Potter convicted

[Metal god]

The prosecution didn't have any evidence I saw that use of a taser was unreasonable. Cops are privileged to use force to effect arrests.

The state's use of force expert not only said the use of a taser was not justified . He also said and later tried to walk it back , that the police should have just let Dauntay go and arrest him later because they had all his info so they knew where to find him .

The states use of force expert said because the car could be driven away by Dauntay and if impaired by a taser or gun shot . That would likely cause a danger to others if Dauntay were to crash the car somewhere else because he was unable to control the car do to his injuries . It did not help the defense that Dauntay after being shot did drive off and hit another vehicle head on only a block away resulting in injuries to the occupants of the other vehicle .

It was interesting how there use of force expert reasoning could have been the same reasoning the cops could have used to justify deadly force . That again brings up the idea of having Dauntay turn the car off after they stopped him . I don't think that testimony would have carried as much weight had he not been able to drive off and cause that other accident .

The other interesting aspect of the case was that Dauntay not only had a warrant out for a gun related charge . That charge/act was Dauntay threatening his roommate at gun point for the rent money resulting in a restraining order against Dauntay as well . His roommate the person the restraining order was for was female and the unknown passenger in the car was also female . When the warrant and restraining order came back after running Dauntay's name . The cops had to both arrest Dauntay and figure out if the female in the car was the same female the restraining order was for . The cops were unable to figure out who the passenger was before Dauntay started resisting so as far as they knew the passenger was the female on the restraining order .

That was another factor that seemed to indicate simply letting Dauntay drive off with the unknown female in the car was not acceptable . It seemed to me the jury ignored many favorable factors for the defense that seem to indicate there was no way they could let Dauntay go as he resisted arrest as the states expert witness seemed to indicate should have been done .

 

[JohnKSa]

That was another factor that seemed to indicate simply letting Dauntay drive off with the unknown female in the car was not acceptable . It seemed to me the jury ignored many favorable factors for the defense that seem to indicate there was no way they could let Dauntay go as he resisted arrest as the states expert witness seemed to indicate should have been done .

It's moot. Even if they should have stopped him, and even if the circumstances warranted deadly force, the fact that Potter immediately admitted she didn't mean to shoot him was an ender from a legal standpoint. That admission was an admission of guilt. From there it was just a matter of what the sentence would be.

IMO, they went with a jury trial instead of pleading guilty because there was at least a small chance that the jury might feel sorry for her and let her off. But the question of guilt or innocence was settled at the point on the video where she said she didn't mean to shoot him.

Remember, it's sometimes justifiable to use deadly force intentionally, but it is never justifiable to use it unintentionally.

 

[Metal god]

It's moot. Even if they should have stopped him, and even if the circumstances warranted deadly force, the fact that Potter immediately admitted she didn't mean to shoot him was an ender from a legal standpoint. That admission was an admission of guilt. From there it was just a matter of what the sentence would be.

Many Lawyers on the net seem to say the charges she was convicted on need the conscious disregard or Potter knowing what she was about to do would cause death or great bodily harm . There claim is that she did not know/realize she had her gun instead of the taser . Therefore she could not have been conscious the act she was about to commit would result in Dauntay's death ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZUW-BBPGM0

Any thoughts ?

 

[JohnKSa]

There's no question that she used lethal force--she shot him.
There's no question she did not mean to--she admitted that at the scene.
There's no question, therefore, that her use of lethal force was not justifiable.

The only questions left are:
Does that rise to the level of a criminal offense, and if so, which one(s) and what should the sentence be?

Many Lawyers on the net seem to say the charges she was convicted on need the conscious disregard or Potter knowing what she was about to do would cause death or great bodily harm.

No matter what you believe, you can find someone else who believes the same thing on the internet. In fact, out of the 5 billion people on the internet, you can likely find "many" people who believe it. Whether it's true or not. And you can find even more people who will say they believe it if they think it will get them more page views/clicks.

I'm not going to get into the weeds of parsing manslaughter laws--I'll just say this: I did just a few minutes of research and found a number of cases where officers were convicted for doing what Potter did and posted some of them on this thread.

What does that say about a lawyer who is, or pretends to be, surprised at the outcome of the Potter case?

 

[tyme]

There's no question that she used lethal force--she shot him.
There's no question she did not mean to--she admitted that at the scene.
There's no question, therefore, that her use of lethal force was not justifiable.

