Daunte Wright shot with Taser. And by "taser," I mean, "Gun."

[Toni]

Your characterization is bullshit.

Hardly. I leave that to you.

What on earth are you on about now?

Mohammed Noor, the Somali Muslim who deliberately murdered innocent woman Justine Dammond had his murder conviction overturned and will be released in less than five years.
Ex-Minneapolis police officer sentenced to 57 months in the killing of a 911 caller

How is what he did any less severe than what say Derek Chauvin did? If anything, Chauvin is less guilty because the killing was accidental and Floyd's poor health and fentanyl overdose contributed to his death. And yet Chauvin will be in prison five times longer. Black Muslim privilege. Especially when AG is a black Muslim with Nation of Islam ties. I smell a coverup!

The two medical examiners who conducted autopsies on Floyd's body ruled it a homicide. A doctor and several experts in the use of force testified at trial that it was a homicide. A jury of 12 people presented with the evidence in the case ruled it a homicide. Multiple people who witnessed the killing first hand, including a paramedic, testified that Chauvin killed Floyd. And Chauvin himself recently pled guilt in a Federal Court to violating Mr Floyd's rights and to using excessive force. Yet here you are, repeating this lie over and over again.

One of these days you may get arrested during a vice sting, and get your ass beaten in the process, and you will discover for yourself exactly how the police in this country treat the communities they are paid to serve and protect. Maybe you will change your tune then.

At the risk of starting a tangential discussion of the Chauvin case, you should also note that aside from unsupported opinion there was little evidence, save for one expert witness, that the death could be confidently attributed to an unlawful killing. The County ME initially made no ruling then, under the obvious pressure of the unrest, simply changed his finding based on nothing. If you read the ME report, there simply wasn't any evidence that Chauvin's knee or forced prone position was the proximate substantial contributary cause.

In addition, a bunch of people who witness a death may render their own non-expert conjecture, as might the jury, but the epidemiological evidence is consistent with several theories of death, including his mostly blocked heart arteries, enlarged heart, drug overdose, etc.

Finally, Chauvin recent decision to plea over using excessive force is not an admission that he murdered Floyd. It's a practical choice he made given that his resources are depleted, can't get a public defender, and the piling on makes it nearly impossible for him to win. As it is, if (as was implied in a news article) he continues with the pro bono state appeal and gets a new trial, a favorable result at a State trial would setup a possible pardon for the federal conviction under a Republican President. Otherwise, he best save his retirement funds for his old age release.

You failed to mention the fact that Chauvin continued to asphyxiate Mr Floyd for nearly three minutes after he became aware that Mr Floyd had stopped breathing, failed to render first aid to try to revive him, and that his own colleague advised him that Mr Floyd should be rolled on his side so they could try to revive him. That is the most damning piece of evidence in the case, even if you were somehow able to overlook the unjustified assault that was intended to inflict pain and suffering on a person who was restrained with handcuffs and did not pose a threat to anybody. The assault was illegal, and Mr Floyd died as a result of the assault - that adds up to felony murder in most jurisdictions. Most reasonable people, well versed in the law or not, recognize that when they watch the video, but some people continue to defend the murdering thug in this story.

However, if you do a deep dive into the case you will find that Chauvin's actions were not, beyond a reasonable doubt, actually asphyxiating Floyd and that the three-minute meme's length of time was a falsehood invented by the prosecution (the time period of the Chauvin's alleged asphyxiation was half that). Also, his colleague's comment was seemly unheard or not understood by Chauvin above the noise of the radio traffic and crowd.

Of course, Chauvin was insensitive, preoccupied with the threat of the crowd, and restrained under the presumption that Floyd was in the throes of drug induced delirium. But it did not amount to assault. Finally, the bottom line is that there isn't any evidence that Chauvin's knee to the shoulder or base of the neck (see the still shots taken from another angle) had any substantive contribution to Floyd's death.

The only narrative of guilt supported by the "evidence" is the video-based analysis testimony of one of the prosecutions
'experts' who, apparently for this trial, said he had a method (non peer reviewed) where in he claimed he could calculate the percentage (down to tenths of a percent) of breath through a cell phone video.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that. The subject of this thread is Potter, and unlike Chauvin, even jury does not believe (according to a juror) she knew she was shooting a gun.

Now do Hitler.

 

[TomC]

Now do Hitler.

Oh, that one's easy.
Hitler was an opinionated vegetarian. You know what those people are like.
Tom

 

[maxparrish]

She was an experienced officer who trained younger officers in the use of force as part of her job. A man is dead because of her reckless actions, and she should have known better. Any common civilian, who did not have the specialized training that Ms Potter had received, or the experience she had gathered over two and half decades working a LEO and a trainer, would likely also be convicted of a similar charge under similar circumstances. Why should Ms Potter be treated any different?

First, her actions under Minnesota law and the evidence provided, did not meet the criminal requirement for "recklessness".

Two, "she should have known better" is a civil law criteria for negligence, but recklessness is a concept under criminal law ('culpable negligence') which requires the person to have an awareness of drawing and firing a gun AND a thereby showing conscious disregarding for its "foreseeable" unjustified great bodily harm or death.

I have a concealed weapons permit, and I sometimes carry a firearm on my person when I am legally allowed to do so. The first thing you learn in gun safety training is that you never pull a gun unless you are willing to use it, and you never point a gun at somebody unless you are willing to kill them. I am not a trained LEO with 26 years of experience and I don't train other LEOs in the use of force - yet I am fully able to recognize the potential consequences of pulling a gun and using it. I also know exactly what my gun handle and trigger feel like, and exactly what I need to do in order to make it go boom, because I constantly practice these maneuvers in a safe environment so I can rely on my muscle memory if I am ever faced with a situation where I need to make this happen. To suggest that a veteran LEO who has been carrying a gun at her side for 26 years or more, pretty much every day of her working life, lacks the ability to foresee the consequences of knowingly putting herself in a position where she might misuse that gun is preposterous. Or that she is unable to distinguish between a gun handle and a taser handle in the heat of the moment, when this stuff should all be ingrained in her muscle memory through constant practice and repetition.

And all of your comment is based on the predicate that training guarantees that a person can't make an error, even under extreme and immediate stress, because why? Because you believe you're immune to it so must she be? That muscle memory is perfect and never fails? That "action error" (aka slip and capture) is a recognized but bogus field of psychology?

No one is suggesting she lacks the ability to foresee the consequences of knowingly "putting herself in the circumstances" of being a street cop and then making a lawful arrest. None believe she wouldn't know the potential consequences of shooting a gun at someone. BUT you must be aware, knowing, that you are pointing and firing a gun, not a taser, BEFORE you can be recklessly disregarding the likilhood of unjustified consequences of using a gun (ie death or great bodily harm).

Three, why should anyone be "treated different(ly)" under the law, agreed. However, training is mostly immaterial to slip and capture (action error) and because such training intentionally tries to make actions automatic, so when it works its fine. However, as shown in many areas of human endeavor (doctors, pilots, police officers, etc.) when automatics actions derail, the person is almost always unaware.

Kim Potter made a mistake, which is not by itself unlawful. She also might have been negligent in some manner, which is not criminal by itself. But she was not reckless because if you are not even aware of the correct weapon you hold in your hand, you can't have knowingly disregarded its risk since you didn't have it.

She should have been aware that she was pulling her gun and not her taser; she should have been aware that she was pulling the trigger on her gun and not her taser. A Glock 17 feels NOTHING like a taser in the hand. That is the whole fucking point. She should have known how to distinguish between her gun and her less-lethal option. She was not a rookie, and it is preposterous to suggest that she had not trained herself sufficiently to recognize the difference.

The only mitigating circumstance I can think of is the fact that most LEOs today get issued single action automatic pistols (Glocks and Berettas) where all you need to do to make the gun go boom is pull the trigger. Unlike the old days where police carried double action revolvers (which have a longer, heavier, multi-stage trigger pull), or a single action auto with one or more safety features (like the grip safety, the slide safety, and firing pin safety that is found on many modern 1911s). But even with that fact, she must have put tens of thousands of rounds through her service Glock as part of her range work training, and she must have been aware of exactly how here Glock felt in her hand, and the fact that it has no safety features.

First, as I said, "should have been aware" is a criterion under civil law, not criminal law. The Minnesota supreme court has definitively rejected "should have been aware" as being sufficient to find a person guilty of culpable negligence. (Frost vs. State).

Second, even if "should have been aware" was a sufficient criterion for a finding of guilt (which it is not), it is very unlikely that in highly stressed mental state of action error that she should have been aware. In these few seconds to act, one isn't thinking about the feel of the grip, or comparing their mere 1lb difference in weight. One is acting "automatically" but doing the unintended thing, i.e. making a mistake under extreme stress.

And, by the way, the fact that she may have put 10s of thousands of rounds through her Glock underscores "muscle memory". The brain does not question a familiar feel, it expects it. Put another way, suppose she had intended to draw her GUN and drew her Taser...then the unfamiliar feel of the Taser might have triggered an awareness of a mistake.

Finally, the jury got it wrong...badly wrong. This was confirmed in a recent interview of one of the jurors who proudly explained how they interpreted the law, and now it is clear how badly they mangled it.

 

[Jarhyn]

This whole test seems to me a rather good filter:

See who supports Chauvin.

See who supports Potter.

It seems Potter is a good filter case to identify reactionary cop haters, and Chauvin is a good filter case to identify reactionary cop lovers.

 

[maxparrish]

This whole test seems to me a rather good filter:

See who supports Chauvin.

See who supports Potter.

It seems Potter is a good filter case to identify reactionary cop haters, and Chauvin is a good filter case to identify reactionary cop lovers.

