OK, let’s put the Christmas spirit back in the box and talk about current events. I’m interested in your thoughts on the conviction of former-Officer Kim Potter in Minnesota, found guilty of Manslaughter in both the First and Second Degree last week in the death of 20-year-old Daunte Wright. This was the case in which the cop mistook her Glock for her TASER and unintentionally fired a fatal shot into a young man trying to flee from arrest on outstanding warrants.
Distinguished law professor Alan Dershowitz thinks the verdict was a travesty.
I tend to agree with him.
I do think the defense dropped the ball more than once. Speaking from the courtroom side of my day job, I thought the defense did well cross-examining the prosecution’s witnesses, and had by far the better experts – particularly Steve Ijames, one of the most respected experts in law enforcement use of force today. However, I am sure Ms. Potter wishes she could get a do-over of her own time on the witness stand…and the defense summation? Legal commentators unanimously panned the close by defense attorney Earl Grey. I watched it livestream as it happened and found it scattered, unorganized, and weak with occasional WTF moments. I guess you could say Earl Grey was not my cup of tea.
The verdict strikes me as self-contradictory: if they found her culpable one or the other of the two degrees of Manslaughter could be appropriate, but not both. Since neither side argued that she intentionally shot him, it seems to me that the First Degree conviction should be thrown out. I believe Judge Chu still has the option to do that, and I hope she takes it.
It was a cross-racial shooting, and now more than ever that seems to blur rational analysis of the facts. Looking at commentary elsewhere, I am appalled at the degree of racism – from both sides of the divide – expressed by some. I am confident that won’t happen here. In fact, as the moderator here, I’m certain of it, hint hint.
That said, readers, I invite your commentary on this tragic case and its present outcome.
I, too, think it strange that she was convicted of both degrees of manslaughter. It is my understanding that “lesser included offenses” are added to the indictment so as to give the jury the option of going with the lesser offense if they think the top offense is inappropriate. They should not be included so as to give the jury the option to “double-down” on a judgment and find a person guilty for multiple versions of the same crime.
By finding her guilty of both, this jury has (as you noted above) rendered a “self-contradictory” verdict. I also agree with the point, made by Alan Dershowitz, that both the prosecution and defense conceded that this shooting was not intentional. Given that this point is not in dispute, I don’t see how the first degree offense stands. In my opinion, the Judge should throw out the first degree offense and let only the lesser offense stand. If the Judge does not do it, I think it likely that the appeals court will.
My only other comment is what I said in an earlier blog post. If Kim Potter is guilty, then Alec Baldwin is guilty too with respect to the Rust Movie shooting incident. If Potter goes to prison while Baldwin invokes his “left-wing” privilege and skates away with no trial and no punishment, then it will be a clear that we do not have equal application of the laws anymore in America. It will be clear that Police Officers and, indeed, Conservatives-at-large, are being treated with undue harshness while those on the Left are being handed get-out-of-jail-free cards and may commit crimes with impunity.
Such a “Two-Tiered” Justice System invites a “Day of Reckoning” in the future. Those on the Left should beware of the bed that they are making. They may, eventually, be forced to sleep in it!
I quite agree with your summary
Exactly. The left-wing privilege card isn’t new. In the 60’s if you were from a
Left-wing” family around here, the Draft wasn’t a problem but us poor farm
boys on the “right” found ourselves with low draft numbers real quick. I, for
one, am fed up with it!
Dano
You make an ofense where there is none. I watched the original draft “lottery” as it happened live, on a TV specially imported and set up in the University cafeteria to a packed house. Two big bingo type drums, one with 365 balls in it, each oner with a different date of the year, all of them. (I seem to remembr leap day went with number 365). The otehr drum had 365 balls as well, each one with a number from one to 365 in it, all of them.
One guy woul,d on signal walk to the date drum, the otehr to the number drum, each would get spun up real well, trap door opened, arm goes in, one ball only comes out. BOth balls handed to the moderator who took them to the podium, opened them, read them, and recorded on te big board for the purpose. I remember one friend drew number six…. went ti Admissions offic,e dunped his 2A deferment, got in his car drove downtown and joined the Navy.
There was NO WAY any particular group could possibly be favoured or disfavoure. Totallly double blind random. Maybe most of your farm boy friends happened to have low numbered birth dates. Total chance.
“… then it will be a clear that we do not have equal application of the laws anymore in America.”
Uh, THEN it will be clear? You must be a white, middle aged, heterosexual man. Only someone with white male privilege could possibly think laws have EVER been applied equally here, or in anyplace in world history.
@ Rusty – “Only someone with white male privilege could possibly think laws have EVER been applied equally here, or in anyplace in world history.”
So, what is your point? That injustice was done, along racial lines in the past, and to offset this injustice then reverse racism must be tolerated today?
Are you making the case that “two wrongs will make it right”?
I am not the one out-of-touch. In fact, conditions have not changed at all. At least, not here in the South. In the old days, Rich White Democrats were the ones with privilege. It has never been just “while males”. Poor whites (male and female both) were treated like dirt. The blacks were also poor and treated the same.
Then the Civil Rights Movement came along and threatened the privilege which rich Democrats had going. So, what did the rich Democrats do?
Why, they jumped in front of the Civil Rights Movement and took control of it! They pretended to be the ever-loving friend of the black man. They fed blacks the line that democrats were their friends while the big, bad Republicans were their enemies.
The bigger the lie, the easier it is to sell to the gullible. It was the Democrat Party that upheld slavery. It was Democrats that established the KKK. It was Democrats that set up Jim Crow. The Republicans were actually the party that fought for the abolition of slavery. Yet, 90%+ of the black population today votes for the Democrat Party.