You're glossing over the fact that cops can end up doing this without criminal negligence, whereas almost nobody else can. Virtually nobody else carries two gun-like weapons. Everyone else who accidentally shoots someone was at a minimum intentionally handling a gun and intentionally ignoring multiple safety rules regarding guns. That satisfies the recklessness element for criminal culpability within involuntary manslaughter.

When it's a cop reacting to a situation that's gone sideways, if the prosecution isn't going to dispute that the weapon confusion was a genuine accident—and they didn't dispute it in this case—how do you get to criminal responsibility?

I agree other cases of this sort have ended in involuntary manslaughter convictions, but we'd have to dig into those specific cases, and we don't have an easily and freely available record to look at to find out what the two sides argued at trial.

I don't see any argument on why prosecuting cops for these cases—if the prosecution has no hope of proving it wasn't an accident—is in the interest of justice or in the public interest. If we don't want cops to mix up guns and tasers, the answer is to train them better, or to take tasers away from them so they resort to some other non-lethal or less-lethal weapon which can't be easily confused with a gun in the chaos of dealing with a suspect who's trying to get away and potentially putting others in danger doing so.

 

[JohnKSa]

You're glossing over the fact that cops can end up doing this without criminal negligence, whereas almost nobody else can.

Well, for one thing, I wasn't addressing that issue at all.

Second, not only did Potter not get away with it, I provided a list above, the result of just a few minutes of online searching, of other cops that were convicted of shooting someone when they meant to use a taser.

So cops do get convicted for killing people by accident. I have no way of comparing that with how often non-LEOs get convicted for accidental killings. If you have some comparison data, I'd be very interested to see it.

When it's a cop reacting to a situation that's gone sideways, if the prosecution isn't going to dispute that the weapon confusion was a genuine accident—and they didn't dispute it in this case—how do you get to criminal responsibility?

I'm not sure I understand the question. You get to criminal responsibility just as was done in this case where the prosecution didn't dispute that weapons confusion was a genuine accident. They said that a person with her training and experience shouldn't have confused the two and the fact that she did was criminal.

I don't see any argument on why prosecuting cops for these cases—if the prosecution has no hope of proving it wasn't an accident—is in the interest of justice or in the public interest.

I didn't make one. Others have on this thread, and I tend to agree with them. We train cops and give them special powers. We expect that training and those special powers to provide positive returns to society--and that doesn't include killing people by accident in situations where they are specifically trained not to.

...the answer is to train them better, or to take tasers away from them so they resort to some other non-lethal or less-lethal weapon which can't be easily confused with a gun in the chaos of dealing with a suspect who's trying to get away and potentially putting others in danger doing so.

Everyone's got solutions for how this won't happen again, and some of them are good ones. But what happens in the future doesn't really have any bearing on the culpability of what Potter did in the past.

 

[Metal god]

I'm not going to get into the weeds of parsing manslaughter laws--I'll just say this: I did just a few minutes of research and found a number of cases where officers were convicted for doing what Potter did and posted some of them on this thread.

What does that say about a lawyer who is, or pretends to be, surprised at the outcome of the Potter case?

Were those cases in the same state and jurisdiction this case was therefore bound by case law for said state ? The link I provided specifically addresses or so he believes addresses Potters case specifically . He went over that states specific statute and how case law has interpreted it and sites the case for review . I'll go back and see if your links do the same , sorry if I missed that that they do .

FWIW and I think I've said it , I think she is guilty of something and should do some time . I'm simply trying to understand the law and how it's interpreted .

I said it in the Rittenhouse case where it did not matter what he said . Yes I meant to kill Rosenbaum , No I never meant to kill Rosenbaum both found him guilty of something . I found it very interesting that there was a no win answer there . It seems Potter was faced with the same issue ? What if she said yes I meant to shoot him ? Then how do you explain the taser taser taser comment ?

 

[ghbucky]

It seems Potter was faced with the same issue ? What if she said yes I meant to shoot him ? Then how do you explain the taser taser taser comment ?

I was sympathetic to her until she took the stand. She trashed her entire defense team when she said "I didn't mean to hurt anybody!"

Her defense had built a credible case that lethal force was justified, but she destroyed it right there.

As a juror, I would have been angry at her. Why did she drag me through this whole ordeal to confess on the witness stand and then expect acquittal?