I think it has an element of that. But I think it is, for some, a failure of imagination.

One example: I've had a circle of personal friends who keep in touch by email. Most of us range from moderate to conservative. In 2014 or so we got into a passionate email exchange over prosecutors, innocence projects, DNA, etc. I can't remember the actual trigger, but I do recall surprising splits. On one side was "G" and "R" ("G" a far-right conservative and "R" a moderate Democrat). They habitually defended the government prosecution and cops over every case and issue: to them the Defendents were always criminals, and both endorse harsh punishment.

On the other side was "L", a libertarian and conservative and me (also a conservative and libertarian mix). We didn't know each other well, but took the side of the defendants and shared the outrage over the illegal tactics of the prosecutors (e.g. withholding of evidence).

During the heated email exchanges, it occurred to L and me that we asked ourselves what if? We were horrified that "but for there go I" this could be us.

"G" and "R" simply couldn't imagine themselves in that situation. They couldn't be wrongly prosecuted. They couldn't make honest mistakes. Only the truly guilty end up in a criminal trial.

To me, be it Chauvin, Rittenhouse, or Potter, I ask myself the same question...I fear the State. I know they are so much more powerful than I. I know that cops often lie, prosecutors are often amoral scum, and that if I were their target, it's over. I know that otherwise decent people can be victimized, their doors mistakenly kicked down in a 5:00 am raid, house turned upside down, "find" some joint.

That is the litmus test here; can a person imagine what is like to be on trial for something you did not intend or knowingly do?

 

[Gospel]

Your characterization is bullshit.

Hardly. I leave that to you.

What on earth are you on about now?

Mohammed Noor, the Somali Muslim who deliberately murdered innocent woman Justine Dammond had his murder conviction overturned and will be released in less than five years.
Ex-Minneapolis police officer sentenced to 57 months in the killing of a 911 caller

How is what he did any less severe than what say Derek Chauvin did? If anything, Chauvin is less guilty because the killing was accidental and Floyd's poor health and fentanyl overdose contributed to his death. And yet Chauvin will be in prison five times longer. Black Muslim privilege. Especially when AG is a black Muslim with Nation of Islam ties. I smell a coverup!

The two medical examiners who conducted autopsies on Floyd's body ruled it a homicide. A doctor and several experts in the use of force testified at trial that it was a homicide. A jury of 12 people presented with the evidence in the case ruled it a homicide. Multiple people who witnessed the killing first hand, including a paramedic, testified that Chauvin killed Floyd. And Chauvin himself recently pled guilt in a Federal Court to violating Mr Floyd's rights and to using excessive force. Yet here you are, repeating this lie over and over again.

One of these days you may get arrested during a vice sting, and get your ass beaten in the process, and you will discover for yourself exactly how the police in this country treat the communities they are paid to serve and protect. Maybe you will change your tune then.

At the risk of starting a tangential discussion of the Chauvin case, you should also note that aside from unsupported opinion there was little evidence, save for one expert witness, that the death could be confidently attributed to an unlawful killing. The County ME initially made no ruling then, under the obvious pressure of the unrest, simply changed his finding based on nothing. If you read the ME report, there simply wasn't any evidence that Chauvin's knee or forced prone position was the proximate substantial contributary cause.

In addition, a bunch of people who witness a death may render their own non-expert conjecture, as might the jury, but the epidemiological evidence is consistent with several theories of death, including his mostly blocked heart arteries, enlarged heart, drug overdose, etc.

Finally, Chauvin recent decision to plea over using excessive force is not an admission that he murdered Floyd. It's a practical choice he made given that his resources are depleted, can't get a public defender, and the piling on makes it nearly impossible for him to win. As it is, if (as was implied in a news article) he continues with the pro bono state appeal and gets a new trial, a favorable result at a State trial would setup a possible pardon for the federal conviction under a Republican President. Otherwise, he best save his retirement funds for his old age release.

You failed to mention the fact that Chauvin continued to asphyxiate Mr Floyd for nearly three minutes after he became aware that Mr Floyd had stopped breathing, failed to render first aid to try to revive him, and that his own colleague advised him that Mr Floyd should be rolled on his side so they could try to revive him. That is the most damning piece of evidence in the case, even if you were somehow able to overlook the unjustified assault that was intended to inflict pain and suffering on a person who was restrained with handcuffs and did not pose a threat to anybody. The assault was illegal, and Mr Floyd died as a result of the assault - that adds up to felony murder in most jurisdictions. Most reasonable people, well versed in the law or not, recognize that when they watch the video, but some people continue to defend the murdering thug in this story.

However, if you do a deep dive into the case you will find that Chauvin's actions were not, beyond a reasonable doubt, actually asphyxiating Floyd and that the three-minute meme's length of time was a falsehood invented by the prosecution (the time period of the Chauvin's alleged asphyxiation was half that). Also, his colleague's comment was seemly unheard or not understood by Chauvin above the noise of the radio traffic and crowd.

Of course, Chauvin was insensitive, preoccupied with the threat of the crowd, and restrained under the presumption that Floyd was in the throes of drug induced delirium. But it did not amount to assault. Finally, the bottom line is that there isn't any evidence that Chauvin's knee to the shoulder or base of the neck (see the still shots taken from another angle) had any substantive contribution to Floyd's death.

The only narrative of guilt supported by the "evidence" is the video-based analysis testimony of one of the prosecutions
'experts' who, apparently for this trial, said he had a method (non peer reviewed) where in he claimed he could calculate the percentage (down to tenths of a percent) of breath through a cell phone video.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that. The subject of this thread is Potter, and unlike Chauvin, even jury does not believe (according to a juror) she knew she was shooting a gun.

I'm with you on Potter but I wonder how Floyd survived so many nights of sleep if just laying down would have killed him.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your characterization is bullshit.

Hardly. I leave that to you.

What on earth are you on about now?

Mohammed Noor, the Somali Muslim who deliberately murdered innocent woman Justine Dammond had his murder conviction overturned and will be released in less than five years.
Ex-Minneapolis police officer sentenced to 57 months in the killing of a 911 caller

How is what he did any less severe than what say Derek Chauvin did? If anything, Chauvin is less guilty because the killing was accidental and Floyd's poor health and fentanyl overdose contributed to his death. And yet Chauvin will be in prison five times longer. Black Muslim privilege. Especially when AG is a black Muslim with Nation of Islam ties. I smell a coverup!

The two medical examiners who conducted autopsies on Floyd's body ruled it a homicide. A doctor and several experts in the use of force testified at trial that it was a homicide. A jury of 12 people presented with the evidence in the case ruled it a homicide. Multiple people who witnessed the killing first hand, including a paramedic, testified that Chauvin killed Floyd. And Chauvin himself recently pled guilt in a Federal Court to violating Mr Floyd's rights and to using excessive force. Yet here you are, repeating this lie over and over again.

One of these days you may get arrested during a vice sting, and get your ass beaten in the process, and you will discover for yourself exactly how the police in this country treat the communities they are paid to serve and protect. Maybe you will change your tune then.

At the risk of starting a tangential discussion of the Chauvin case, you should also note that aside from unsupported opinion there was little evidence, save for one expert witness, that the death could be confidently attributed to an unlawful killing. The County ME initially made no ruling then, under the obvious pressure of the unrest, simply changed his finding based on nothing. If you read the ME report, there simply wasn't any evidence that Chauvin's knee or forced prone position was the proximate substantial contributary cause.

In addition, a bunch of people who witness a death may render their own non-expert conjecture, as might the jury, but the epidemiological evidence is consistent with several theories of death, including his mostly blocked heart arteries, enlarged heart, drug overdose, etc.

Finally, Chauvin recent decision to plea over using excessive force is not an admission that he murdered Floyd. It's a practical choice he made given that his resources are depleted, can't get a public defender, and the piling on makes it nearly impossible for him to win. As it is, if (as was implied in a news article) he continues with the pro bono state appeal and gets a new trial, a favorable result at a State trial would setup a possible pardon for the federal conviction under a Republican President. Otherwise, he best save his retirement funds for his old age release.

You failed to mention the fact that Chauvin continued to asphyxiate Mr Floyd for nearly three minutes after he became aware that Mr Floyd had stopped breathing, failed to render first aid to try to revive him, and that his own colleague advised him that Mr Floyd should be rolled on his side so they could try to revive him. That is the most damning piece of evidence in the case, even if you were somehow able to overlook the unjustified assault that was intended to inflict pain and suffering on a person who was restrained with handcuffs and did not pose a threat to anybody. The assault was illegal, and Mr Floyd died as a result of the assault - that adds up to felony murder in most jurisdictions. Most reasonable people, well versed in the law or not, recognize that when they watch the video, but some people continue to defend the murdering thug in this story.

However, if you do a deep dive into the case you will find that Chauvin's actions were not, beyond a reasonable doubt, actually asphyxiating Floyd and that the three-minute meme's length of time was a falsehood invented by the prosecution (the time period of the Chauvin's alleged asphyxiation was half that). Also, his colleague's comment was seemly unheard or not understood by Chauvin above the noise of the radio traffic and crowd.

Of course, Chauvin was insensitive, preoccupied with the threat of the crowd, and restrained under the presumption that Floyd was in the throes of drug induced delirium. But it did not amount to assault. Finally, the bottom line is that there isn't any evidence that Chauvin's knee to the shoulder or base of the neck (see the still shots taken from another angle) had any substantive contribution to Floyd's death.