With what result? Rich, white Democrats (like Alec Baldwin) still wield privilege in this country. Blacks are still living in a version of slavery but “The Plantation” has been replaced by “The Projects” and the slavery is to drugs, crime and immorality. Poor, working whites (like Kim Potter) still get the short end of the stick. Especially if, by doing so, the Democrat Party can use her conviction for propaganda purposes to remain on the Throne of Power and to hold onto their privilege.
No Sir! I am fully aware of the history of this country. I know full well that the Democrat Party has always been the Party of Satan and that it is still the Party of Satan today. They cloak themselves in camouflage and, when it suits their purpose, pretend to be the Party of the Working Man, the Party of the Union Man or the Party fighting for Civil Rights and so-called “Social Justice”. What the Democrat Party actually does is hold onto POWER like glue while sticking it to (and robbing) everyone else.
My eyes are fully open as to who actually has (and keeps) privilege in this country. It is you who is mistaken if you think that anything that is occurring today represents change. Especially, change for the better.
Rusty,
You write that laws have never been applied equally anywhere in history. You must believe we live in an imperfect world, with imperfect humans. Why pick on America?
I too believe the double charging is a foul move. That contradicts the “double jeopardy” law, She was twice put in jeopardy for the same OFFENSE, even though it was simultanously done. I believe the First Degree version of the unrightful taking of life is dependend upon some wilful component in the actions of the charged. That was clearly not the case, the jury SHOULD have been carefully instructed along these lines. Either they were not, in which case I fault the judge, or they were, in which case I fault the jury and the judge MUST refuse this verdict.
In reviewing the Minnesota statutes, it appears that first degree manslaughter doesn’t apply at all & second degree applies if she was guilty of “culpable negligence.” All other sections apply to specific instances of hunting, vicious animals, child abuse, etc…
Despite what the corrupt Attorney General said, it was obvious she made a horrible mistake & did not intentionally kill him. I think a civil case is more appropriate although this trend of paying millions to families of criminals is going to bankrupt us all.
Does anyone know her training history & street experience? For a 26 year veteran, she appeared to be I’ll equipped to handle a resisting suspect & to be a FTO.
Hey Mas, do you think she would have been justified in intentionally shooting him to prevent death or grave bodily injury to the other officers if he drove off?
I had seen quite a bit of the detais of the case as it prgressed. From MY men=mory of the details, she had never in her 26 year career ever had to even draw her duty weapon, nor had she ever deployed her TAZER. She was current with training, and always did well in the qualifying tests. The Department had jus,t two weeks prior, changed to a new model TAZER, one very different in form and apearance from the earlier one she had carrie,d used, qualified wiht, etc. The early one had a lot of bright yelow colouring on it, VERY evident and easily distinguushed visualy from the new one, which was almost the same colour as her Glock, and wiht no distinguishing colouratioin. It also seems the shape was signficnnalty differeent than the earler one, and more resembling the Glock she carried.
She had just completed, a couple weeks previous to this incident, a week long taining odule in with the new model TAZER, and it included live “fire” of the unit. She performed well in this training and field testing.
She testified, as I recall, that since the new TAZER was new to her, and the situation as it came down was VERY fast moving, involved a moving or attemptedly moving car, other officers, a violent suspect with a knife, the need to control the suspect was critical for the safety of herself and the other officers intimatel involved in the situation. She reacted more reflexively than otherwise, and did not notice that what she had in her had was NOT the TAZER but the Glock.
It came out in testimoney that the suspect was actively attempting to leave the scene in the car, which if I remember had one or two children in it that would have been in extreme danger in HIS hyped up care at the time. Another officer had his torso well inside the right side drive’s window attempting tho snatch the keys, the thug was fighing him off, the enngine was running and he was attempting to shove the shift lever into reverse, his foot was on the accelerator. Had ne succeeded in engaging any gear and started to move the car the right side officer would have been in extreme danger. The Accused was attempting to subdue the suspect from the left side (driver’s) window or door, can’t remember which,
Based on the details and tesimpmy Ive seen, she WOULD have been justified in presenting and firing the Glock intentionally under these insanely dangerous circumstances. WHY she was even charged with murder is beyond me, the only “justification” I can see for that charge is to appease the screaming marxist/defund-the-police crowd bent upon destablising this nation.
I believe this verdict, both of them, must be appealed. Justice has NOT been served by this judge or jury.
Tionico,
Thanks for writing that. The Alan Dershowitz article to which Mas linked has a video, too. That video shows a BIG, YELLOW taser. If what you write is true, that is not the taser, or even a similar taser, to the one Officer Potter employed. The photo in the video is wrong, and needs to be replaced with a correct photo.
In order to ensure there is plenty of money to pay able-bodied people to not work and to provide the nice government palaces in which our bureaucrats and staff work (including education K-PhD), we pay our police officers poorly, dribble inadequate time and funding into their training, yet we expect them to make consistently perfect decisions under extreme stress at the end of a long shift. Then, we shout for total defunding of the police simply because miscreants get caught when the police do their job.
Not even our physicians are held to such a high standard! Definitely not our attorneys.
Kim Potter committed no crime and should have never been charged. But, she’s White and the miscreant was Black. Nowadays, that seems to be the only criteria for charges and convictions.
Sadly true IMHO.
If neither side posits that she intentionally shot him, and if that is required for first-degree manslaughter, then I think the prosecution was itself criminal even to charge her with first-degree manslaughter. Is this not the reverse side of “jury nullification”?
In jury nullification, the jury understands that the law was broken but chooses not to convict, anyway. In this case, if the prosecution and judge agree that the law against 1st degree manslaughter was NOT broken, but allow the jury to be persuaded o convict the defendant anyway — what do you call that?
