Kim potter trial

[LOL BRIELUS]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/12/17/us/kim-potter-trial-friday/index.html

Anyone watching this?

At first I was thinking it was an open and shut involuntary manslaughter case. But thinking about it more, and based on what one witness said about human factor being not perfect, could she be acquitted if she did nothing else wrong or negligent other than grab her sidearm instead of taser? In other words, is there criminal negligence if a mistake falls under that .01% of human fallibility that cannot be overcome with training and precautions?

I predict mistrial/hung jury or acquittal. Current prediction analysis is at 100% for all trials so far....what do u think?

[Gelston]

It is negligence, but she also wasn't trained on it and it was a new weapon for her. On the Department too, who should be sued.

I don't know how they wear them there, but every police officer I've seen has their TASER worn weakside, with the pistol grip forward, so you actually reach across your body to grab it. Maybe they don't do that there, I don't know, but that is something that Department probably needs to look into.

Still, her actions led to the death. It is on her to be proficient with everything she uses. It is on her department too, but she is frontline on it. I think it is negligent homicide, or whatever term they use for it there.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think she should walk or get community service. Maybe criminals should stop running from police, but hey it's not a perfect world.

[LOL BRIELUS]

yeah, i mean im watching this ross exam now. the prosecutor beating up on this mom looking/fargo cop. i am certain that the optics are not lost on the jury.this looks like probation at the most.

[Menos]

Isn't working as a cop essentially community service?

[Gelston]

I think she should walk or get community service. Maybe criminals should stop running from police, but hey it's not a perfect world.

So anyone that runs should be executed?

[Parkbandit]

So anyone that runs should be executed?

Executed denotes a motive and not an accident.

That hasn't been shown in this case.

[ClydeR]

Unless you're Dick Cheney, if you go hunting and accidentally shoot somebody, you will be charged with a crime. Should the rule for accidental shootings be different for police?

[Parkbandit]

Unless you're Dick Cheney, if you go hunting and accidentally shoot somebody, you will be charged with a crime.

As usual, you are as wrong as you are a coward.

'you COULD be charged with a crime' is not the same thing as 'you will be charged with a crime'. If you need examples of someone shooting someone else and not being charged, google "accidental shooting no charges" and I'm sure there will be a plethora of examples.


Should the rule for accidental shootings be different for police?

No. The rule is the same.

You can be charged with an crime. She was charged with a crime.

It will be up to a jury of her peers to convict her with a crime.

[LOL BRIELUS]

Unless you're Dick Cheney, if you go hunting and accidentally shoot somebody, you will be charged with a crime. Should the rule for accidental shootings be different for police?

That seems to oversimplify both scenarios

[ClydeR]

If you need examples of someone shooting someone else and not being charged, google "accidental shooting no charges" and I'm sure there will be a plethora of examples.

That's a good idea. I did it! Not a single search result came up on the first page involving a hunter not being charged. The rule is that it can't be a plethora unless there are results on the first search page.




No. The rule is the same.

You can be charged with an crime. She was charged with a crime.

It will be up to a jury of her peers to convict her with a crime.

That is a fair statement and a good point.

[Tgo01]

Kim Potter is an idiot. She should have just said someone handed her a gun and said it wasn't loaded, then she would get away with it and have all of Hollywood and most Democrats coming to her defense in an instant.



Thread: Kim potter trial

your examples are so not funny


It wasn't meant to be funny, it was meant to be an accurate statement.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

So anyone that runs should be executed?

I didn't say that.

[Archigeek]

It is negligence, but she also wasn't trained on it and it was a new weapon for her. On the Department too, who should be sued.

I don't know how they wear them there, but every police officer I've seen has their TASER worn weakside, with the pistol grip forward, so you actually reach across your body to grab it. Maybe they don't do that there, I don't know, but that is something that Department probably needs to look into.

Still, her actions led to the death. It is on her to be proficient with everything she uses. It is on her department too, but she is frontline on it. I think it is negligent homicide, or whatever term they use for it there.

She had multiple taser trainings. It was worn in opposite side of the body from her gun. I thought the prosecutions cross examination was pretty rough for her: he wasn't facing her, hadn't said anything threatening, done anything threatening, wasn't carrying a weapon, and wasn't a threat. The prosecution was basically walking through the check down reasons for using the taser.