And all the internet expert lawyers that I've followed are pretty worthless. Branca has a whole 'miscarriage of justice' article up and the other guy quoted elsewhere is carrying about how this conviction has sent a message to cops not to stop criminals who resist.

Which is garbage, imo. The message sent here is to keep your GD mouth shut if something like that happens.

Potter convicted herself. She gave the jury no out.

 

[JohnKSa]

The link I provided specifically addresses or so he believes addresses Potters case specifically . He went over that states specific statute and how case law has interpreted it and sites the case for review .

If he's right, she should appeal and should win her appeal.

Ok, I said I don't want to parse manslaughter law, and I don't.

That said, going back to your video link, I see at least one problem with his analysis.

He claims that if there's no intent then it can't be culpable negligence--that people aren't punished criminally for making mistakes when there's no intent. However, clearly there are sections of the MN manslaughter statute allows conviction even when there's no obvious intent.

There's a section that allows conviction for manslaughter for shooting someone while hunting believing them to be an animal--but that clearly involves no intent. Being careless in identifying a game animal doesn't mean you want to hurt someone.

There's a section that allows conviction for manslaughter for failing to properly confine a dangerous animal. Clearly that could happen without intent. Failing to properly maintain an enclosure doesn't mean you have intent.

There's a section that allows the conviction for manslaughter of someone who "without intent to cause death" makes a Schedule 3, 4 or V substance available to someone who later dies from it. You don't have to have intent to harm but you will still be criminally responsible.

Since he says that the principle of intent to do harm is fundamental to the rest of the video, that seems problematic to me.

I said it in the Rittenhouse case where it did not matter what he said . Yes I meant to kill Rosenbaum , No I never meant to kill Rosenbaum both found him guilty of something . I found it very interesting that there was a no win answer there .

There was a good answer and he gave it on the stand. He said he meant to stop the attack.

You can't ever admit to not meaning to use deadly force if you want to claim justifiable use of deadly force. The justifiable use of deadly force is ALWAYS an intentional act.

You shouldn't ever admit to meaning to kill someone in a justifiable homicide because justifiable use of deadly force isn't about killing someone, it's about preventing someone from committing a very serious crime when there's no other alternative but to use deadly force.

But that doesn't mean there's no answer for why you used lethal force. You used it to stop a violent attack--just as the law allows you to do when there are no other reasonable alternatives.

It seems Potter was faced with the same issue ? What if she said yes I meant to shoot him ? Then how do you explain the taser taser taser comment ?

You changed a CRITICALLY important word in this question compared to the previous commentary in your post.

Admitting that you meant to SHOOT someone is very different from admitting that you meant to KILL them.

Potter could have admitted that she meant to shoot him (well--not in this case because it was clear she did not and because she admitted she did not immediately after the shooting on video) and then she would have had to show that the circumstances of the situation fit the definition in the law for justifiable homicide. Maybe she could have done that, maybe not, but at least she would have had a chance. Once she admitted that she didn't mean to use deadly force, then it was pretty much over with.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I said it in the Rittenhouse case where it did not matter what he said . Yes I meant to kill Rosenbaum , No I never meant to kill Rosenbaum both found him guilty of something .

But Rittenhouse was acquitted on all charges, so apparently what he said did matter.

 

[tyme]

I'm not sure I understand the question. You get to criminal responsibility just as was done in this case where the prosecution didn't dispute that weapons confusion was a genuine accident. They said that a person with her training and experience shouldn't have confused the two and the fact that she did was criminal.

When I heard about this case originally, I did look around, found a couple of those other taser weapon confusion cases, I think ones you referenced, and saw that they ended up as involuntary manslaughter convictions. I thought that was that, and didn't think much more about it. It seemed natural to me, as someone who has never owned or carried a taser, that intentionally drawing a gun and shooting someone by mistake automatically created criminal liability. That's because I couldn't conceive that a gun could end up in my hand without intent to draw it. I didn't bother trying to parse the culpable negligence standard.

But then I started seeing the contrary opinion, and I started thinking more carefully.

If you carry two gun-like objects, and you're under stress, it's totally possible for you to draw the gun by mistake without intent to do so. You'd be drawing and firing the less-lethal taser via muscle memory and very limited conscious perception. Whether you end up shooting someone depends on luck and training. Luck was not on Potter's side. Her department supplied her training, and it was insufficient.