The only narrative of guilt supported by the "evidence" is the video-based analysis testimony of one of the prosecutions
'experts' who, apparently for this trial, said he had a method (non peer reviewed) where in he claimed he could calculate the percentage (down to tenths of a percent) of breath through a cell phone video.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that. The subject of this thread is Potter, and unlike Chauvin, even jury does not believe (according to a juror) she knew she was shooting a gun.

I'm with you on Potter but I wonder how Floyd survived so many nights of sleep if just laying down would have killed him.

IKR? And, can you remind me again, because I'm not sure I remember clearly, was it not Floyd who often objected to Chauvin's use of force as a bouncer?

 

[TomC]

Your characterization is bullshit.

Hardly. I leave that to you.

What on earth are you on about now?

Mohammed Noor, the Somali Muslim who deliberately murdered innocent woman Justine Dammond had his murder conviction overturned and will be released in less than five years.
Ex-Minneapolis police officer sentenced to 57 months in the killing of a 911 caller

How is what he did any less severe than what say Derek Chauvin did? If anything, Chauvin is less guilty because the killing was accidental and Floyd's poor health and fentanyl overdose contributed to his death. And yet Chauvin will be in prison five times longer. Black Muslim privilege. Especially when AG is a black Muslim with Nation of Islam ties. I smell a coverup!

The two medical examiners who conducted autopsies on Floyd's body ruled it a homicide. A doctor and several experts in the use of force testified at trial that it was a homicide. A jury of 12 people presented with the evidence in the case ruled it a homicide. Multiple people who witnessed the killing first hand, including a paramedic, testified that Chauvin killed Floyd. And Chauvin himself recently pled guilt in a Federal Court to violating Mr Floyd's rights and to using excessive force. Yet here you are, repeating this lie over and over again.

One of these days you may get arrested during a vice sting, and get your ass beaten in the process, and you will discover for yourself exactly how the police in this country treat the communities they are paid to serve and protect. Maybe you will change your tune then.

At the risk of starting a tangential discussion of the Chauvin case, you should also note that aside from unsupported opinion there was little evidence, save for one expert witness, that the death could be confidently attributed to an unlawful killing. The County ME initially made no ruling then, under the obvious pressure of the unrest, simply changed his finding based on nothing. If you read the ME report, there simply wasn't any evidence that Chauvin's knee or forced prone position was the proximate substantial contributary cause.

In addition, a bunch of people who witness a death may render their own non-expert conjecture, as might the jury, but the epidemiological evidence is consistent with several theories of death, including his mostly blocked heart arteries, enlarged heart, drug overdose, etc.

Finally, Chauvin recent decision to plea over using excessive force is not an admission that he murdered Floyd. It's a practical choice he made given that his resources are depleted, can't get a public defender, and the piling on makes it nearly impossible for him to win. As it is, if (as was implied in a news article) he continues with the pro bono state appeal and gets a new trial, a favorable result at a State trial would setup a possible pardon for the federal conviction under a Republican President. Otherwise, he best save his retirement funds for his old age release.

You failed to mention the fact that Chauvin continued to asphyxiate Mr Floyd for nearly three minutes after he became aware that Mr Floyd had stopped breathing, failed to render first aid to try to revive him, and that his own colleague advised him that Mr Floyd should be rolled on his side so they could try to revive him. That is the most damning piece of evidence in the case, even if you were somehow able to overlook the unjustified assault that was intended to inflict pain and suffering on a person who was restrained with handcuffs and did not pose a threat to anybody. The assault was illegal, and Mr Floyd died as a result of the assault - that adds up to felony murder in most jurisdictions. Most reasonable people, well versed in the law or not, recognize that when they watch the video, but some people continue to defend the murdering thug in this story.

However, if you do a deep dive into the case you will find that Chauvin's actions were not, beyond a reasonable doubt, actually asphyxiating Floyd and that the three-minute meme's length of time was a falsehood invented by the prosecution (the time period of the Chauvin's alleged asphyxiation was half that). Also, his colleague's comment was seemly unheard or not understood by Chauvin above the noise of the radio traffic and crowd.

Of course, Chauvin was insensitive, preoccupied with the threat of the crowd, and restrained under the presumption that Floyd was in the throes of drug induced delirium. But it did not amount to assault. Finally, the bottom line is that there isn't any evidence that Chauvin's knee to the shoulder or base of the neck (see the still shots taken from another angle) had any substantive contribution to Floyd's death.

The only narrative of guilt supported by the "evidence" is the video-based analysis testimony of one of the prosecutions
'experts' who, apparently for this trial, said he had a method (non peer reviewed) where in he claimed he could calculate the percentage (down to tenths of a percent) of breath through a cell phone video.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that. The subject of this thread is Potter, and unlike Chauvin, even jury does not believe (according to a juror) she knew she was shooting a gun.

I'm with you on Potter but I wonder how Floyd survived so many nights of sleep if just laying down would have killed him.

Hard to say.

How recently had he done that much fentanyl?
I dunno.
Tom

 

[maxparrish]

Your characterization is bullshit.

Hardly. I leave that to you.

What on earth are you on about now?

Mohammed Noor, the Somali Muslim who deliberately murdered innocent woman Justine Dammond had his murder conviction overturned and will be released in less than five years.
Ex-Minneapolis police officer sentenced to 57 months in the killing of a 911 caller

How is what he did any less severe than what say Derek Chauvin did? If anything, Chauvin is less guilty because the killing was accidental and Floyd's poor health and fentanyl overdose contributed to his death. And yet Chauvin will be in prison five times longer. Black Muslim privilege. Especially when AG is a black Muslim with Nation of Islam ties. I smell a coverup!

The two medical examiners who conducted autopsies on Floyd's body ruled it a homicide. A doctor and several experts in the use of force testified at trial that it was a homicide. A jury of 12 people presented with the evidence in the case ruled it a homicide. Multiple people who witnessed the killing first hand, including a paramedic, testified that Chauvin killed Floyd. And Chauvin himself recently pled guilt in a Federal Court to violating Mr Floyd's rights and to using excessive force. Yet here you are, repeating this lie over and over again.

One of these days you may get arrested during a vice sting, and get your ass beaten in the process, and you will discover for yourself exactly how the police in this country treat the communities they are paid to serve and protect. Maybe you will change your tune then.

At the risk of starting a tangential discussion of the Chauvin case, you should also note that aside from unsupported opinion there was little evidence, save for one expert witness, that the death could be confidently attributed to an unlawful killing. The County ME initially made no ruling then, under the obvious pressure of the unrest, simply changed his finding based on nothing. If you read the ME report, there simply wasn't any evidence that Chauvin's knee or forced prone position was the proximate substantial contributary cause.

In addition, a bunch of people who witness a death may render their own non-expert conjecture, as might the jury, but the epidemiological evidence is consistent with several theories of death, including his mostly blocked heart arteries, enlarged heart, drug overdose, etc.

Finally, Chauvin recent decision to plea over using excessive force is not an admission that he murdered Floyd. It's a practical choice he made given that his resources are depleted, can't get a public defender, and the piling on makes it nearly impossible for him to win. As it is, if (as was implied in a news article) he continues with the pro bono state appeal and gets a new trial, a favorable result at a State trial would setup a possible pardon for the federal conviction under a Republican President. Otherwise, he best save his retirement funds for his old age release.

You failed to mention the fact that Chauvin continued to asphyxiate Mr Floyd for nearly three minutes after he became aware that Mr Floyd had stopped breathing, failed to render first aid to try to revive him, and that his own colleague advised him that Mr Floyd should be rolled on his side so they could try to revive him. That is the most damning piece of evidence in the case, even if you were somehow able to overlook the unjustified assault that was intended to inflict pain and suffering on a person who was restrained with handcuffs and did not pose a threat to anybody. The assault was illegal, and Mr Floyd died as a result of the assault - that adds up to felony murder in most jurisdictions. Most reasonable people, well versed in the law or not, recognize that when they watch the video, but some people continue to defend the murdering thug in this story.

However, if you do a deep dive into the case you will find that Chauvin's actions were not, beyond a reasonable doubt, actually asphyxiating Floyd and that the three-minute meme's length of time was a falsehood invented by the prosecution (the time period of the Chauvin's alleged asphyxiation was half that). Also, his colleague's comment was seemly unheard or not understood by Chauvin above the noise of the radio traffic and crowd.

Of course, Chauvin was insensitive, preoccupied with the threat of the crowd, and restrained under the presumption that Floyd was in the throes of drug induced delirium. But it did not amount to assault. Finally, the bottom line is that there isn't any evidence that Chauvin's knee to the shoulder or base of the neck (see the still shots taken from another angle) had any substantive contribution to Floyd's death.

The only narrative of guilt supported by the "evidence" is the video-based analysis testimony of one of the prosecutions
'experts' who, apparently for this trial, said he had a method (non peer reviewed) where in he claimed he could calculate the percentage (down to tenths of a percent) of breath through a cell phone video.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that. The subject of this thread is Potter, and unlike Chauvin, even jury does not believe (according to a juror) she knew she was shooting a gun.

I'm with you on Potter but I wonder how Floyd survived so many nights of sleep if just laying down would have killed him.

The least important answer to that is to remember that lots of people die of cardo-pulmonary events when just resting. The much more important point, however, is to remember that GF simply hadn't been resting when the trouble started:

a) George Floyd had downed a large quantity of Fent in his car prior to the original cops getting him out of his car...perhaps to hide the evidence.

b) GF then became highly agitated and fought cops for 15 minutes, refusing to enter or stay in the Police car. The exhausting fight ended when the Police gave up... during which time he constantly claimed he couldn't breath while fighting to stay out of the car.

c) GF was then restrained by being put to the ground. His complaints did not stop, and the rest we know.