The whole thing is tragic. She made a mistake and someone ended up dead as a result. I think she'll be found guilty and get a relatively light sentence.

[Tgo01]

She had multiple taser trainings. It was worn in opposite side of the body from her gun. I thought the prosecutions cross examination was pretty rough for her: he wasn't facing her, hadn't said anything threatening, done anything threatening, wasn't carrying a weapon, and wasn't a threat. The prosecution was basically walking through the check down reasons for using the taser.

The whole thing is tragic. She made a mistake and someone ended up dead as a result. I think she'll be found guilty and get a relatively light sentence.

She should have just said she was filming a movie.

[Gelston]

She had multiple taser trainings. It was worn in opposite side of the body from her gun. I thought the prosecutions cross examination was pretty rough for her: he wasn't facing her, hadn't said anything threatening, done anything threatening, wasn't carrying a weapon, and wasn't a threat. The prosecution was basically walking through the check down reasons for using the taser.

The whole thing is tragic. She made a mistake and someone ended up dead as a result. I think she'll be found guilty and get a relatively light sentence.

She claimed to have no training on the new taser she got days ago.

[Archigeek]

She claimed to have no training on the new taser she got days ago.

I don't think that's going to help her case. She didn't draw her gun instead of her taser because she got a brand new taser.

[Alfster]

Executed denotes a motive and not an accident.

That hasn't been shown in this case.

Its not an accident. She's incompetent. Period.

[Gelston]

And to Bhaalizmo who left me a rep saying he thinks all fleeing felons should be executed on the spot, the Supreme Court says you're wrong. Lethal force may only ever be used if the subject presents danger to human life.

Cops are held to a higher standard, or should be held to a higher standard. For every single one of those "accidental shootings, no charges" I think there also should have been charges though. All those cases of no charges do not change my opinion on this case.

[Parkbandit]

Its not an accident. She's incompetent. Period.

Well fuck the trial... Alfster already knows exactly what happens.

[Parkbandit]

And to Bhaalizmo who left me a rep saying he thinks all fleeing felons should be executed on the spot, the Supreme Court says you're wrong.

Good for him, leaving rep with his name instead of other people's names.

And people said you can't re-train retards. Bhaalizmo is proof you can!

[Bhaalizmo]

And to Bhaalizmo who left me a rep saying he thinks all fleeing felons should be executed on the spot, the Supreme Court says you're wrong. Lethal force may only ever be used if the subject presents danger to human life.

Cops are held to a higher standard, or should be held to a higher standard. For every single one of those "accidental shootings, no charges" I think there also should have been charges though. All those cases of no charges do not change my opinion on this case.

I wrote no such rep.

[Jeril]

And to Bhaalizmo who left me a rep saying he thinks all fleeing felons should be executed on the spot, the Supreme Court says you're wrong. Lethal force may only ever be used if the subject presents danger to human life.

Cops are held to a higher standard, or should be held to a higher standard. For every single one of those "accidental shootings, no charges" I think there also should have been charges though. All those cases of no charges do not change my opinion on this case.

Does this mean they will get the man power and training to make this plausible? Or are we just living in some fantasy land where you say nice sounding things and they magically happen?

[LOL BRIELUS]

Are cops(or anyone) held to a perfect standard? Is it strict liability and automatically guilty? That is the question in this case because other than committing the act of using the wrong weapon, it doesn't appear she didn't do anything wrong, and that is the ultimate question

[drauz]

Does this mean they will get the man power and training to make this plausible? Or are we just living in some fantasy land where you say nice sounding things and they magically happen?

When you give someone the power and authority to take away anothers freedom they have to be held to a higher standard or it will be abused. What do you mean when you say training? In the law? In deadly force usage? In de-escalation? All of the above and some I didn't list?

There are some things that can't really be taught. There will always be some in the police that lie to get someone charged, plant evidence, etc. In my view these things should be more serious charges than if done by a civilian and carry heavier sentencing when done by a police officer.

[Gelston]

Does this mean they will get the man power and training to make this plausible? Or are we just living in some fantasy land where you say nice sounding things and they magically happen?

Um, yes they should be.

[ClydeR]

"Even though she didn't know she was using it, she had the right to, and that's what the law is," said Gray.

More... (https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/20/us/kim-potter-trial-monday/index.html)


Is that the issue the jury is deciding? Whether or not she had the right to shoot him if she had done so intentionally?

