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

[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.

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.

I have read the statutes. Here are the two counts of manslaughter Ms Potter was charged with:

COUNT I
Charge: First-Degree Manslaughter Predicated on Reckless Use/Handling of a Firearm
Minnesota Statute: 609.20(2), with reference to: 609.11.5(a)
Maximum Sentence: 15 Years and/or $30,000 Fine
Offense Level: Felony
Offense Date (on or about): 04/11/2021 to 04/11/2021
Control #(ICR#): 21000273
Charge Description: On or about April 11, 2021, in Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
Defendant Kimberly Ann Potter caused the death of Daunte Demetrius Wright, while committing the
misdemeanor offense of reckless handling or use of a firearm so as to endanger the safety of another with
such force and violence that death or great bodily harm to any person was reasonably foreseeable.
COUNT II
Charge: Second-Degree Manslaughter
Minnesota Statute: 609.205(1), with reference to: 609.11.5(a)
Maximum Sentence: 10 Years and/or $20,000 fine
Offense Level: Felony
Offense Date (on or about): 04/11/2021 to 04/11/2021
Control #(ICR#): 21000273
Charge Description: On or about April 11, 2021, in Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
Defendant Kimberly Ann Potter caused the death of Daunte Demetrius Wright, by her culpable
negligence, whereby Kimberly Potter created an unreasonable risk and consciously took a chance of
causing death or great bodily harm to Daunte Demetrius Wright, while using or possessing a firearm

In my opinion, Ms Potter's actions meet the statutes for both charges for the reasons mentioned previously. She was a trained operator who understood the risks of using a firearm and was well able to foresee the the consequences if she chose to use the firearm with reckless negligence. She actually testified to this on the stand.

At the end of the day, you and I don't have to agree. The only opinions that matter are those of the jury, and they convicted Ms Potter of both charges.

 

[blastula]

She chose to use a taser, not a handgun. If using a taser there was negligent, then it's a crime. There is some reason to think it was, since she fired it at the driver of a car and the car did in fact end up crashing into another car. But she did not consciously choose to fire her gun.

 

[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.

I have read the statutes. Here are the two counts of manslaughter Ms Potter was charged with:

COUNT I
Charge: First-Degree Manslaughter Predicated on Reckless Use/Handling of a Firearm
Minnesota Statute: 609.20(2), with reference to: 609.11.5(a)
Maximum Sentence: 15 Years and/or $30,000 Fine
Offense Level: Felony
Offense Date (on or about): 04/11/2021 to 04/11/2021
Control #(ICR#): 21000273
Charge Description: On or about April 11, 2021, in Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
Defendant Kimberly Ann Potter caused the death of Daunte Demetrius Wright, while committing the
misdemeanor offense of reckless handling or use of a firearm so as to endanger the safety of another with
such force and violence that death or great bodily harm to any person was reasonably foreseeable.
COUNT II
Charge: Second-Degree Manslaughter
Minnesota Statute: 609.205(1), with reference to: 609.11.5(a)
Maximum Sentence: 10 Years and/or $20,000 fine
Offense Level: Felony
Offense Date (on or about): 04/11/2021 to 04/11/2021
Control #(ICR#): 21000273
Charge Description: On or about April 11, 2021, in Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
Defendant Kimberly Ann Potter caused the death of Daunte Demetrius Wright, by her culpable
negligence, whereby Kimberly Potter created an unreasonable risk and consciously took a chance of
causing death or great bodily harm to Daunte Demetrius Wright, while using or possessing a firearm

In my opinion, Ms Potter's actions meet the statutes for both charges for the reasons mentioned previously. She was a trained operator who understood the risks of using a firearm and was well able to foresee the the consequences if she chose to use the firearm with reckless negligence. She actually testified to this on the stand.

At the end of the day, you and I don't have to agree. The only opinions that matter are those of the jury, and they convicted Ms Potter of both charges.

Therefore, you are unable to demonstrate that each of the elements of my rebuttal are flawed or wrong, and just going to parrot worn-out thread characterizations her actions that are either immaterial, emotive colloquialisms, or mangled understands of law and legal terms (e.g. the term "reckless negligence" doesn't even exist).

Got it.

At the end of the day, the only opinion that matters will be that of appeals court and the opportunity for a retrial. Should that happen, and the appeals court confirm what should already be known as a matter of law, the court f'd up then that will be the end of the road.

Till then, I will always insist on truth over lies and legal ignorance... even to those that are immune to reason and evidence.

 

[Toni]

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.