She was an outlier, no doubt. Cops who suffer weapon confusion are outliers, but being an outlier is not their fault. If police departments could predict who's an outlier, then they could fire them or give them better training. They can't, and yet the existence of these outliers is still predictable, so they will continue to show up until tasers are eliminated or better training is mandated for everyone. Which goes to what I wrote in my wall-of-text post earlier. I think tasers, if they're going to require substantial ongoing training to avoid an occasional instance of weapon confusion, might be inferior to grappling instruction.

I was sympathetic to her until she took the stand. She trashed her entire defense team when she said "I didn't mean to hurt anybody!"

Her defense had built a credible case that lethal force was justified, but she destroyed it right there.

Maybe her defense screwed up by being too nuanced.

Their argument wasn't that it was a lethal force self defense case. Their argument, as I interpreted it, was something like:

1. The state's claim that use of a taser was reckless is absurd, because the situation objectively justified even more force than Potter used, and the risk of a traffic accident seems clearly more severe in the case of someone bleeding out from a gunshot than in the case of a taser where there's no gradual incapacitation over time and it stops working beyond 25 feet. Yet cops shoot people who are behind a wheel all the time when there are additional safety considerations beyond garden variety fleeing a traffic stop, which there were in this case: they didn't know if the woman in the passenger seat was the one who had a restraining order against him, and Daunte had a bench warrant on a gun charge.

2. Criminal recklessness in its theoretical construction requires four steps: First, you take an action that creates an abnormal risk. Second, you ignore the increased risk and don't mitigate it some other way. Third, a bad thing happens. Fourth, your creation of a risk and failure to mitigate it led to the bad thing happening.

The argument following from part 2 takes some contemplation, but... in a case like this, where bad thing—shooting Daunte with a gun—was already potentially legally justified, any risk Potter may have created under some legal theory proposed by the prosecution (I still don't see what she did to create any undue risk) was not an undue risk because Daunte's own actions created the risk he'd be shot, so she had no duty to mitigate that risk, so the accidental shooting wasn't criminally reckless, whatever else it might've been.

###

There's a lot of repetition of the standard legal argument for justified use of lethal force. Obviously she fails the subjective perception requirement. If she used that defense, she'd be guilty. This case wasn't about a justified lethal force affirmative defense! It was a sort of a mistake-of-fact claim to gut the intentional disregard of risk element of both charges! Those two defenses are mutually exclusive! Given the bodycam footage, if she'd taken the stand and said she did intend lethal force and believed it was justified, she'd be lying. Lying about intent or subjective perception when on the stand in a homicide trial would be a good way to get a murder charge added, and get convicted on it, since you'd lose all sympathy and credibility in the eyes of the jury.

There are some special-case homicide laws that are strict liability. Mistake-of-fact wouldn't apply to those. Regular manslaughter charges are not strict liability.

Here's a weapon confusion case that was dismissed, dismissed, from another state in 2019:

https://www2.ljworld.com/news/publi...-evidence-does-not-show-she-acted-recklessly/

If she'd intentionally drawn the gun, a higher duty of care immediately applies, but nobody draws a gun unless they're preparing to engage in lethal force so it becomes a completely different case with no recklessness. She didn't intentionally have anything to do with the gun, so it's inappropriate to try to draw parallels to gun handling accidents, "thought it was unloaded when I pointed it and pulled the trigger" accidents. Alec Baldwin knew he was holding a real gun, capable of firing real ammo. Potter did not. She thought she was drawing a taser. Use of a taser, notwithstanding the shady prosecution witness, was justified. There's no recklessness there, because there's no conscious intent to do anything wrong or create an undue risk. Daunte was creating all the risk, and that continued through to the shooting. Daunte's actions were, in a sense, intervening acts even after Potter drew the wrong weapon but had not yet fired. But for Daunte's continuing criminal actions, resisting lawful arrest and putting officers in danger, Potter wouldn't have been stressed or gotten tunnel vision and wouldn't have continued to believe that she had a taser in her hand, and also wouldn't have ended up pulling the trigger.

 

[zukiphile]

2. Criminal recklessness in its theoretical construction requires four steps: First, you take an action that creates an abnormal risk.

Without having concluded that use of deadly force was merited, she fired her pistol into someone. The abnormal risk is that he might die.

Second, you ignore the increased risk and don't mitigate it some other way.

Noting what she had in her hand would have mitigated the risk if it had kept her from firing.

Third, a bad thing happens.