[Gelston]

Is that the issue the jury is deciding? Whether or not she had the right to shoot him if she had done so intentionally?

The defense is doing its job.

[Archigeek]

Is that the issue the jury is deciding? Whether or not she had the right to shoot him if she had done so intentionally?

Not surprisingly the prosecution was trying to establish the opposite during cross examination the other day. We talked about it at the time.

[LOL BRIELUS]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/12/20/kim-potter-manslaughter-charges-explained-daunte-wright-death/8894989002/

this article has the jury instructions.

To convict on the charge of first-degree manslaughter, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Potter caused Wright's death while committing a misdemeanor – reckless handling or use of a firearm "so as to endanger the safety of another with such force and violence that death or great bodily harm to any person was reasonably foreseeable."

In instructing jurors Monday, Hennepin County District Court Judge Regina Chu said someone "acts recklessly if, under the totality of the circumstances, she commits a conscious or intentional act in connection with the handling or use of a firearm that creates a substantial or unjustifiable risk that she is aware of and disregards."

For second-degree manslaughter, prosecutors must prove Potter caused Wright's death through "culpable negligence," meaning she created "an unreasonable risk and consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm to Wright" while using or possessing a firearm.

"Culpable negligence is intentional conduct that the defendant may not have intended to be harmful but that an ordinary and reasonably prudent person would recognize as involving a strong probability of injury to others," Chu said.

Under Minnesota law, an officer's use of deadly force is only justified in the line of duty on the three grounds, including when necessary to protect the officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm.

"Whether the defendant’s apparent decision to use a Taser was reasonable or appropriate is not a defense to the charges in this case," Chu told jurors.

[Seran]

Neither of her acts were conscious act of using her firearm, the deadly weapon in this scenario. I just doubt the jury will hold to the letter of the law. My guess, guilty on both counts which will be a terrible shame.

[Gelston]

Looks like they might have a hung jury.

[LOL BRIELUS]

https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2021/12/21/kim-potter-trial-jurors-ask-what-if-they-cant-agree/8989620002/

Yup. Just gonna point everyone to my original post...looks like I'll be 3/3 for predicting trials, with an almost guaranteed 4th when ghislane Maxwell is found guilty

[Gelston]

https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2021/12/21/kim-potter-trial-jurors-ask-what-if-they-cant-agree/8989620002/

Yup. Just gonna point everyone to my original post...looks like I'll be 3/3 for predicting trials, with an almost guaranteed 4th when ghislane Maxwell is found guilty

You never said guilty or innocent on the Rittenhouse trial and you were 2 days off on when the Jury would reach a verdict. FAKE NEWS.

[LOL BRIELUS]

Wtfrop gonna have to review that. Also the days were a side quest

[ClydeR]

Hung?

[LOL BRIELUS]

I think they will

[Gelston]

Convicted on first and second degree manslaughter.

Brielus prediction count loses.

[LOL BRIELUS]

Welp I definitely missed this one.

[ClydeR]

Six objectives of criminal punishment..
Specific deterrence. This criminal will think twice before breaking the law again.
General deterrence. Other people who see what happens to this criminal will decide that crime isn't worth it.
Incapacitation. While this criminal is in jail, she won't be able to commit more crimes.
Rehabilitation. This criminal will leave prison several years from now a better person, having taken advantage of rehabilitation programs offered in prison.
Retribution. Good old fashioned revenge.
Denunciation. To express public disapproval, criminal acts must be condemned through punishment, even if the punishment serves no other purpose.

What purpose will be served by punishing Kim Potter?

I can't see how any of the first four objectives are served in this case. The last two objectives are wishy washy explanations for punishment where there is no other good explanation.

[Gelston]

Six objectives of criminal punishment..
Specific deterrence. This criminal will think twice before breaking the law again.
General deterrence. Other people who see what happens to this criminal will decide that crime isn't worth it.
Incapacitation. While this criminal is in jail, she won't be able to commit more crimes.
Rehabilitation. This criminal will leave prison several years from now a better person, having taken advantage of rehabilitation programs offered in prison.
Retribution. Good old fashioned revenge.
Denunciation. To express public disapproval, criminal acts must be condemned through punishment, even if the punishment serves no other purpose.

What purpose will be served by punishing Kim Potter?