I have read the statutes. Here are the two counts of manslaughter Ms Potter was charged with:

COUNT I
Charge: First-Degree Manslaughter Predicated on Reckless Use/Handling of a Firearm
Minnesota Statute: 609.20(2), with reference to: 609.11.5(a)
Maximum Sentence: 15 Years and/or $30,000 Fine
Offense Level: Felony
Offense Date (on or about): 04/11/2021 to 04/11/2021
Control #(ICR#): 21000273
Charge Description: On or about April 11, 2021, in Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
Defendant Kimberly Ann Potter caused the death of Daunte Demetrius Wright, while committing the
misdemeanor offense of reckless handling or use of a firearm so as to endanger the safety of another with
such force and violence that death or great bodily harm to any person was reasonably foreseeable.
COUNT II
Charge: Second-Degree Manslaughter
Minnesota Statute: 609.205(1), with reference to: 609.11.5(a)
Maximum Sentence: 10 Years and/or $20,000 fine
Offense Level: Felony
Offense Date (on or about): 04/11/2021 to 04/11/2021
Control #(ICR#): 21000273
Charge Description: On or about April 11, 2021, in Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
Defendant Kimberly Ann Potter caused the death of Daunte Demetrius Wright, by her culpable
negligence, whereby Kimberly Potter created an unreasonable risk and consciously took a chance of
causing death or great bodily harm to Daunte Demetrius Wright, while using or possessing a firearm

In my opinion, Ms Potter's actions meet the statutes for both charges for the reasons mentioned previously. She was a trained operator who understood the risks of using a firearm and was well able to foresee the the consequences if she chose to use the firearm with reckless negligence. She actually testified to this on the stand.

At the end of the day, you and I don't have to agree. The only opinions that matter are those of the jury, and they convicted Ms Potter of both charges.

Therefore, you are unable to demonstrate that each of the elements of my rebuttal are flawed or wrong, and just going to parrot worn-out thread characterizations her actions that are either immaterial, emotive colloquialisms, or mangled understands of law and legal terms (e.g. the term "reckless negligence" doesn't even exist).

Got it.

At the end of the day, the only opinion that matters will be that of appeals court and the opportunity for a retrial. Should that happen, and the appeals court confirm what should already be known as a matter of law, the court f'd up then that will be the end of the road.

Till then, I will always insist on truth over lies and legal ignorance... even to those that are immune to reason and evidence.

You seem to be conflating your opinion with ‘truth.’ The fact that you refuse to acknowledge facts and jury verdicts as valid if they conflict with your opinion and to dismiss arguments that counter your opinion does not make your opinion any closer to the facts of the case, the facts of law as determined by court proceedings and the deliberation of a jury that was actually sympathetic towards Potter.

 

[laughing dog]

I am glad to see maxparrish back in action, even when I disagree (which is most of the time) with him.

Ms. Potter clearly met the standard of reckless use of a firearm.

 

[blastula]

Ms. Potter clearly met the standard of reckless use of a firearm

Not the standard that requires an conscious intentional act which was the case here.

 

[atrib]

Ms. Potter clearly met the standard of reckless use of a firearm

Not the standard that requires an conscious intentional act which was the case here.

She made a conscious choice to not pay attention to the scenario as it evolved, and continued to not pay attention when she reacted to it by reaching for the (apparently) wrong weapon. She made this choice despite her understanding of the risks, and all the training she had received. It is possible that Ms Potter has a medical condition that prevents her from recognizing and reacting appropriately to stressful, rapidly evolving situations, which would potentially be a justification for her actions if it had been discovered after the incident. But no such evidence was presented at trial.

"I wasn't paying sufficient attention to avoid running through a red light and killing a pedestrian" does not negate the reckless negligence of the hypothetical driver involved in this hypothetical accident. Similarly, "I wasn't paying sufficient attention when I drew my gun, waved it around for 5 seconds, lined up the sights on Mr Wright's chest, and pulled the trigger" does not negate the reckless negligence of Ms Potter's actions. I don't think Ms Potter should be given preferential treatment because she is a police officer; in fact, the opposite is true. She was entrusted with the power to use a firearm in the course of her duties, she was trained in its safe usage, and in the inherent risks, and she chose to take on the responsibility that comes with this job anyway.

 

[blastula]

She made a conscious choice to not pay attention to the scenario as it evolved,

I don't think that's accurate, but that's still not the same as consciously choosing to use a gun.

 

[laughing dog]

Ms. Potter clearly met the standard of reckless use of a firearm

Not the standard that requires an conscious intentional act which was the case here.

Apparently the prosecutor, the judge and the jury thought differently.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In my opinion, Ms Potter's actions meet the statutes for both charges for the reasons mentioned previously. She was a trained operator who understood the risks of using a firearm and was well able to foresee the the consequences if she chose to use the firearm with reckless negligence. She actually testified to this on the stand.

At the end of the day, you and I don't have to agree. The only opinions that matter are those of the jury, and they convicted Ms Potter of both charges.

Of course she knew the risk of using a firearm. The point is she obviously didn't know she was using a firearm.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

She chose to use a taser, not a handgun. If using a taser there was negligent, then it's a crime. There is some reason to think it was, since she fired it at the driver of a car and the car did in fact end up crashing into another car. But she did not consciously choose to fire her gun.

It comes down to whether her mistake reaches the level of criminal negligence. I think that's the job of the legislature.