I don't believe this element is disputed.

Fourth, your creation of a risk and failure to mitigate it led to the bad thing happening.

Drawing her pistol and failing to notice that she had drawn her pistol appear to have led to the shooting.

The argument following from part 2 takes some contemplation, but... in a case like this, where bad thing—shooting Daunte with a gun—was already potentially legally justified, any risk Potter may have created under some legal theory proposed by the prosecution (I still don't see what she did to create any undue risk) was not an undue risk because Daunte's own actions created the risk he'd be shot,...

The problem is that Potter herself didn't agree. She wasn't under the impression that this fellow was Jacob Blake, but that he just needed to be tased to be subdued.

... so she had no duty to mitigate that risk, so the accidental shooting wasn't criminally reckless, whatever else it might've been.

Where someone perceives no threat that calls for use of deadly force, the idea that one has no duty to mitigate the risk of death seems to open a door better left closed.

 

[Metal god]

Without having concluded that use of deadly force was merited,

Every LEO on scene that testified said they believed deadly force was warranted and 3 of those were prosecution witnesses . The only person that testified use of deadly force or even less then deadly force was not warranted was the prosecutions use of force expert . Who I might add has only testified against the police in every case involving police he testified in . Never as an expert has he testified that a police officers use of force was justified . The defense expert had testified for and against police several times . The funniest thing was when it was learned the very book the prosecutions expert used to conclude using the taser was not justified . Well it turns out the defense witness was the one who wrote it lol . Needless to say the author said something to the effect the state was taking some of what was in the book out of context . I did not see much of his testimony though so I don't have a full memory of what he testified to .

Drawing her pistol and failing to notice that she had drawn her pistol appear to have led to the shooting.

IMO That is 100% wrong . What lead to the shooting was

Dauntay driving a car with expired tags who's owner had a warrant out for there arrest
Dauntay's car smelling of pot with visible signs of pot on the center consul .
Dauntay threatening someone at gun point resulting in a restraining order
Dauntay's failure to appear for a gun charge resulting in a bench warrant being filed
Dauntay resisting arrest and trying to flee while police were hanging from the car actively trying to stop him .

That is what "lead" to the shooting .

I don't see how anyone can reasonably ignore all of the above and go straight to it's all Potters fault she caused everything to escalate out of control .

 

[JohnKSa]

Her department supplied her training, and it was insufficient.

Maybe that's an issue she can try to raise at her appeal, but I doubt she will have success with it. Maybe if it had been raised earlier (as in before someone died) it might have gone somewhere, but trying to shift the blame after the fact is pretty tough. Even if the department changes their training as a result, it won't make any difference to Potter's case.

I don't see how anyone can reasonably ignore all of the above and go straight to it's all Potters fault she caused everything to escalate out of control .

Nobody is saying Pottter "caused everything to escalate out of control".

Wright certainly bears responsibility for things getting to the point that restraint was called for, but that wouldn't have led to a shooting--it would have led to a tasing--except that Potter drew her gun by mistake.

Every LEO on scene that testified said they believed deadly force was warranted and 3 of those were prosecution witnesses .

It. Does. Not. Matter.

The fact that she admitted that she did not intend to use deadly force OBLITERATES/DESTROYS/ELIMINATES/PREVENTS any chance of proving that deadly force could possibly be justified.

The circumstances of the situation can not, in and of themselves, justify the use of deadly force. The reasonable belief of the person who is using it that it is immediately necessary is NECESSARY/REQUIRED to prove justification.

 

[ghbucky]

The fact that she admitted that she did not intend to use deadly force OBLITERATES/DESTROYS/ELIMINATES/PREVENTS any chance of proving that deadly force could possibly be justified.

This!

She not only admitted to this post-shooting, she reiterated that she had no intent to harm Duante on the stand during the trial.

SHE CONFESSED TO A CRIMINAL ACT DURING THE TRIAL.

 

[Metal god]

The circumstances of the situation can not, in and of themselves, justify the use of deadly force. The reasonable belief of the person who is using it that it is immediately necessary is NECESSARY/REQUIRED to prove justification.
__________________

I don't disagree on the legal aspect but the practical aspect I have doubt . Lets say a person did not believe deadly force was necessary . Can the state step in and say , we know you didn't think so but the evidence shows it did . Based on your reasoning it doesn't matter if deadly force is truly warranted if the "victim" does not believe so .