I can't see how any of the first four objectives are served in this case. The last two objectives are wishy washy explanations for punishment where there is no other good explanation.

shut up fallen

[Seran]

Neither of her acts were conscious act of using her firearm, the deadly weapon in this scenario. I just doubt the jury will hold to the letter of the law. My guess, guilty on both counts which will be a terrible shame.

Whelp, called that one.

[Parkbandit]

Whelp, called that one.

A broken watch is right twice a day.

[Seran]

A broken watch is right twice a day.

Interesting. I wonder, do all the Who is Whoville get to keep their toys and roast-beast this year, or do you still plan on stealing it again?

[LukeDuke]

Whelp, called that one.

Congrats, will add this to my calendar for future reference. :)

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Sad for our law enforcement community. I guess we just let resisting arrest criminals with felony warrants for firearms all run when they want to going forward.

Can you imagine what the LEO recruitment looks like now? Let's just defund them all and give back our tax dollars so we can individually buy our own firearms.

[~Rocktar~]

Sad for our law enforcement community. I guess we just let resisting arrest criminals with felony warrants for firearms all run when they want to going forward.

Can you imagine what the LEO recruitment looks like now? Let's just defund them all and give back our tax dollars so we can individually buy our own firearms.

Use the money to build ammunition, powder and primer factories.

[Tgo01]

If any of you who defended Alec Baldwin are now celebrating this verdict then you should be ashamed of yourself and if there were truly justice in this world you would be sitting in prison right now and Kim Potter would be walking free.

[Gelston]

If any of you who defended Alec Baldwin are now celebrating this verdict then you should be ashamed of yourself and if there were truly justice in this world you would be sitting in prison right now and Kim Potter would be walking free.

I think they should both be in jail.

[Parkbandit]

Interesting. I wonder, do all the Who is Whoville get to keep their toys and roast-beast this year, or do you still plan on stealing it again?

You know what.. you are 100% correct.

I took what was an extremely rare thing on these boards... an instance where you were correct.. and I ruined what should have been a celebration.

I apologize.

2021: The year Seran was right one time.

Merry Christmas Seran.

I hope we get to see TWO of these instances in 2022.

It's your year man!

[ClydeR]

If any of you who defended Alec Baldwin are now celebrating this verdict then you should be ashamed of yourself and if there were truly justice in this world you would be sitting in prison right now and Kim Potter would be walking free.

Alec Baldwyn is protected by the benefits of divided responsibility. Where responsibility for a catastrophe is divided among several people, it is difficult to pinpoint any individual who is culpable. Baldwyn did not load the gun, had no reason to suspect that the bullets were real and, he says, did not even pull the trigger.

In Kim Potter's situation, she was the only person responsible for loading her gun, drawing it and pulling the trigger. She was far more culpable than any other person.

I do not believe her imprisonment will benefit society, and I hope she receives a light sentence. A large civil judgment against the police force or local government, which is probably coming anyway, would provide just as much incentive for the police to develop procedures to reduce the probability of such mix-ups in the future.

It appears that the jury correctly applied the law, as written by the legislature. If the legislature is happy with the result, then there is no need for them to change the law. If not, then they have some work to do.

[ClydeR]

Is this accidental shooting sufficiently similar to the Daunte Wright shooting that the police officer should be charged with a crime?


LOS ANGELES, Dec 28 (Reuters) - The parents of a girl killed in a clothing store dressing room by a Los Angeles police officer's stray bullet last week called for justice on Tuesday, the day after police released video showing the chaotic moments leading to the fatal shooting.

The 14-year-old girl, Valentina Orellana-Peralta, was inadvertently shot dead in a North Hollywood store on Dec. 23 when a police officer opened fire on a man who was bludgeoning another shopper after accosting and menacing several others.

The suspect was killed. But police said one round from the officer's rifle apparently pierced the wall of a fitting room where the girl was hiding, out of view, with her mother, striking the teenager in the chest. The girl, who had been shopping for a dress, died instantly in her mother's arms.

More... (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/parents-girl-shot-dead-dressing-room-by-los-angeles-police-call-justice-2021-12-28/)

You can watch some of the footage here..



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UQRiPGqRnI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UQRiPGqRnI

[LOL BRIELUS]

Maybe, but you'd think defense of others will be a defense here

[Gelston]

That one won't find a conviction. If the police opening fire was baseless, maybe. If it was indiscriminate, undisciplined fire all over, they may have a case, but I haven't read anything saying that was the case.