is lawful . Are you really saying you think this does not impact how cops at least in that city will do there jobs moving forward . I've already heard off the record reports that many cops plan to no longer carry a teaser on duty . Why bother having one if simply killing the suspect with your gun is more likely to result in no criminal charges .

I mean are you saying criminals will not learn anything with this outcome . I'd have to agree , Cops keep shooting fleeing subjects and yet they keep running I thinks it's pretty clear , if you run from a lawful arrest you better expect to be shot .

 

[JohnKSa]

The point is that Potter wasn't the first to confuse a taser with a pistol, nor the first to be convicted for shooting someone when they meant to tase them.

Deputy Robert Bates killed an Oklahoma man he meant to tase back in 2015. He was convicted and sentenced to 4 years.

Obviously that didn't deter Potter from doing the same 6 years later and suffering the same fate.

In 2019, Officer Julia Crews shot a person she meant to tase. She was fired and charged with second degree assault. The charges were later dropped due to the fact that the victim was willing to undergo an unusual process called Justice Restoration Mediation with Crews.

Officer Marcy Noriega killed Edvardo Torres when she accidentally drew her service pistol instead of a taser.

In 2009, Officer Johannes Mehserle killed Oscar Grant when he confused his service pistol for a taser. He was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 2 years.

Potter was involved in training so she probably knew about all of these incidents.

Does the prosecution send a message? I think it does. But it's one that's been sent before.

Does it provide deterrence? History says that if it does it's not a very good deterrent. It doen't deter people for the same reason that horrific traffic accidents don't keep people from driving. For the same reason that horrific gun accidents don't keep people from handling guns carelessly. For the same reason that people engage in all kinds of risky behaviors even though they know the possible consequences. They don't think it will happen to them.

 

[Metal god]

Does it provide deterrence? I don't think so--for the same reason that horrific traffic accidents don't keep people from driving. They don't think it will happen to them.

You changed your post now my comment below seems a bit out of context .

Again that is the wrong question , nothing reasonable about it . you are not comparing apples to apples . No it doesn't keep us from driving just like this does not keep cops from showing up for work tomorrow . It will cause changes in how they do there job just like our driving will change . It's not that we stop it's that we change how we go about it in the future .

Look no further then the demonizing of the police in 2020 and how many LEO's created an unwritten rule to no longer enforce some laws because it was not worth the "fake" backlash that could ensue . They didn't stop going to work ( driving ) they just stopped doing there jobs well haha .

 

[JohnKSa]

Yes, sorry, I edited it to add more examples of previous accidental shootings related to Taser confusion and then changed some other stuff too.

It will cause changes in how they do there job just like our driving will change . It's not that we stop it's that we change how we go about it in the future .

Except that I don't think it does.

When you see footage of a wreck on the news, do you actually drive differently? If you do modify your behavior, do you modify it forever or does it fade from your mind after a day or two at which time you go back to normal?

I know a guy who has had two unintentional discharges that I know of, the first of which resulted in an accidental killing--the second one was in a gun shop. Clearly even going through the tragedy of accidentally killing someone didn't make enough of an impression to modify his behavior, not even in public.

We continually see all kinds of horrific things going on around us and we only rarely modify our behavior at all--and then it's often only temporary modification.

If it actually happens to US, then (assuming we survive) we might make changes, but even in those cases we often revert back to our normal behavior after awhile.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

That is the way it used to be before Tasers were invented.

You act like that was a good thing. And that didn't change citizen (non-cop) behavior, did it? Nope. Thuglife cops are not a good answer to the Taser issue, LOL.

I've seen A LOT and it causes me pause EVERY time I'm diving on a divided road with no barrier

Oh boy, you think about it, and yet you keep right on driving knowing full well that somebody may come across the center line and kill you. In other words, your behavior really has not changed.