He had a badly enlarged heart, which requires far more oxygen than normal hearts especially when exertion demands it. His two major vessels were 75 to 90 percent blocked, which means far less blood flow to a enlarged heart demanding oxygen. Fent vastly decreases heart rate and the lethal levels he took added to the heart stress. His history of BPreesure was higher than mine, when my own doctor said I was a ticking time bomb that needed immediate beta blockers.

The problem here is that every symptom Floyd had, including those starting before being put prone, are the same as someone whose breathing is seriously impaired by a physical act (assuming that it was physically impaired) ... and, even his foaming at the mouth is a symptom of a FENT overdose (his history of mouth foaming after taking drugs noted by his girlfriend in testimony).

So it's not a surprise that when the ME was asked if GF had been found in an easy chair with the same symptoms, would the subsequent medical exam show it was from a homicide...the ME said no, it would just be a drug overdose with complicating conditions.

That is one of the primary reasons I do not believe that Chauvin killed Floyd beyond a reasonable doubt. It's impossible to know. He may have, he may not have. GF's breathing may have been substantially impaired by physical force, or it may not have.

 

[Swammerdami]

... As it is, if (as was implied in a news article) he continues with the pro bono state appeal and gets a new trial, a favorable result at a State trial would setup a possible pardon for the federal conviction under a Republican President. Otherwise, he best save his retirement funds for his old age

Did your sources introduce the Republican pardon meme, or did you make it up?
Either way, it seems the partisan divide on matters of race and justice is pretty blatant by now,

Anyway, I'll leave it at that. The subject of this thread is Potter, and unlike Chauvin, even jury does not believe (according to a juror) she knew she was shooting a gun.

Now do Hitler.

 

[Toni]

Your characterization is bullshit.

Hardly. I leave that to you.

What on earth are you on about now?

Mohammed Noor, the Somali Muslim who deliberately murdered innocent woman Justine Dammond had his murder conviction overturned and will be released in less than five years.
Ex-Minneapolis police officer sentenced to 57 months in the killing of a 911 caller

How is what he did any less severe than what say Derek Chauvin did? If anything, Chauvin is less guilty because the killing was accidental and Floyd's poor health and fentanyl overdose contributed to his death. And yet Chauvin will be in prison five times longer. Black Muslim privilege. Especially when AG is a black Muslim with Nation of Islam ties. I smell a coverup!

The two medical examiners who conducted autopsies on Floyd's body ruled it a homicide. A doctor and several experts in the use of force testified at trial that it was a homicide. A jury of 12 people presented with the evidence in the case ruled it a homicide. Multiple people who witnessed the killing first hand, including a paramedic, testified that Chauvin killed Floyd. And Chauvin himself recently pled guilt in a Federal Court to violating Mr Floyd's rights and to using excessive force. Yet here you are, repeating this lie over and over again.

One of these days you may get arrested during a vice sting, and get your ass beaten in the process, and you will discover for yourself exactly how the police in this country treat the communities they are paid to serve and protect. Maybe you will change your tune then.

At the risk of starting a tangential discussion of the Chauvin case, you should also note that aside from unsupported opinion there was little evidence, save for one expert witness, that the death could be confidently attributed to an unlawful killing. The County ME initially made no ruling then, under the obvious pressure of the unrest, simply changed his finding based on nothing. If you read the ME report, there simply wasn't any evidence that Chauvin's knee or forced prone position was the proximate substantial contributary cause.

In addition, a bunch of people who witness a death may render their own non-expert conjecture, as might the jury, but the epidemiological evidence is consistent with several theories of death, including his mostly blocked heart arteries, enlarged heart, drug overdose, etc.

Finally, Chauvin recent decision to plea over using excessive force is not an admission that he murdered Floyd. It's a practical choice he made given that his resources are depleted, can't get a public defender, and the piling on makes it nearly impossible for him to win. As it is, if (as was implied in a news article) he continues with the pro bono state appeal and gets a new trial, a favorable result at a State trial would setup a possible pardon for the federal conviction under a Republican President. Otherwise, he best save his retirement funds for his old age release.

You failed to mention the fact that Chauvin continued to asphyxiate Mr Floyd for nearly three minutes after he became aware that Mr Floyd had stopped breathing, failed to render first aid to try to revive him, and that his own colleague advised him that Mr Floyd should be rolled on his side so they could try to revive him. That is the most damning piece of evidence in the case, even if you were somehow able to overlook the unjustified assault that was intended to inflict pain and suffering on a person who was restrained with handcuffs and did not pose a threat to anybody. The assault was illegal, and Mr Floyd died as a result of the assault - that adds up to felony murder in most jurisdictions. Most reasonable people, well versed in the law or not, recognize that when they watch the video, but some people continue to defend the murdering thug in this story.

However, if you do a deep dive into the case you will find that Chauvin's actions were not, beyond a reasonable doubt, actually asphyxiating Floyd and that the three-minute meme's length of time was a falsehood invented by the prosecution (the time period of the Chauvin's alleged asphyxiation was half that). Also, his colleague's comment was seemly unheard or not understood by Chauvin above the noise of the radio traffic and crowd.

Of course, Chauvin was insensitive, preoccupied with the threat of the crowd, and restrained under the presumption that Floyd was in the throes of drug induced delirium. But it did not amount to assault. Finally, the bottom line is that there isn't any evidence that Chauvin's knee to the shoulder or base of the neck (see the still shots taken from another angle) had any substantive contribution to Floyd's death.

The only narrative of guilt supported by the "evidence" is the video-based analysis testimony of one of the prosecutions
'experts' who, apparently for this trial, said he had a method (non peer reviewed) where in he claimed he could calculate the percentage (down to tenths of a percent) of breath through a cell phone video.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that. The subject of this thread is Potter, and unlike Chauvin, even jury does not believe (according to a juror) she knew she was shooting a gun.

I'm with you on Potter but I wonder how Floyd survived so many nights of sleep if just laying down would have killed him.

Hard to say.

How recently had he done that much fentanyl?
I dunno.
Tom

I find it amazing how just how many people die from being placed in a prone position with police officers kneeling on their back or neck. Fentanyl abuse must be horrific.

BTW, Minneapolis police are well experienced in the administration of Narcan. Sadly enough. At least this is what I'm told by someone who is very familiar with this in Minneapolis.

 

[maxparrish]

Your characterization is bullshit.

Hardly. I leave that to you.

What on earth are you on about now?

Mohammed Noor, the Somali Muslim who deliberately murdered innocent woman Justine Dammond had his murder conviction overturned and will be released in less than five years.
Ex-Minneapolis police officer sentenced to 57 months in the killing of a 911 caller

How is what he did any less severe than what say Derek Chauvin did? If anything, Chauvin is less guilty because the killing was accidental and Floyd's poor health and fentanyl overdose contributed to his death. And yet Chauvin will be in prison five times longer. Black Muslim privilege. Especially when AG is a black Muslim with Nation of Islam ties. I smell a coverup!

The two medical examiners who conducted autopsies on Floyd's body ruled it a homicide. A doctor and several experts in the use of force testified at trial that it was a homicide. A jury of 12 people presented with the evidence in the case ruled it a homicide. Multiple people who witnessed the killing first hand, including a paramedic, testified that Chauvin killed Floyd. And Chauvin himself recently pled guilt in a Federal Court to violating Mr Floyd's rights and to using excessive force. Yet here you are, repeating this lie over and over again.

One of these days you may get arrested during a vice sting, and get your ass beaten in the process, and you will discover for yourself exactly how the police in this country treat the communities they are paid to serve and protect. Maybe you will change your tune then.

At the risk of starting a tangential discussion of the Chauvin case, you should also note that aside from unsupported opinion there was little evidence, save for one expert witness, that the death could be confidently attributed to an unlawful killing. The County ME initially made no ruling then, under the obvious pressure of the unrest, simply changed his finding based on nothing. If you read the ME report, there simply wasn't any evidence that Chauvin's knee or forced prone position was the proximate substantial contributary cause.

In addition, a bunch of people who witness a death may render their own non-expert conjecture, as might the jury, but the epidemiological evidence is consistent with several theories of death, including his mostly blocked heart arteries, enlarged heart, drug overdose, etc.

Finally, Chauvin recent decision to plea over using excessive force is not an admission that he murdered Floyd. It's a practical choice he made given that his resources are depleted, can't get a public defender, and the piling on makes it nearly impossible for him to win. As it is, if (as was implied in a news article) he continues with the pro bono state appeal and gets a new trial, a favorable result at a State trial would setup a possible pardon for the federal conviction under a Republican President. Otherwise, he best save his retirement funds for his old age release.

You failed to mention the fact that Chauvin continued to asphyxiate Mr Floyd for nearly three minutes after he became aware that Mr Floyd had stopped breathing, failed to render first aid to try to revive him, and that his own colleague advised him that Mr Floyd should be rolled on his side so they could try to revive him. That is the most damning piece of evidence in the case, even if you were somehow able to overlook the unjustified assault that was intended to inflict pain and suffering on a person who was restrained with handcuffs and did not pose a threat to anybody. The assault was illegal, and Mr Floyd died as a result of the assault - that adds up to felony murder in most jurisdictions. Most reasonable people, well versed in the law or not, recognize that when they watch the video, but some people continue to defend the murdering thug in this story.

However, if you do a deep dive into the case you will find that Chauvin's actions were not, beyond a reasonable doubt, actually asphyxiating Floyd and that the three-minute meme's length of time was a falsehood invented by the prosecution (the time period of the Chauvin's alleged asphyxiation was half that). Also, his colleague's comment was seemly unheard or not understood by Chauvin above the noise of the radio traffic and crowd.