As for manslaughter in the second degree, I don’t know enough about the law to say. It’s clear that in good faith she erred, and because of her error someone died.
As to the degree of responsibility Alec Baldwin had in avoiding the death-causing error that he failed to avoid, that too I don’t know.
Police officers like Potter are assumed to be trained experts, and thus held to a higher standard than laymen such as Baldwin. But then, Potter was operating under a greater degree of pressure and urgency.
(This is without even taking into account that I like her, but not him.)
Clearly her attorney did her no favors, both in having her testify (she looked flummoxed and confused most of the time) and in his disjointed close.
Seems to me that both the Potter and the Chauvin verdicts were “We don’t like it so you’re guilty” verdicts rather than any serious attempt to follow the law.
I agree.
Another factor sadly is “We found them guilty please don’t leak our names, hurt our families and burn our cities.”
The rule of law is dead. I can’t image who would want to be a cop at this point.
In all these cases we are faced with someone who kept resisting arrest and a jury that deiced that that was fine and the police officer was at fault. I guess every interaction with the police will be a “best 2 out of 3 falls” wrestling match now.
If BLM wanted to save black lives they would tell black criminals to stop resisting arrest.
This was a political crucifixion by a jury of cowards in fear of what a not guilty verdict would result in. This poor women has been martyred to prevent potential rioting, looting and shootings.
to prevent potential rioting, looting and shootings.
which will surely continue in spite of this outcome
This tragedy isnt reduced by putting a cop in jail. The fact that racism colors any cross racial shooting is also a tragedy. Exactly how many hours of training did she recieve? This is more of a training issue than anything else in my opinion.
Potter was guilty of unintentionally shooting with a firearm and killing the suspect; however if intentionally shooting him under the same circumstances would have been legal, then she merely skipped a step to an inevitable conclusion.
Bad guys, stop running from 5-Oh. You’ll be back out in the street soon enough to continue your malfeasance. And, you’ll live. For whatever that’s worth.
It was nothing but a show trial and the outcome was just what was expected.
There are times when I am surprised that we have any LEO’s left. Constant perfection in any profession is simply not possible and accidental mistakes – in both directions – are going to happen, regardless of ability or amount of training. In my ideal world a trial would be the last, not the first, means of dealing with a truly inadvertent tragedy.
As simply a “man on the street” with no law enforcement background. Running from the police is indicative of some degree of guilt. I feel safer with Mr. Wright off the street and less safe with a good cop in jail.
My sense is that there is no dearth of miscreants in our cities and a real lack of cops.
Mas, I’ve enjoyed your work for years, you are pretty sharp for a young guy;)
This whole thing was a tragedy. Kim Potter made a horrible mistake in the heat of the moment. That mistake certainly does not justify this open season on cops’ mentality that is becoming common place in current society. Yes, she bears responsibility for her mistake but criminally, I think not. After 26 years of service, she certainly does not belong in prison.
This just reeks of politics and appeasing one side because the “victim” in this case was black and the officer was white. If the roles were reversed would this “trial” ever have happened?
I have my doubts.
Who in their right mind would ever want to go into law enforcement these days ? Every move scrutinized by arm chair quarterbacks without a clue. Doubting and questioning yourself? Wondering if your actions are going to get you sent to prison. I really do fear for our LEO’s.
Yung friend of mine had been active in Police Explorers for a few years, was active with a local large city police force, and well liked and respected. Funny thing, when the cadets were invited to take to the range along with some officers who were performing their annual requalify, my friend outshot every one of the oficers there, by a significant margin. WHO IS THIS KID?
But as the rioting and city-ordered standdowns became a regular occurrence, my friend, who had a wide open door into tis Pollice Bureau, decided present day LE was not a good career for him. Sad, because he is a fine and upstanding man, vary capable, very self-disciplined. That city NEEDS a few hundred cops like my friend would certainly have become. But they don’t have them, don’t derserve them, Until the voters in that crazy city wake up, wise up, and vote in some REAL civic leaders, generaly mayhem will continue to rule their cesspit. y friend is far better off elsewhere.
I pretty much agree with you and Prof. Dershowitz, Mas. This trend concerns me, and it is spreading. Somewhat related, I read where three people on a jury in Fort Lauderdale couldn’t convict a defendant of murder solely because he was black – at least that’s they way it was reported: “She said most of the jury was ready to convict Resiles of at least second-degree murder, but the three refused because the defendant is Black.” The jury hung, so a mistrial was declared and a new trial will start January 3. The color of a person’s skin should have nothing to do one way or the other with the outcome of legal proceedings.
Mr. Dershowitz’s well written piece appears to be the consensus of every fair-minded attorney who has commented on the case. Following the trial and the verdict on Rekita Law’s YouTube channel, where Andrew Branca participated, these same words were echoed by the participants. Branca essentially repeated Dershowitz’s comments on the charge word for word.
Given the demonstrated fairmindedness of the Minnesota Supreme Court with its reversal of guilty verdict concerning another unintentional police shooting last year, we can all hope that the Potter verdict will be reversed, and further, that the trial judge will be given a sharp rebuke for her lack of clarity in her jury instructions.
I am beginning to wonder if a police officer can get a fair trial in the US today. A few years ago, a former STLPD officer named Shockley was on trial for a murder charge in St. Louis following a very similar shooting in a car following a drug related stop. The original prosecuting attorney elected not to pursue charges based on both local and state investigations. When Soros-funded, Kim Gardner took office as the new prosecuting attorney, she re-opened the case and filed charges against Shockley. Sensing the political mood of her office and of the city after the Fergerson riots, Shockley waived his right to a jury trial and let the judge decide his guilt or innocence. After hearing the evidence, the judge acquitted Shockley of all charges. My question is how long will it be before armed citizens should also consider waiving the jury trial, especially in these jurisdictions where the prosecutor and those who elected them cannot separate their beliefs and bias from the evidence and facts of the case?