Example bad guy has wrecking ball hung right above you and a button to release it in one hand and says here I go I'm going to push the button and starts moving his other hand towards the button with finger out to push the button . You then shoot him before he pushes the button . However on the stand you say you shot him to stop him but you didn't think he'd really do it but just in case he did ....

Maybe a bad example but my point is a situation where maybe some ignorant sole doesn't actually think they are about to die but in all actuality they are . Does it really matter what they think if everyone else thinks the opposite ? Isn't that where the reasonable person in there shoes comes in . Maybe the person about to be killed thought process is not reasonable . Maybe another bad example but I hear this from anti gun people or people that don't understand guns . Why didn't the cop just shoot him in the leg or the gun out of his hand . Those people generally would never think deadly force is warranted . Sometimes it is even if you don't think so .

So why can't Potter think it's not necessary and in hind sight others say no mam it was justified you clearly were not seeing the whole picture at the time ?

 

[ghbucky]

So why can't Potter think it's not necessary and in hind sight others say no mam it was justified you clearly were not seeing the whole picture at the time ?

Because she never attempted that defense. At all.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here? Is it a hypothetical that if she had tried to pass it off as a conscious decision to shoot that she would have gotten off?

How can anyone predict the outcome of that?

She, herself, never attempted to defend her actions. She confessed to accidentally shooting him. Repeatedly [edit: to clarify, she confessed to accidentally shooting him multiple times, NOT that she shot him multiple times].

What, exactly, do you expect a jury to do with that?

 

[JohnKSa]

Can the state step in and say , we know you didn't think so but the evidence shows it did . Based on your reasoning it doesn't matter if deadly force is truly warranted if the "victim" does not believe so .

Well, they could choose not to prosecute, I guess, but if it goes to trial they can't change the law to simply throw out the part they don't like.

However on the stand you say you shot him to stop him but you didn't think he'd really do it but just in case he did ....

If you want to torpedo your case, you are free to do it. That's really one important lesson to learn from this. You can completely ruin your chance at justifying a deadly force encounter by saying or doing the wrong thing.

Maybe a bad example but my point is a situation where maybe some ignorant sole doesn't actually think they are about to die but in all actuality they are .

The person's belief at the time, based on what they knew at the time is a necessary part of justification.

If you don't believe deadly force is necessary in a situation and you shoot them, that's a serious crime. It is not legal to shoot people if you don't believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent a serious crime.

So why can't Potter think it's not necessary and in hind sight others say no mam it was justified you clearly were not seeing the whole picture at the time ?

Because her reasonable belief, at the time, based on the information she had available to her at the time, that deadly force was immediately necessary is REQUIRED to justify her use of deadly force.

Ask the question 50 more ways. Dream up 100 more scenarios and the answer will still be the same because the law will still be the same.

 

[Metal god]

Because her reasonable belief, at the time, based on the information she had available to her at the time, that deadly force was immediately necessary is REQUIRED to justify her use of deadly force.

She didn't believe she was about to use deadly force so her reasonableness in using deadly force is irrelevant no? Thats why the first degree manslaughter does not fit . Maybe as someone else said , involuntary manslaughter would have been a better charge ?

I'm not sure what you are arguing here?

My point is exactly what happened in this case . She didn't think deadly force was needed but her actions caused the death . Why can't the state say yes we know you didn't mean it but you were justified anyway ?

I've said how I feel about the wrongness or the rightness of her actions . My questions are not to figure out a way to justify what she did . They are basically using her actions or this case as an example to ask the question , the question is not specifically about her if that makes sense .

Making this only about your thoughts seems to indicate regardless of the situation or if you are actually justified . As long as you believed you are is all that matters . If that's not the case then why can't that hole thing work in reverse ? You don't think so but everyone else does ?

 

[ghbucky]

Making this only about your thoughts seems to indicate regardless of the situation or if you are actually justified . As long as you believed you are is all that matters . If that's not the case then why can't that hole thing work in reverse ?

But isn't that the very definition of the 'reasonable man' standard?

If a 'reasonable man' determined that they were at risk of [some variation based on where of] great bodily harm or death then the use of lethal force was justified. I.E. Rittenhouse. I doubt any 'reasonable man' metric would convict his actions, and the jury agreed.

But, in Potter's case, she threw away that standard by herself confessing that deadly force was not justified.

How do you argue with a defendant that says they killed someone without justification?