Of course, Chauvin was insensitive, preoccupied with the threat of the crowd, and restrained under the presumption that Floyd was in the throes of drug induced delirium. But it did not amount to assault. Finally, the bottom line is that there isn't any evidence that Chauvin's knee to the shoulder or base of the neck (see the still shots taken from another angle) had any substantive contribution to Floyd's death.

The only narrative of guilt supported by the "evidence" is the video-based analysis testimony of one of the prosecutions
'experts' who, apparently for this trial, said he had a method (non peer reviewed) where in he claimed he could calculate the percentage (down to tenths of a percent) of breath through a cell phone video.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that. The subject of this thread is Potter, and unlike Chauvin, even jury does not believe (according to a juror) she knew she was shooting a gun.

I'm with you on Potter but I wonder how Floyd survived so many nights of sleep if just laying down would have killed him.

Hard to say.

How recently had he done that much fentanyl?
I dunno.
Tom

I find it amazing how just how many people die from being placed in a prone position with police officers kneeling on their back or neck. Fentanyl abuse must be horrific.

BTW, Minneapolis police are well experienced in the administration of Narcan. Sadly enough. At least this is what I'm told by someone who is very familiar with this in Minneapolis.

Assuming you aware of current events, you should know how many more people die from FENT overdoses than from being placed in a prone position. The differences are probably 100,000 to 1,000,000 to one. Now that is "amazing".

Moreover, if you look at research studies on the prone position its a matter of dispute if such positions cause any death. It remains a very contested science.

Finally, it is my understanding that Narcan was not available to the cops on the scene.

 

[Toni]

Your characterization is bullshit.

Hardly. I leave that to you.

What on earth are you on about now?

Mohammed Noor, the Somali Muslim who deliberately murdered innocent woman Justine Dammond had his murder conviction overturned and will be released in less than five years.
Ex-Minneapolis police officer sentenced to 57 months in the killing of a 911 caller

How is what he did any less severe than what say Derek Chauvin did? If anything, Chauvin is less guilty because the killing was accidental and Floyd's poor health and fentanyl overdose contributed to his death. And yet Chauvin will be in prison five times longer. Black Muslim privilege. Especially when AG is a black Muslim with Nation of Islam ties. I smell a coverup!

The two medical examiners who conducted autopsies on Floyd's body ruled it a homicide. A doctor and several experts in the use of force testified at trial that it was a homicide. A jury of 12 people presented with the evidence in the case ruled it a homicide. Multiple people who witnessed the killing first hand, including a paramedic, testified that Chauvin killed Floyd. And Chauvin himself recently pled guilt in a Federal Court to violating Mr Floyd's rights and to using excessive force. Yet here you are, repeating this lie over and over again.

One of these days you may get arrested during a vice sting, and get your ass beaten in the process, and you will discover for yourself exactly how the police in this country treat the communities they are paid to serve and protect. Maybe you will change your tune then.

At the risk of starting a tangential discussion of the Chauvin case, you should also note that aside from unsupported opinion there was little evidence, save for one expert witness, that the death could be confidently attributed to an unlawful killing. The County ME initially made no ruling then, under the obvious pressure of the unrest, simply changed his finding based on nothing. If you read the ME report, there simply wasn't any evidence that Chauvin's knee or forced prone position was the proximate substantial contributary cause.

In addition, a bunch of people who witness a death may render their own non-expert conjecture, as might the jury, but the epidemiological evidence is consistent with several theories of death, including his mostly blocked heart arteries, enlarged heart, drug overdose, etc.

Finally, Chauvin recent decision to plea over using excessive force is not an admission that he murdered Floyd. It's a practical choice he made given that his resources are depleted, can't get a public defender, and the piling on makes it nearly impossible for him to win. As it is, if (as was implied in a news article) he continues with the pro bono state appeal and gets a new trial, a favorable result at a State trial would setup a possible pardon for the federal conviction under a Republican President. Otherwise, he best save his retirement funds for his old age release.

You failed to mention the fact that Chauvin continued to asphyxiate Mr Floyd for nearly three minutes after he became aware that Mr Floyd had stopped breathing, failed to render first aid to try to revive him, and that his own colleague advised him that Mr Floyd should be rolled on his side so they could try to revive him. That is the most damning piece of evidence in the case, even if you were somehow able to overlook the unjustified assault that was intended to inflict pain and suffering on a person who was restrained with handcuffs and did not pose a threat to anybody. The assault was illegal, and Mr Floyd died as a result of the assault - that adds up to felony murder in most jurisdictions. Most reasonable people, well versed in the law or not, recognize that when they watch the video, but some people continue to defend the murdering thug in this story.

However, if you do a deep dive into the case you will find that Chauvin's actions were not, beyond a reasonable doubt, actually asphyxiating Floyd and that the three-minute meme's length of time was a falsehood invented by the prosecution (the time period of the Chauvin's alleged asphyxiation was half that). Also, his colleague's comment was seemly unheard or not understood by Chauvin above the noise of the radio traffic and crowd.

Of course, Chauvin was insensitive, preoccupied with the threat of the crowd, and restrained under the presumption that Floyd was in the throes of drug induced delirium. But it did not amount to assault. Finally, the bottom line is that there isn't any evidence that Chauvin's knee to the shoulder or base of the neck (see the still shots taken from another angle) had any substantive contribution to Floyd's death.

The only narrative of guilt supported by the "evidence" is the video-based analysis testimony of one of the prosecutions
'experts' who, apparently for this trial, said he had a method (non peer reviewed) where in he claimed he could calculate the percentage (down to tenths of a percent) of breath through a cell phone video.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that. The subject of this thread is Potter, and unlike Chauvin, even jury does not believe (according to a juror) she knew she was shooting a gun.

I'm with you on Potter but I wonder how Floyd survived so many nights of sleep if just laying down would have killed him.

Hard to say.

How recently had he done that much fentanyl?
I dunno.
Tom

I find it amazing how just how many people die from being placed in a prone position with police officers kneeling on their back or neck. Fentanyl abuse must be horrific.

BTW, Minneapolis police are well experienced in the administration of Narcan. Sadly enough. At least this is what I'm told by someone who is very familiar with this in Minneapolis.

Assuming you aware of current events, you should know how many more people die from FENT overdoses than from being placed in a prone position. The differences are probably 100,000 to 1,000,000 to one. Now that is "amazing".

Moreover, if you look at research studies on the prone position its a matter of dispute if such positions cause any death. It remains a very contested science.

Finally, it is my understanding that Narcan was not available to the cops on the scene.

I’m not going to debate with you about the known dangers of holding people in restrains in prone positions. Your mind is made up so no reason to confuse you with facts.

Police in Minneapolis carry Narcan routinely. There is zero evidence that the officers even considered that Narcan might be useful. There is also ample evidence that Floyd’s death was a direct result of the actions of Chauvin, as determined by his autopsy and expert testimony. Pardon us all for giving that more weight than your opinions.

 

[laughing dog]

Not only is the question of Mr. Chauvin's guilt or innocence irrelevant to the thread, the evidence and the testimony clear indicate Mr. Chauvin caused Mr. Floyd's death.

There are plenty of "law and order" absolutists and outright bigots/racists who cannot and will not accept the above reality.

 

[atrib]

She was an experienced officer who trained younger officers in the use of force as part of her job. A man is dead because of her reckless actions, and she should have known better. Any common civilian, who did not have the specialized training that Ms Potter had received, or the experience she had gathered over two and half decades working a LEO and a trainer, would likely also be convicted of a similar charge under similar circumstances. Why should Ms Potter be treated any different?

First, her actions under Minnesota law and the evidence provided, did not meet the criminal requirement for "recklessness".

Two, "she should have known better" is a civil law criteria for negligence, but recklessness is a concept under criminal law ('culpable negligence') which requires the person to have an awareness of drawing and firing a gun AND a thereby showing conscious disregarding for its "foreseeable" unjustified great bodily harm or death.

I have a concealed weapons permit, and I sometimes carry a firearm on my person when I am legally allowed to do so. The first thing you learn in gun safety training is that you never pull a gun unless you are willing to use it, and you never point a gun at somebody unless you are willing to kill them. I am not a trained LEO with 26 years of experience and I don't train other LEOs in the use of force - yet I am fully able to recognize the potential consequences of pulling a gun and using it. I also know exactly what my gun handle and trigger feel like, and exactly what I need to do in order to make it go boom, because I constantly practice these maneuvers in a safe environment so I can rely on my muscle memory if I am ever faced with a situation where I need to make this happen. To suggest that a veteran LEO who has been carrying a gun at her side for 26 years or more, pretty much every day of her working life, lacks the ability to foresee the consequences of knowingly putting herself in a position where she might misuse that gun is preposterous. Or that she is unable to distinguish between a gun handle and a taser handle in the heat of the moment, when this stuff should all be ingrained in her muscle memory through constant practice and repetition.

And all of your comment is based on the predicate that training guarantees that a person can't make an error, even under extreme and immediate stress, because why? Because you believe you're immune to it so must she be? That muscle memory is perfect and never fails? That "action error" (aka slip and capture) is a recognized but bogus field of psychology?

No one is suggesting she lacks the ability to foresee the consequences of knowingly "putting herself in the circumstances" of being a street cop and then making a lawful arrest. None believe she wouldn't know the potential consequences of shooting a gun at someone. BUT you must be aware, knowing, that you are pointing and firing a gun, not a taser, BEFORE you can be recklessly disregarding the likilhood of unjustified consequences of using a gun (ie death or great bodily harm).