Happy New Year!
Richard+Boll,
Everything you wrote is correct, but I want to comment on Alan Dershowitz.
He spent 50 years teaching at Harvard Law School. If he wanted to, he could have written a piece in which I understood not a single word. As it was, I understood his writing the first time through. Whew! What a relief! And what great condescension by Alan Dershowitz.
Hmmm. Maybe I should’nt use the word “condescension.” Oh well.
Oh, look at that. I goofed with the apostrophe in “shouldn’t.” Guess I need to proofread three times, not just once. Someone once suggested typing in WORD, then copying and pasting into these here boxes. Good idea.
Maybe it’s time someone invents a user-friendly language. (I know, “Esperanto.”)
Andrew Branca has (as usual) covered some of the legal aspects quite well, including answering some of the other questions in the comments: https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/kim-potter-trial-manslaughter-charged-in-taser-taser-taser-shooting-death-of-duante-wright/
I’ll leave opining on the legal side to those more learned and experienced than I. But I do have one thing that I don’t understand: Why do police use tasers with a grip that so closely matches the grip of a pistol?
Regardless of the details of this case, having a clear distinction in the grip of a taser vs. a handgun would likely have prevented this mistake – and would likely help prevent other similar mistakes in the future. For example, if a taser was held more like a flashlight instead of a pistol (horizontal, with trigger on top), or more like pepper spray (vertical with trigger on top), it would be nearly impossible for someone to mistake a gun for a taser, even under extreme stress.
Add a laser sight if you’re concerned that either of those grips would make taser shots less accurate. But I’ll also note that accuracy is likely much less of a concern with tasers than handguns anyway, since there is close to zero chance of overpenetration or of hitting someone behind the target with a taser, and the results of a missed shot are much less dangerous.
Is there some hidden reason I don’t understand for making the taser grip so similar to a pistol grip? Yes, there’s a training advantage (same grip means less training needed to learn how to use the taser); but that may actually be part of the problem (the more similar the training is, the easier it is to confuse the two). And ultimately, are the reasons in support of having similar grips enough to make up for the liability that comes from the multiple examples where this mistake has been made? Are they enough to make up for the possibility that an officer who actually needs a firearm accidentally grabs a taser instead (and pays for that mistake with his/her life)?
Sorry, but I’m an operations guy at heart. And the root cause of this seems to be more about the design of the instrument (the taser) than about the actions (which, because we’re human, will always be fallible).
From the basic report the slain was eating ice cream and had no weapon in his hands. This is a sad case the verdict even sadder, but the officer pulled the trigger before determining her situation and surroundings. If she hadn’t received a guilty verdict the law suit would have destroyed the rest. In the court of public opinion she was already tried and convicted which is the norm. I do wonder what the support of her dept. was before during and after the trial. (on a side note) Many people that live in large apartment complexes use flower pots, door hangers, or somthing laid at their doorstep to flag thier apt.
I’m sorry your Honor I brought the wrong brief with me…
Hello Mas, I think several issues were at play here. A jury that was intimidated by societal pressures into convicting Ms. Potter for anything and everything charged. Secondly, confusion under stress by Ms. Potter. Unless you’ve experienced that kind of stress you really can’t appreciate just how intense it is. A judge and jury can’t in spite of camera footage and testimony. It really is something you have to experience to understand.
Remember he wasn’t just physically resisting he was wielding a deadly weapon, his vehicle, and attempting to drive away. I don’t believe she was guilty of anything and certainly not first and second degree manslaughter. Ms. Potter wasn’t consciously taking a chance of death or great bodily harm. She was carrying out her duties as she was sworn to do in a situation created by Duante Wright. I retired from law enforcement some time ago and never carried a taser. We did have intermediate weapons in a night stick, black jack or CS spray. I was involved in multiple uses of deadly force and cleared each time by the local Grand Jury. This case never should have gotten beyond a Grand Jury hearing or Coroners Inquest but unfortunately political movements have flipped the scales of justice against law enforcement and grossly in favor of squeaky wheels. I hope Ms. Potter prevails on appeal.
If I were a police “policy maker” there would be no Tasers. Just like the PR-24 side-handled baton could be misused, resulting in death or grave bodily injury, all tools at the officer’s disposal can present pitfalls. If the outstanding warrants were for felony offenses, the risk may be justified. If not, let them run away.
Since George Zimmerman I remain frustrated that career criminals, particularly any that are a few shades darker than others, are painted as victims of “white oppression” when they are dispatched while attacking armed citizens or resisting arrest by law enforcement. I have relatives who refuse to look at the facts of a case presented in court because they are convinced that the criminal justice system is “racist”. Meanwhile, innocents of all colors are murdered or maimed daily by those who are, or may later be, painted as victims when they are caught.
The answer is simple. Don’t resist arrest. Don’t shoot at cops or reach for a cop’s gun. Don’t evade law enforcement while endangering the general public in a speeding vehicle.
This is not hard.
Would she not have been justified in using deadly force? As she stated she was in fear for her brother officer’s life in that he may have been dragged to his death. Perhaps her training kicked in and she unconsciously went for her gun. Sadly this incident would never have happened if Wright had complied. I addition I believe that both the indictment and verdict were racially motivated in an attempt to cater to mob justice and prevent more riots.
Should never have been charged.
Wright was resisting arrest. Need I say more?
It seems too similar to the Derrick Chauvin verdict, with only one victim how do they justify multiple counts on escalating charges. As I recall Chauvin was convicted of three separate counts of various levels of murder with only one “victim”. Justice is certainly NOT blind but, she is incredibly confused.
I practice in Michigan, not Minnesota. I’ve tried literally hundreds of felony cases as a defense attorney over the last 45 years. Here, at sentencing, the lesser charge would be dismissed and she would be sentenced on the more serious one. Otherwise it would be double jeopardy.
I can’t comment on the jury’s verdict. I didn’t watch the trial. The observation I would make is that 90% of the time the facts are such that you either can’t win, or can’t lose. Only in that 10% in the middle does skill count. This case may be one of the 10%.
I don;t agree this is amongst that ten percent. I followed the details of the case and trial pretty closely. I believe she would have een totally justified in intentionally using lethal force under the circumstances. Facts favour my opinion that her one shot that neutralised the violent subject may well have saved her brother officers life. Perp was actifely trying to engage the transmission of the vehicle, which had the engine already running, as the other officer was reaching through the rightside window to try and grab the keys and turn off the engine. It seems somewhere between possible and certain that, had the perp not been shot when he was, both officers could easily have been dragged as that powerful vehicle took off rapidly as the crazed “contact’ desparatey wanted to get away, at any cost to anyone else. The inteintoinal use of her duty weapon would have been completely justified under tose conditions. Add in that he was wanted under felony warrants, it is my strong position the case never should have been laid against her. May she succeed in obtaining justice on appeal, whcih MUST happen. Two levels of charge for the same offense? Nope. It must be one or the other. The very fact that the jury returned two guilty verdicts for the same action should get the entire cae thrown out as a mis-trial.
But next time, she needs to get a REAL attorney who[s got spine AND brains AND good street sense. This guy had oh for three.
Someone asked about her training. During trial I believe she said she’s never fired her gun in line of duty. Never drew her gun. Drew her taser previously but had never fired it in LoD. Taser training was described and sounded minimal, not very stressful or “role actor based”. So she has a trainee doing a routine stop she might have passed on and it goes sideways when the warrant pops. Not sure if there’s an “accidental manslaughter” charge. But this didn’t fit as reckless and perhaps that’s where the jury’s idea of reckless is different from legal definition.
My opinion, based on my time as an infantry platoon leader in Vietnam and experience since, and reading the press reports of this issue, is Officer Potter met all the criteria thru training, OJT, testing and the like. What appears to be missing is the “calm crisis mindset.” Many people can get thru the schools and training for high stress, high danger jobs but do not possess the ability to maintain proper evaluation, event management (leadership) and personal action when actually confronted with real-time, life-threatening stress. I don’t know how one determines or measures that ability, attribute, or quality.
This event is a terrible tragedy, but not a crime. There is no hint of malice. To convict as criminal conduct opens so many doors for prosecutorial abuse as to be stunning in its ignorance. Will an accident involving pilot error, ambulance driver lapse, doctor mistakenly cutting an artery, attorney sending an innocent person to prison, now result in criminal conviction and incarceration?
Reverently speaking, may God save us from the holier-than-thou crowd who have never ventured into life’s arena of danger but are certain of their ability to judge.
I am perplexed. It seems that the “Taser, Taser, Taser” call was directed at her trainee. He flubbed controlling the suspect and as the suspect drove by (“fleeing”), with an officer hanging out the automobile window and “at risk”, Potter “correctly” (I think) took the shot with an appropriate weapon. Beside the fact that Duante was African American, what is the beef? Was her statement being used as “evidence” of her inappropriate intent? I thought that “resisting arrest”, and fleeing, justified the use of “deadly force” by the police.
In light of this verdict and others, we have to ask the question, with the increasing wokeness of our citizenry, how long will it be before we can no longer expect to get a fair trial by a jury in America.
At least with a bench trial, the judge is supposed to remain impartial and render a verdict according to the letter of the law. Maybe we’ll see more people taking that route in the future.
A whole lot of that will depend on the judge, and the jurisdiction.
No pun intended but I do believe it’s Overkill with the guilty verdict on both counts I don’t believe she should have gone to trial over it either but that’s just my opinion and I am not a legal scholar unfortunately bad outcome for both parties her and the deceased and there again we get back to very simply comply with the police officer and generally you may not like the outcome but you may still be breathing he refused to comply and at the end result unfortunately cost him his life over what a warrant for something that he probably would have been out of jail on being a liberal state where he was but there again failed to comply you’re dancing with the devil and you have no idea what the outcome is going to be unfortunate for all parties involved
I think several upstream decisions might have prevented this incident (Of course, the suspect’s resistance and flight were the proximate cause, but…).
First and most immediate, the suspect should have been directed to the rear of his car and the driver’s door closed. This would have reduced risks from passing traffic and given officers more room to work when he resisted arrested.
Second, as suggested above, Axon International needs to reconsider the pistol-like designed of their Tasers. While the design makes training simpler, the occasional instances of someone getting Tasered with a Glock show the risks of this design.
Third, given court and legislative decisions limiting use of the Taser, law enforcement needs to rethink the wisdom of issuing the Taser as an on-belt weapon. Perhaps it’s time to throw the Taser in the cruiser trunk and deploy it as a special use item such as the beanbag shotgun or the Papperball launcher. Will there be more injuries to suspects and even officers? Certainly, but better that than being the n
next Kim Potter,
If the criminal was not black there would have been no trial at all. A felon gets shot resisting arrest what is the problem? Seems cut and dried to me. The racist attorney general went all out to prosecute because she was white. Seems pretty obvious to me.
I would have never voted to convict her. If anyone was to blame here it was the police department for lack of training. The kid was a dangerous thug.