Three, why should anyone be "treated different(ly)" under the law, agreed. However, training is mostly immaterial to slip and capture (action error) and because such training intentionally tries to make actions automatic, so when it works its fine. However, as shown in many areas of human endeavor (doctors, pilots, police officers, etc.) when automatics actions derail, the person is almost always unaware.

Kim Potter made a mistake, which is not by itself unlawful. She also might have been negligent in some manner, which is not criminal by itself. But she was not reckless because if you are not even aware of the correct weapon you hold in your hand, you can't have knowingly disregarded its risk since you didn't have it.

She should have been aware that she was pulling her gun and not her taser; she should have been aware that she was pulling the trigger on her gun and not her taser. A Glock 17 feels NOTHING like a taser in the hand. That is the whole fucking point. She should have known how to distinguish between her gun and her less-lethal option. She was not a rookie, and it is preposterous to suggest that she had not trained herself sufficiently to recognize the difference.

The only mitigating circumstance I can think of is the fact that most LEOs today get issued single action automatic pistols (Glocks and Berettas) where all you need to do to make the gun go boom is pull the trigger. Unlike the old days where police carried double action revolvers (which have a longer, heavier, multi-stage trigger pull), or a single action auto with one or more safety features (like the grip safety, the slide safety, and firing pin safety that is found on many modern 1911s). But even with that fact, she must have put tens of thousands of rounds through her service Glock as part of her range work training, and she must have been aware of exactly how here Glock felt in her hand, and the fact that it has no safety features.

First, as I said, "should have been aware" is a criterion under civil law, not criminal law. The Minnesota supreme court has definitively rejected "should have been aware" as being sufficient to find a person guilty of culpable negligence. (Frost vs. State).

Second, even if "should have been aware" was a sufficient criterion for a finding of guilt (which it is not), it is very unlikely that in highly stressed mental state of action error that she should have been aware. In these few seconds to act, one isn't thinking about the feel of the grip, or comparing their mere 1lb difference in weight. One is acting "automatically" but doing the unintended thing, i.e. making a mistake under extreme stress.

And, by the way, the fact that she may have put 10s of thousands of rounds through her Glock underscores "muscle memory". The brain does not question a familiar feel, it expects it. Put another way, suppose she had intended to draw her GUN and drew her Taser...then the unfamiliar feel of the Taser might have triggered an awareness of a mistake.

Finally, the jury got it wrong...badly wrong. This was confirmed in a recent interview of one of the jurors who proudly explained how they interpreted the law, and now it is clear how badly they mangled it.

The killing of Duante Wright was no accident. This is what we know based on trial testimony:

1. Ms Potter had been a LEO for 26 years, over the course of which she had received extensive and continued training in the use of firearms.
2. Ms Potter knew that her pistol was a deadly weapon, she had been taught about and understood the risks of carrying a firearm, and she was intimately familiar with the PD policy regarding the use of said firearm.
3. Ms Potter knew that she was carrying the firearm in Condition 1 when the traffic stop was initiated. She knew this because she had pushed a loaded magazine into the magwell of the gun, and racked the slide to load a live round into the chamber and put the hammer into the battery position before she started her shift on patrol. She also knew that her firearm was not equipped with any external safety features, and that it would go bang when she pressed the trigger.

Based on the video evidence from the multiple body-cams, and Ms Potter's testimony, we can infer that:
1. Ms Potter was not paying sufficient attention when she pulled her gun from its holster on her right hip, apparently believing it to be the taser which was holstered on her left hip.
2. She was not paying sufficient attention as she waved the gun around for about 5 seconds, as she recklessly painted Dunate Wright, his passenger, and her two colleagues with the muzzle of the gun, placing them all at great risk.
3. She was not paying sufficient attention as she finally identified her target and lined up the sights on her gun on Dunate Wright's chest.
4. She was not paying sufficient attention as she pulled the trigger and put a jacketed hollow-point projectile into his heart, killing him almost instantly.

The traffic stop was not extraordinary in any meaningful way, other than Mr Wright getting shot, and other people at the scene being placed in grave danger through the reckless and unlawful actions of Ms Potter. She had a duty to follow the safety and firearm use protocols she had been trained in, and she should have been paying more attention and following her training as the situation evolved. Mr Wright's untimely death was not an accident, it was a homicide resulting from the reckless and negligent use of a firearm by a seasoned professional who had been trained for 26 years on how to prevent such events from transpiring.

 

[Jarhyn]

She was an experienced officer who trained younger officers in the use of force as part of her job. A man is dead because of her reckless actions, and she should have known better. Any common civilian, who did not have the specialized training that Ms Potter had received, or the experience she had gathered over two and half decades working a LEO and a trainer, would likely also be convicted of a similar charge under similar circumstances. Why should Ms Potter be treated any different?

First, her actions under Minnesota law and the evidence provided, did not meet the criminal requirement for "recklessness".

Two, "she should have known better" is a civil law criteria for negligence, but recklessness is a concept under criminal law ('culpable negligence') which requires the person to have an awareness of drawing and firing a gun AND a thereby showing conscious disregarding for its "foreseeable" unjustified great bodily harm or death.

I have a concealed weapons permit, and I sometimes carry a firearm on my person when I am legally allowed to do so. The first thing you learn in gun safety training is that you never pull a gun unless you are willing to use it, and you never point a gun at somebody unless you are willing to kill them. I am not a trained LEO with 26 years of experience and I don't train other LEOs in the use of force - yet I am fully able to recognize the potential consequences of pulling a gun and using it. I also know exactly what my gun handle and trigger feel like, and exactly what I need to do in order to make it go boom, because I constantly practice these maneuvers in a safe environment so I can rely on my muscle memory if I am ever faced with a situation where I need to make this happen. To suggest that a veteran LEO who has been carrying a gun at her side for 26 years or more, pretty much every day of her working life, lacks the ability to foresee the consequences of knowingly putting herself in a position where she might misuse that gun is preposterous. Or that she is unable to distinguish between a gun handle and a taser handle in the heat of the moment, when this stuff should all be ingrained in her muscle memory through constant practice and repetition.

And all of your comment is based on the predicate that training guarantees that a person can't make an error, even under extreme and immediate stress, because why? Because you believe you're immune to it so must she be? That muscle memory is perfect and never fails? That "action error" (aka slip and capture) is a recognized but bogus field of psychology?

No one is suggesting she lacks the ability to foresee the consequences of knowingly "putting herself in the circumstances" of being a street cop and then making a lawful arrest. None believe she wouldn't know the potential consequences of shooting a gun at someone. BUT you must be aware, knowing, that you are pointing and firing a gun, not a taser, BEFORE you can be recklessly disregarding the likilhood of unjustified consequences of using a gun (ie death or great bodily harm).

Three, why should anyone be "treated different(ly)" under the law, agreed. However, training is mostly immaterial to slip and capture (action error) and because such training intentionally tries to make actions automatic, so when it works its fine. However, as shown in many areas of human endeavor (doctors, pilots, police officers, etc.) when automatics actions derail, the person is almost always unaware.

Kim Potter made a mistake, which is not by itself unlawful. She also might have been negligent in some manner, which is not criminal by itself. But she was not reckless because if you are not even aware of the correct weapon you hold in your hand, you can't have knowingly disregarded its risk since you didn't have it.

She should have been aware that she was pulling her gun and not her taser; she should have been aware that she was pulling the trigger on her gun and not her taser. A Glock 17 feels NOTHING like a taser in the hand. That is the whole fucking point. She should have known how to distinguish between her gun and her less-lethal option. She was not a rookie, and it is preposterous to suggest that she had not trained herself sufficiently to recognize the difference.

The only mitigating circumstance I can think of is the fact that most LEOs today get issued single action automatic pistols (Glocks and Berettas) where all you need to do to make the gun go boom is pull the trigger. Unlike the old days where police carried double action revolvers (which have a longer, heavier, multi-stage trigger pull), or a single action auto with one or more safety features (like the grip safety, the slide safety, and firing pin safety that is found on many modern 1911s). But even with that fact, she must have put tens of thousands of rounds through her service Glock as part of her range work training, and she must have been aware of exactly how here Glock felt in her hand, and the fact that it has no safety features.

First, as I said, "should have been aware" is a criterion under civil law, not criminal law. The Minnesota supreme court has definitively rejected "should have been aware" as being sufficient to find a person guilty of culpable negligence. (Frost vs. State).

Second, even if "should have been aware" was a sufficient criterion for a finding of guilt (which it is not), it is very unlikely that in highly stressed mental state of action error that she should have been aware. In these few seconds to act, one isn't thinking about the feel of the grip, or comparing their mere 1lb difference in weight. One is acting "automatically" but doing the unintended thing, i.e. making a mistake under extreme stress.

And, by the way, the fact that she may have put 10s of thousands of rounds through her Glock underscores "muscle memory". The brain does not question a familiar feel, it expects it. Put another way, suppose she had intended to draw her GUN and drew her Taser...then the unfamiliar feel of the Taser might have triggered an awareness of a mistake.

Finally, the jury got it wrong...badly wrong. This was confirmed in a recent interview of one of the jurors who proudly explained how they interpreted the law, and now it is clear how badly they mangled it.

The killing of Duante Wright was no accident. This is what we know based on trial testimony:

1. Ms Potter had been a LEO for 26 years, over the course of which she had received extensive and continued training in the use of firearms.
2. Ms Potter knew that her pistol was a deadly weapon, she had been taught about and understood the risks of carrying a firearm, and she was intimately familiar with the PD policy regarding the use of said firearm.
3. Ms Potter knew that she was carrying the firearm in Condition 1 when the traffic stop was initiated. She knew this because she had pushed a loaded magazine into the magwell of the gun, and racked the slide to load a live round into the chamber and put the hammer into the battery position before she started her shift on patrol. She also knew that her firearm was not equipped with any external safety features, and that it would go bang when she pressed the trigger.