I’m in the process of inventing a smart gun that can be programmed to not fire when aimed at a black or brown person, only at other races, especially whites. This way, tragic accidents like this one will never happen again. Police work will be safe again from lawsuits, not to mention riots, arson, and looting by the racially oppressed after an unpopular court decision will no longer exist. It’s the next best thing to banning firearms, which should be the ultimate goal.
OMG Tom606, be careful with your sarcasm! You may have just given the insane Left their next anti-gun policy angle. The CDC is likely to launch a dozen research projects to develop this technology if someone working for “Big Brother” happens to read your comment!
To the Insane Left, your sarcasm is brilliance!
Definition of Brilliance – 3. Exceptional clarity and agility of intellect or invention.
Thanks TN_MAN. I just collected a big bonus check from George Soros for my diabolical ideas.
I haven’t seen this noted anywhere, so I point it out: The jury reached its verdict of guilty on the second degree manslaughter count at 10:30 a.m. on December 21, and on the first degree count at 11:40 a.m. on December 23. Hence it was only the first degree count that the jury asked about early in its deliberations, i.e., what do we do in case no verdict can be agreed. (At that time, I thought the jury was going to hang on both counts, which is the result I hoped for, knowing she would not be acquitted on both counts. I hoped the same for Derek Chauvin, who was overcharged for what was nothing more than a simple assault).
On appeal, expect the state to explain that one or both counts should be affirmed because Officer Potter endangered other cops because they were in close proximity to the muzzle or where the round would have landed if it had not struck Daunte Wright.
As for the rest of the story. This is an example of a despicable race-driven state Attorney General who charged a cop when decency and good sense suggested he not. And of a state where police use of force is judged criminally by Graham v. Connor like standards. See Minn.Stat. § 609.066 (2021). Police should not be held criminally accountable based on the notions of Federal civil excessive force case law or agency policies, standards or training. In Florida and other states they are not. I have written a Bar newlstter article on that which will be published in February.
A word to the wise. It’s not only trials of cops. Self-defense trials of the nonsworn more than ever are revealing legal error in charging decisions, evidentiary and other rulings, improper argument by prosecutors, and flawed jury instructions. Buckle up.
Really disappointed in this verdict, I was hoping the time it was taking was a good sign. I don’t know why anyone would want to be a cop these days. I tell all the young guys I know to be firefighters, everyone still likes them lol.
Having clerked under attorney George Franscell defending peace officers (LAPD, LASO etc) in the mid 1990s, I am surprised and saddened to see how the impression of LEO by We the People has fallen so low (thanks in part to the media, and politics). It seems law enforcement is the only job today where everyone including NBA pros know how to do it better. I know more than one LAPD cop who threw their baton in their locker until retirement post Rodney King.
Potter made a mistake, full stop. This equates to negligence, not reckless nor intentional conduct. When a physician or construction worker acts negligently and someone dies, we rarely if ever hear of criminal charges. Should a LEO be held to a standard higher than a physician in negligent cases? (Documentation of abuse of force or racism, IF present, would lean toward an allegation of intentional conduct.)
Between removal of qualified immunity (some jurisdictions), and defund the police, we can expect it to only get worse. I once heard of a city in New Mexico whose entire police department stopped working (briefly) a few decades ago. Law abiding armed citizens started ‘responding’ to crime directly in front of them, and the criminals were afraid of the citizens because “they didn’t know the rules of how things work” (like the police did). I wonder what would happen if that occurred again today?
Agreed that under the old notions of rule of law this, and other such, are a miscarriage of justice. “But the public demanded that she be charged. Indeed, some called for her to be accused of murder. ” Seems to me in the various states of the United States criminal law was once a matter of a written code. Most of the time most places that code was subject to logical interpretation. Seems to me criminal law is now an ad hoc vote spurred by demagogues.
Seems to me Dershowitz helped bring the change he now deplores. I will be interested if he and others like him now oppose earlier progressive issues once supported.
Looking at recent for some value of recent that is 19th and 20th century changes in the U.S. constitution it seems to me governments at all levels are today claiming powers never delegated. Prohibition required a constitutional amendment. The war on drugs or the war on much else is ad hoc made up as we go along.
Not my choice but I’ve been outvoted and I’ll be dead soon enough so not much I propose to do.
I cannot speak to the complexities of the court system and all the tactics. I’ve studied more than I’ve ever felt the grip that stress can command over training and better judgement when control is violently overthrown by a perceived imminent deadly threat. It looked as though a very basic mistake in choices was made to violently resist law enforcement. The pace set by that poor decision tipped that next block of high stress failure of an alternate response.
I could never cut it as a cop. Understanding the laws and having a firm command of my tools and tactics would be simple next to the task of controlling the stresses of the profession. I’d like to see an appropriate consideration given to this by a judge who by contrast has all the time in the world to make their decision.
If nothing else everything failed her.
Her training, her nerve, her crisis management skill, her legal system.
NO she should not walk, she screwed up and there are consequences, but neither is ‘justice’ getting any more blind.
Sad all the way round.
After reading Mas, Alan Dershowitz, and all the comments posted here, I believe I am very well-informed on this incident and trial. Thank you to all who participated. There are good things on the Internet, if you can find them.
She had a selection of alternatives. Yes she said, “Taser taser taser”, but one does not point a taser at the suspects head…. The video showed an easily recognizable Glock. She aimed it at his head and shot. Maybe she meant to say “GUN GUN GUN”.
I am sure it was the excitement of the moment… but she defaulted to the Glock and seemed to be unwilling to go to hands on the suspect (dive into the car with him.)
Some people can handle intense situations easily.. some train enough to handle them.. some just cannot handle them. She had over 20 years of experience on the force, her stun gun was on the holster of her less-dominant side, performing a cross-draw… Taser holster has a lever, while the handgun holster is closed with a snap. Her Taser was bright yellow color and weighs just under a pound while her handgun was black and weighed over 2 pounds.
If I was to say ‘pepper spray!’ and draw my Glock and fire (my pepper spray is on my left and gun on my right)… as a civilian… what would be my punishment? Potter had more training than I will ever have (never been in militarily or LEO) and still dropped the ball.
Manslaughter? Yes… and I do feel the greater manslaughter should be dropped… or the sentences co-current (which in reality makes it moot.)
And as for punishment… no more than a few years. People kill others in high speed chases and get less (but I bet cause it was cross racial… they will throw her to the lions.)
Very disappointing verdict.
It seems that none of these local stories made national stories involve good citizens on their way to feed the homeless. The so-called victims are not nice people (aka criminals) with significant records, warrants, and/or current bad behavior.
As most cops and armed citizens realize, decisions needed to be made on the fly when the attacker/subject/perp was not willing to cooperate (Floyd being an exception as he was apparently to stoned to make reasonable decisions). And so the officer or defender has to be subject to hours of second-guessing.
This is one of the reasons that I hope that I never have to use my firearm. It is too easy for details to be misconstrued even with contextual video (see: Rittenhouse).
Between Mas’ teachings and Branca’s ongoing trial coverage, I’m shooting (sorry) for avoidance (but not like that rookie cop the other day).
Stay safe everyone and Happy New Year.
AMinneapolis juror is speaking out about the trial of Kim Potter and how they ultimately found the former police officer guilty in the death of Daunte Wright.
Juror in Kim Potter trial speaks on how jury found ex-officer guilty in Daunte Wright’s death
© Provided by NBC News
Juror in Kim Potter trial speaks on how jury found ex-officer guilty in Daunte Wright’s death
Potter, a 26-year police veteran, was convicted Dec. 23 by a Hennepin County jury of first and second-degree manslaughter for fatally shooting Wright on April 11 as Wright tried to get back into his car during an arrest.
Vail, Arizona: Are You Aware Of This?
Ad
InsuranceQuotes.com
Vail, Arizona: Are You Aware Of This?
Potter, who was with the Brooklyn Center Police Department at the time of the shooting, has said that she accidentally killed Wright when she grabbed her gun instead of her Taser.
“Initially for both counts we were predominantly ‘guilty,'” the unidentified juror told NBC affiliate KARE 11 of Minneapolis.
The juror asked to remain anonymous because of the amount of public animosity, the outlet reported.
“For Count 1, it was seven for guilty and the remainders were either ‘not guilty’ or didn’t know. Then for Count 2, eight said guilty, two said not guilty and two didn’t know,” according to the juror.
The juror said that they immediately believed Potter was guilty on both counts immediately after closing arguments. But when other jurors challenged them to look deeper at the law, the juror said they started to doubt their decision.
“The day that we asked the judge what would happen if we can’t reach a decision, we were evenly split on Manslaughter 1 at four guilty, four not guilty and four ‘I have no idea,'” the juror told the news station.
“And at that point we were just arguing semantics and kind of in circles. … Those last couple days were literally just focusing in on the language of the law.”
The juror also talked about how Potter seemed “very upset and apologetic” when she took the stand but noted that her experience as a police officer came into play.
“I don’t want to speak for all the jurors, but I think we believed she was a good person and even believed that she was a good cop,” the juror explained. “No one felt she was intentional in this. … We felt like she was a good person, we felt she made a mistake, and that a mistake does not absolve you from the fact she did commit a crime.”
A big turning point for the jury was when they had the opportunity to hold Potter’s gun and her Taser to feel the differences between them. The news station reported that the gun is about twice as heavy as a Taser and it’s unholstered and fired differently than a Taser is.
“The taser kind of feels like a mouse click whereas the trigger has some trigger draw weight. That was a key turning point,” the juror said.
The jury — one Black person, two Asian American people and nine white people — deliberated for more than 27 hours before arriving at both verdicts. They convicted Potter on the lesser charge on the morning of Dec. 21 and convicted her on the more serious charge on Dec. 23, according to the jurors’ verdict form.
Potter now faces a maximum of 15 years in prison when she’s sentenced on Feb. 18.
Juror who convicted Kim Potter for manslaughter said the ex-cop seemed remorseful and like she.
In this screen grab from video, former Minnesota police officer Kim Potter breaks down while testifying at her trial on manslaughter charges on Friday, Dec. 17, 2021. Court TV, via AP, Pool
A juror who convicted Kim Potter told KARE that the ex-cop seemed remorseful when she testified in her defense.
Potter was convicted on manslaughter charges in the shooting death of Daunte Wright during an April traffic stop.
The juror asked KARE not to identify them “because of the amount of public animosity involved with the case.”
Ajuror who convicted former Minnesota police officer Kim Potter said they thought Potter was being genuinely remorseful when she broke down in tears as she testified in her trial over the shooting death of Daunte Wright, a 20-year-old Black man.
A juror from the case spoke out for the first time publicly on Wednesday in an interview with KARE. The juror asked KARE not to release their name because of “the amount of public animosity involved with the case.” A 12-person, mostly-white, jury convicted Potter on first- and second-degree manslaughter charges on December 23, after deliberating for 27 hours. Potter had said that she intended to grab her Taser when she shot Wright in the chest during a traffic stop in April.
The juror who spoke with KARE said that the former police officer seemed like she was “fighting for her life” when she took the stand in her own defense, “and we understood why she would be.”
The anonymous individual said they were “surprised” that some people did not think Potter’s tears in court were real, telling KARE that her crying on the stand felt “very real and tangible to me.”