Based on the video evidence from the multiple body-cams, and Ms Potter's testimony, we can infer that:
1. Ms Potter was not paying sufficient attention when she pulled her gun from its holster on her right hip, apparently believing it to be the taser which was holstered on her left hip.
2. She was not paying sufficient attention as she waved the gun around for about 5 seconds, as she recklessly painted Dunate Wright, his passenger, and her two colleagues with the muzzle of the gun, placing them all at great risk.
3. She was not paying sufficient attention as she finally identified her target and lined up the sights on her gun on Dunate Wright's chest.
4. She was not paying sufficient attention as she pulled the trigger and put a jacketed hollow-point projectile into his heart, killing him almost instantly.

The traffic stop was not extraordinary in any meaningful way, other than Mr Wright getting shot, and other people at the scene being placed in grave danger through the reckless and unlawful actions of Ms Potter. She had a duty to safeguard the lives of the people around her by following the protocols she had been trained in, and she should have been paying more attention and following her training as the situation evolved. Mr Wright's untimely death was not an accident, it was a homicide resulting from the reckless and negligent use of a firearm by Ms Potter, who had been trained for 26 years on how to prevent such events from transpiring.

As has been pointed out to you by...

The military veteran with direct experience in both trained and untrained reflexive response...

The clear evidence of what happened in the video...

The empathy and responses of various others here...

The members who are no friend to cops expressing empathy for this particular cop...

Your analysis of culpability and even what ought to happen to her as a result might be misplaced.

I can pretty well expect that none of the members of the jury had the requisite experience to actually know the realities of such reflex reactions.

It's just another data point on the line that says "cops shouldn't have guns to begin with".

 

[atrib]

I feel a great deal of empathy for this cop, and I believe that she genuinely regrets her actions. I am not judging her actions to be malicious, or implying that they were driven by anything other than a few moments of reckless negligence. And I have made no comments on what her sentence should be - I hope that it is not long, because I don't think a long sentence would be appropriate given the circumstances. What I am saying is that the charges against her are appropriate and supported by the evidence, as I explained in my last post.

 

[maxparrish]

She was an experienced officer who trained younger officers in the use of force as part of her job. A man is dead because of her reckless actions, and she should have known better. Any common civilian, who did not have the specialized training that Ms Potter had received, or the experience she had gathered over two and half decades working a LEO and a trainer, would likely also be convicted of a similar charge under similar circumstances. Why should Ms Potter be treated any different?

First, her actions under Minnesota law and the evidence provided, did not meet the criminal requirement for "recklessness".

Two, "she should have known better" is a civil law criteria for negligence, but recklessness is a concept under criminal law ('culpable negligence') which requires the person to have an awareness of drawing and firing a gun AND a thereby showing conscious disregarding for its "foreseeable" unjustified great bodily harm or death.

I have a concealed weapons permit, and I sometimes carry a firearm on my person when I am legally allowed to do so. The first thing you learn in gun safety training is that you never pull a gun unless you are willing to use it, and you never point a gun at somebody unless you are willing to kill them. I am not a trained LEO with 26 years of experience and I don't train other LEOs in the use of force - yet I am fully able to recognize the potential consequences of pulling a gun and using it. I also know exactly what my gun handle and trigger feel like, and exactly what I need to do in order to make it go boom, because I constantly practice these maneuvers in a safe environment so I can rely on my muscle memory if I am ever faced with a situation where I need to make this happen. To suggest that a veteran LEO who has been carrying a gun at her side for 26 years or more, pretty much every day of her working life, lacks the ability to foresee the consequences of knowingly putting herself in a position where she might misuse that gun is preposterous. Or that she is unable to distinguish between a gun handle and a taser handle in the heat of the moment, when this stuff should all be ingrained in her muscle memory through constant practice and repetition.

And all of your comment is based on the predicate that training guarantees that a person can't make an error, even under extreme and immediate stress, because why? Because you believe you're immune to it so must she be? That muscle memory is perfect and never fails? That "action error" (aka slip and capture) is a recognized but bogus field of psychology?

No one is suggesting she lacks the ability to foresee the consequences of knowingly "putting herself in the circumstances" of being a street cop and then making a lawful arrest. None believe she wouldn't know the potential consequences of shooting a gun at someone. BUT you must be aware, knowing, that you are pointing and firing a gun, not a taser, BEFORE you can be recklessly disregarding the likilhood of unjustified consequences of using a gun (ie death or great bodily harm).

Three, why should anyone be "treated different(ly)" under the law, agreed. However, training is mostly immaterial to slip and capture (action error) and because such training intentionally tries to make actions automatic, so when it works its fine. However, as shown in many areas of human endeavor (doctors, pilots, police officers, etc.) when automatics actions derail, the person is almost always unaware.

Kim Potter made a mistake, which is not by itself unlawful. She also might have been negligent in some manner, which is not criminal by itself. But she was not reckless because if you are not even aware of the correct weapon you hold in your hand, you can't have knowingly disregarded its risk since you didn't have it.

She should have been aware that she was pulling her gun and not her taser; she should have been aware that she was pulling the trigger on her gun and not her taser. A Glock 17 feels NOTHING like a taser in the hand. That is the whole fucking point. She should have known how to distinguish between her gun and her less-lethal option. She was not a rookie, and it is preposterous to suggest that she had not trained herself sufficiently to recognize the difference.

The only mitigating circumstance I can think of is the fact that most LEOs today get issued single action automatic pistols (Glocks and Berettas) where all you need to do to make the gun go boom is pull the trigger. Unlike the old days where police carried double action revolvers (which have a longer, heavier, multi-stage trigger pull), or a single action auto with one or more safety features (like the grip safety, the slide safety, and firing pin safety that is found on many modern 1911s). But even with that fact, she must have put tens of thousands of rounds through her service Glock as part of her range work training, and she must have been aware of exactly how here Glock felt in her hand, and the fact that it has no safety features.

First, as I said, "should have been aware" is a criterion under civil law, not criminal law. The Minnesota supreme court has definitively rejected "should have been aware" as being sufficient to find a person guilty of culpable negligence. (Frost vs. State).

Second, even if "should have been aware" was a sufficient criterion for a finding of guilt (which it is not), it is very unlikely that in highly stressed mental state of action error that she should have been aware. In these few seconds to act, one isn't thinking about the feel of the grip, or comparing their mere 1lb difference in weight. One is acting "automatically" but doing the unintended thing, i.e. making a mistake under extreme stress.

And, by the way, the fact that she may have put 10s of thousands of rounds through her Glock underscores "muscle memory". The brain does not question a familiar feel, it expects it. Put another way, suppose she had intended to draw her GUN and drew her Taser...then the unfamiliar feel of the Taser might have triggered an awareness of a mistake.

Finally, the jury got it wrong...badly wrong. This was confirmed in a recent interview of one of the jurors who proudly explained how they interpreted the law, and now it is clear how badly they mangled it.

The killing of Duante Wright was no accident. This is what we know based on trial testimony:

1. Ms Potter had been a LEO for 26 years, over the course of which she had received extensive and continued training in the use of firearms.
2. Ms Potter knew that her pistol was a deadly weapon, she had been taught about and understood the risks of carrying a firearm, and she was intimately familiar with the PD policy regarding the use of said firearm.
3. Ms Potter knew that she was carrying the firearm in Condition 1 when the traffic stop was initiated. She knew this because she had pushed a loaded magazine into the magwell of the gun, and racked the slide to load a live round into the chamber and put the hammer into the battery position before she started her shift on patrol. She also knew that her firearm was not equipped with any external safety features, and that it would go bang when she pressed the trigger.

Based on the video evidence from the multiple body-cams, and Ms Potter's testimony, we can infer that:
1. Ms Potter was not paying sufficient attention when she pulled her gun from its holster on her right hip, apparently believing it to be the taser which was holstered on her left hip.
2. She was not paying sufficient attention as she waved the gun around for about 5 seconds, as she recklessly painted Dunate Wright, his passenger, and her two colleagues with the muzzle of the gun, placing them all at great risk.
3. She was not paying sufficient attention as she finally identified her target and lined up the sights on her gun on Dunate Wright's chest.
4. She was not paying sufficient attention as she pulled the trigger and put a jacketed hollow-point projectile into his heart, killing him almost instantly.

The traffic stop was not extraordinary in any meaningful way, other than Mr Wright getting shot, and other people at the scene being placed in grave danger through the reckless and unlawful actions of Ms Potter. She had a duty to follow the safety and firearm use protocols she had been trained in, and she should have been paying more attention and following her training as the situation evolved. Mr Wright's untimely death was not an accident, it was a homicide resulting from the reckless and negligent use of a firearm by a seasoned professional who had been trained for 26 years on how to prevent such events from transpiring.

If you're going to ignore my rebuttals to these worn-out thread points and cling to this immaterial and sometimes irrational narrative, as some here stubbornly do, there isn't a point to us exchanging views. So, as I have already written:

1. The amount of training Ms. Potter received isn't relevant. Training is primarily done to prevent CONCIOUS mistakes and build physical skill sets, not to overcome and prevent unconscious awareness. Even if it helps, there isn't a training program on the face of the earth that can guarantee that mistakes won't happen.

2-4. Whether or not she was paying sufficient attention isn't relevant as a question of criminal law. What matters is if she KNEW she wasn't sufficiently attentive and consciously disregarded the risks. In criminal law negligence alone is not a crime, its a civil wrong subjective to a civil suit.

5. "Should have been paying more attention" is meaningless phrase. Yes, she should have paid more attention, just as when someone steps on the accelerator rather than the brake should have "been paying more attention". But its not criminal. To be criminal you have to be aware that you are taking an unjustified risk and consciously disregarding it.

6. You have yet to show her actions meet the legal definition of having been reckless or unlawful. Reformulating your criticism about her duty, more attention, following training, etc. are all predicate on the assumption she was making aware and willful choices. Doing you duty, giving more attention, following training REQUIRE that a person is aware that they aren't doing their duty, are inattentive, or not following training.

You can have been a driving instructor for 30 years, and still unintentionally press the accelerator than the break. Yes, you know the rules of the road, you know your duty to drive safely, you might even know you got distracted. NONE OF THAT AMOUNTS TO A CRIME. Why? Because you weren't aware that you had pedal confusion until the act was performed.

Read the Minnesota manslaughter law, read Frost v. State and Enger v. State (Minnesota Case law). This is standard stuff.

 

[maxparrish]

She was an experienced officer who trained younger officers in the use of force as part of her job. A man is dead because of her reckless actions, and she should have known better. Any common civilian, who did not have the specialized training that Ms Potter had received, or the experience she had gathered over two and half decades working a LEO and a trainer, would likely also be convicted of a similar charge under similar circumstances. Why should Ms Potter be treated any different?

First, her actions under Minnesota law and the evidence provided, did not meet the criminal requirement for "recklessness".

Two, "she should have known better" is a civil law criteria for negligence, but recklessness is a concept under criminal law ('culpable negligence') which requires the person to have an awareness of drawing and firing a gun AND a thereby showing conscious disregarding for its "foreseeable" unjustified great bodily harm or death.

I have a concealed weapons permit, and I sometimes carry a firearm on my person when I am legally allowed to do so. The first thing you learn in gun safety training is that you never pull a gun unless you are willing to use it, and you never point a gun at somebody unless you are willing to kill them. I am not a trained LEO with 26 years of experience and I don't train other LEOs in the use of force - yet I am fully able to recognize the potential consequences of pulling a gun and using it. I also know exactly what my gun handle and trigger feel like, and exactly what I need to do in order to make it go boom, because I constantly practice these maneuvers in a safe environment so I can rely on my muscle memory if I am ever faced with a situation where I need to make this happen. To suggest that a veteran LEO who has been carrying a gun at her side for 26 years or more, pretty much every day of her working life, lacks the ability to foresee the consequences of knowingly putting herself in a position where she might misuse that gun is preposterous. Or that she is unable to distinguish between a gun handle and a taser handle in the heat of the moment, when this stuff should all be ingrained in her muscle memory through constant practice and repetition.

And all of your comment is based on the predicate that training guarantees that a person can't make an error, even under extreme and immediate stress, because why? Because you believe you're immune to it so must she be? That muscle memory is perfect and never fails? That "action error" (aka slip and capture) is a recognized but bogus field of psychology?

No one is suggesting she lacks the ability to foresee the consequences of knowingly "putting herself in the circumstances" of being a street cop and then making a lawful arrest. None believe she wouldn't know the potential consequences of shooting a gun at someone. BUT you must be aware, knowing, that you are pointing and firing a gun, not a taser, BEFORE you can be recklessly disregarding the likilhood of unjustified consequences of using a gun (ie death or great bodily harm).

Three, why should anyone be "treated different(ly)" under the law, agreed. However, training is mostly immaterial to slip and capture (action error) and because such training intentionally tries to make actions automatic, so when it works its fine. However, as shown in many areas of human endeavor (doctors, pilots, police officers, etc.) when automatics actions derail, the person is almost always unaware.

Kim Potter made a mistake, which is not by itself unlawful. She also might have been negligent in some manner, which is not criminal by itself. But she was not reckless because if you are not even aware of the correct weapon you hold in your hand, you can't have knowingly disregarded its risk since you didn't have it.

She should have been aware that she was pulling her gun and not her taser; she should have been aware that she was pulling the trigger on her gun and not her taser. A Glock 17 feels NOTHING like a taser in the hand. That is the whole fucking point. She should have known how to distinguish between her gun and her less-lethal option. She was not a rookie, and it is preposterous to suggest that she had not trained herself sufficiently to recognize the difference.

The only mitigating circumstance I can think of is the fact that most LEOs today get issued single action automatic pistols (Glocks and Berettas) where all you need to do to make the gun go boom is pull the trigger. Unlike the old days where police carried double action revolvers (which have a longer, heavier, multi-stage trigger pull), or a single action auto with one or more safety features (like the grip safety, the slide safety, and firing pin safety that is found on many modern 1911s). But even with that fact, she must have put tens of thousands of rounds through her service Glock as part of her range work training, and she must have been aware of exactly how here Glock felt in her hand, and the fact that it has no safety features.

First, as I said, "should have been aware" is a criterion under civil law, not criminal law. The Minnesota supreme court has definitively rejected "should have been aware" as being sufficient to find a person guilty of culpable negligence. (Frost vs. State).

Second, even if "should have been aware" was a sufficient criterion for a finding of guilt (which it is not), it is very unlikely that in highly stressed mental state of action error that she should have been aware. In these few seconds to act, one isn't thinking about the feel of the grip, or comparing their mere 1lb difference in weight. One is acting "automatically" but doing the unintended thing, i.e. making a mistake under extreme stress.

And, by the way, the fact that she may have put 10s of thousands of rounds through her Glock underscores "muscle memory". The brain does not question a familiar feel, it expects it. Put another way, suppose she had intended to draw her GUN and drew her Taser...then the unfamiliar feel of the Taser might have triggered an awareness of a mistake.

Finally, the jury got it wrong...badly wrong. This was confirmed in a recent interview of one of the jurors who proudly explained how they interpreted the law, and now it is clear how badly they mangled it.

The killing of Duante Wright was no accident. This is what we know based on trial testimony:

1. Ms Potter had been a LEO for 26 years, over the course of which she had received extensive and continued training in the use of firearms.
2. Ms Potter knew that her pistol was a deadly weapon, she had been taught about and understood the risks of carrying a firearm, and she was intimately familiar with the PD policy regarding the use of said firearm.
3. Ms Potter knew that she was carrying the firearm in Condition 1 when the traffic stop was initiated. She knew this because she had pushed a loaded magazine into the magwell of the gun, and racked the slide to load a live round into the chamber and put the hammer into the battery position before she started her shift on patrol. She also knew that her firearm was not equipped with any external safety features, and that it would go bang when she pressed the trigger.

Based on the video evidence from the multiple body-cams, and Ms Potter's testimony, we can infer that:
1. Ms Potter was not paying sufficient attention when she pulled her gun from its holster on her right hip, apparently believing it to be the taser which was holstered on her left hip.
2. She was not paying sufficient attention as she waved the gun around for about 5 seconds, as she recklessly painted Dunate Wright, his passenger, and her two colleagues with the muzzle of the gun, placing them all at great risk.
3. She was not paying sufficient attention as she finally identified her target and lined up the sights on her gun on Dunate Wright's chest.
4. She was not paying sufficient attention as she pulled the trigger and put a jacketed hollow-point projectile into his heart, killing him almost instantly.

The traffic stop was not extraordinary in any meaningful way, other than Mr Wright getting shot, and other people at the scene being placed in grave danger through the reckless and unlawful actions of Ms Potter. She had a duty to safeguard the lives of the people around her by following the protocols she had been trained in, and she should have been paying more attention and following her training as the situation evolved. Mr Wright's untimely death was not an accident, it was a homicide resulting from the reckless and negligent use of a firearm by Ms Potter, who had been trained for 26 years on how to prevent such events from transpiring.

As has been pointed out to you by...

The military veteran with direct experience in both trained and untrained reflexive response...

The clear evidence of what happened in the video...

The empathy and responses of various others here...

The members who are no friend to cops expressing empathy for this particular cop...

Your analysis of culpability and even what ought to happen to her as a result might be misplaced.

I can pretty well expect that none of the members of the jury had the requisite experience to actually know the realities of such reflex reactions.

It's just another data point on the line that says "cops shouldn't have guns to begin with".

While I have no idea of whom you speak, a random military veteran with some kind of unspecified "reflexive response" training doesn't have a thimble of credibility compared to the clinical and forensic psychologist Dr. Laurence Miller and his explanation of action error as a state of mind. It's a recognized hazard of high-pressure jobs and situations and he explained "The person thinks they are performing one action when they are performing another".

The clear evidence of what happened in the video...

Sure it, what happened is called action error and action error is not culpable negligence because the person isn't even aware of what they really did, or the attendant risk from the act.

I can pretty well expect that none of the members of the jury had the requisite experience to actually know the realities of such reflex reactions.

You can pretty also expect that most of the jurors didn't have the intelligence or objective abilities to find a just verdict. They were as brain dead as OJ Simpson's, and the Rodeny King police brutality's first trial juries.

It's just another data point on the line that says "cops shouldn't have guns to begin with".

It's just another trial point on the institutional corruption and moral failings of America's system of justice.

 

[Toni]

I watched the video—once, because I could not stomach more. It was obvious to me that Potter panicked. You could hear it in her voice. I think that it is obvious that she did not intend to fire her gun and that she deeply regrets her actions.

But the entire situation which has our law enforcement officers so heavily armed even during traffic stops and so…ready to draw them: That is systemic and endemic and enormously wrong. It results in the deaths of hundreds of unarmed citizens each year.

We must rethink policing in this country, urgently.