“She seemed very upset and apologetic,” the juror said.
Prosecutor Erin Eldridge told the jury in closing arguments that, “this case is not about whether the defendant is sorry or whether she’s remorseful.” During the trial, prosecutors continually reminded the jury that manslaughter is a crime, even if it’s a mistake, a tactic that a legal expert told Insider was smart.
The juror told KARE that after listening to Potter’s testimony, they thought she seemed like a “good person and even a good cop.” But the juror still felt Potter had committed a crime.
“We felt like she was a good person. We felt she made a mistake and that a mistake does not absolve you from the fact she did commit a crime,” the juror told KARE. “Being a good person doesn’t mean you’re above the law. I don’t think anyone felt she wanted to kill anybody that day.”
Read the original article on Insider
I didn’t follow the trial, but noted at one point that the MSM noted that the TASER or similar item was recently changed. Being somewhat familiar with the “training requirements” of many major LEAs, I have to wonder what, if any, initial/transition training took place and what inservice sustainement training existed.
I also have to wonder if there was some cognitive dissonance going on where habit pattern given the situation drove drawing the weapon while the mind was either dithering or leaning toward the non/less lethal TASER.
Being guilty of both voluntary and involuntary (I’m old school) manslaughter at the same time is a rather interesting acomplishment. As noted by several above and the legal eagles, neither charge is intended to cover an honest mistake. Failure to train is-or should be- a civil issue.
Read about the incident. Saw the video recording. Read the statues. Police lawfully contacted and attempted to arrest the deceased who resisted and was trying to flee dragging an Officer with him. Prosecutor at trial did not assert intentional action by Officer Potter, yet charged two seemingly contradictory charges, one of which requires intentional action. The jury convicted the Officer of both.
Well, jurors, you were wrong. Minnesota, good luck. Your police forces will, undoubtedly, throttle back, rightfully concerned about the safety of their backsides because this verdict is not a one-off, it is a change in support of policing, and your police know it. The emboldened Prosecutor will put peddle to the metal – onward the crusade for equity, or whatever other silly or power grabbing idea pops into his head or is carried in by some cool-sounding wave of popular bullshit or delusion or propaganda.
The question, Minnesota, is how bad do you want it to get? How much ignoring of what is happening can you take? My guess is it is alot. Look at San Francisco, Portland, or Seattle.
La PD face biggest law suite ever over this event that just happen there. La Pd shot bad guy with out gun with 233 ar15 round went through him bounce off floor in dress room where hit 14 old girl in chest killing her. The case under Investigation As Homicide buy da there. Policemen on leave. More fact what happen there below.
The 14-year-old girl killed by LA police in a Burlington changing room was shopping for quinceañera dresses
Alia Shoaib,Azmi Haroun
Fri, December 24, 2021, 8:06 PM·2 min read
Los Angeles Police Department speak in a press conference at the scene where two people were struck by gunfire in a shooting at a Burlington store — part of a chain formerly known as Burlington Coat Factory in North Hollywood, California, Thursday, Dec. 23, 2021.
LAPD officers speaking outside the Burlington store in North Hollywood.Ringo H.W. Chiu/AP
LA police killed 14-year-old Valentina Orellana-Peralta while opening fire on a male suspect in a Burlington store.
She had been trying on dresses for a quinceañera in the changing room, a source told the LA Times.
The girl appeared to be with her mother when police shot her, the LA police chief told the Times.
The 14-year-old girl who was fatally shot by Los Angeles police inside a Burlington store’s changing room on Thursday had been trying on dresses for a quinceañera, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing a source within the Los Angeles Police Department.
LA police shot and killed the girl while opening fire on a male suspect inside the North Hollywood store. The suspect was also killed.
The Los Angeles County coroner’s office identified the girl as Valentina Orellana-Peralta on Friday, according to the Los Angeles Times. The office identified the suspect who was killed by police as Daniel Elena Lopez.
The officers were responding to reports of an assault with a deadly weapon. Upon arriving, they saw the male suspect “in the process of assaulting another person,” LAPD Officer Drake Madison previously told Insider.
An officer found the girl inside a changing room while searching the store for additional suspects or victims, the LAPD said in a Thursday statement.
LAPD Chief Michel Moore told the LA Times that surveillance footage appeared to show that the girl was in the changing room with her mother when police shot her.
“We have a young girl who was in a dressing room behind a wall that my understanding was in the path of where the officer fired,” Moore told the newspaper.
“This is a devastating and tragic circumstance, and it occurred during the actions of one of our officers,” he continued.
The changing room that the girl was in was located behind a wall, which was “out of the officers’ view,” the Thursday LAPD statement said.
LAPD Assistant Chief Dominic Choi told a press conference that officers couldn’t see into the dressing rooms, and “it just looks like a straight wall of drywall.”
Edwin Arroyo, a supervisor with Nancy’s Cleaning Services who tidied up the scene, told the LA Times that in the dressing room he found, “blood smeared on a wall, on a cream colored dress left on a hanger, and more than a dozen other items.”
Police said the suspect had a bike chain or lock that he was possibly using as a weapon, but that he didn’t have a gun on him.
Another woman, believed to be the assault victim, was pictured being put into an ambulance with a bloodied face. Police said the woman had moderate to severe injuries and was being treated at a local hospital.
Kim Potter had 26 years’ experience as a police officer. No one has said anything about how well she could handle herself in a brawl with a suspect or how many hand-to-hand fights like this she had engaged in during her career. Her mistake smells like that of a rookie rather than of an experienced, streetwise cop who has taken down numerous Daunte Wrights without screwing up.
Comments are closed.