 

[blastula]

Ms. Potter clearly met the standard of reckless use of a firearm

Not the standard that requires an conscious intentional act which was the case here.

Apparently the prosecutor, the judge and the jury thought differently.

The prosecutor and the jury, yes, but the judge?

And so what if the others did?

 

[laughing dog]

Ms. Potter clearly met the standard of reckless use of a firearm

Not the standard that requires an conscious intentional act which was the case here.

Apparently the prosecutor, the judge and the jury thought differently.

The prosecutor and the jury, yes, but the judge?

And so what if the others did?

The judge did not throw out the charges.

The "so what" is evidence that your opinion was not only not shared by those people but that your opinion is incorrect.

 

[blastula]

The judge did not throw out the charges.

Again, so? The judge doesn't have to agree with a verdict.

The "so what" is evidence that your opinion was not only not shared by those people but that your opinion is incorrect.

How is it evidence it's incorrect? They're that infallible?

 

[laughing dog]

The judge did not throw out the charges.

Again, so? The judge doesn't have to agree with a verdict.

If the charges are bogus, then the judge can throw them out. If the judge finds the verdict is unsupported by the evidence, the judge can vacate the verdict.

Since judge did neither, that suggests the judge does not share with your opinion,

The "so what" is evidence that your opinion was not only not shared by those people but that your opinion is incorrect.

How is it evidence it's incorrect? They're that infallible?

Who to believe? 12 people who sat through a trial and hear all the evidence and who have to come to a verdict of some sort or someone on the internet who apparently feels they are infallible and who has no actual influence on the outcome?

 

[blastula]

The judge did not throw out the charges.

Again, so? The judge doesn't have to agree with a verdict.

If the charges are bogus, then the judge can throw them out. If the judge finds the verdict is unsupported by the evidence, the judge can vacate the verdict.

Since judge did neither, that suggests the judge does not share with your opinion,

I never said the charges are bogus. I think the verdict is wrong.

Judges rarely overturn even very suspect verdicts. But we'll see what happens on appeal.

The "so what" is evidence that your opinion was not only not shared by those people but that your opinion is incorrect.

How is it evidence it's incorrect? They're that infallible?

Who to believe? 12 people who sat through a trial and hear all the evidence and who have to come to a verdict of some sort or someone on the internet who apparently feels they are infallible and who has no actual influence on the outcome?

Oh brother, an appeal to some romantic notion of universal juror wisdom, as though there aren't plenty of known ridiculously wrong verdicts. And I didn't say I was infallible. I gave an argument for why the verdict was wrong. You have not rebutted it with anything other than misguided appeals to others as supposed ultimate authorities.

 

[laughing dog]

The judge did not throw out the charges.

Again, so? The judge doesn't have to agree with a verdict.

If the charges are bogus, then the judge can throw them out. If the judge finds the verdict is unsupported by the evidence, the judge can vacate the verdict.

Since judge did neither, that suggests the judge does not share with your opinion,

I never said the charges are bogus. I think the verdict is wrong.

Judges rarely overturn even very suspect verdicts. But we'll see what happens on appeal.

The "so what" is evidence that your opinion was not only not shared by those people but that your opinion is incorrect.

How is it evidence it's incorrect? They're that infallible?

Who to believe? 12 people who sat through a trial and hear all the evidence and who have to come to a verdict of some sort or someone on the internet who apparently feels they are infallible and who has no actual influence on the outcome?

Oh brother, an appeal to some romantic notion of universal juror wisdom, as though there aren't plenty of known ridiculously wrong verdicts. And I didn't say I was infallible. I gave an argument for why the verdict was wrong. You have not rebutted it with anything other than misguided appeals to others as supposed ultimate authorities.

I did not appeal to any romantic notion of universal juror wisdom. I pointed out that 12 people who actually had responsibility to make a decision and who heard all the testimony came to a conclusion that someone on the internet who had no responsibility and who did not hear all the testimony disagrees with. So you can shove your straw man back where it came from.

You confuse opinion with argument. You gave no reason why anyone should value your opinion over their judgment.

 

[atrib]

The judge did not throw out the charges.

Again, so? The judge doesn't have to agree with a verdict.

The "so what" is evidence that your opinion was not only not shared by those people but that your opinion is incorrect.

How is it evidence it's incorrect? They're that infallible?

Judges have the power to dismiss cases where there is insufficient evidence to support the charges. All the defense has to do is make a motion to dismiss, and explain why the charges cannot be supported by the evidence. If the judge agrees, he/she can dismiss the case. This is not that uncommon, but it did not happen in this case. Which would lend credence to the assumption that the judge believed that there was sufficient evidence to justify the charges and proceed with the trial. The judge also has the power to set aside jury verdicts if they believe that the decision made by the jury cannot be supported by the evidence presented at trial. That did not happen either.

 

[Gospel]

The judge did not throw out the charges.

Again, so? The judge doesn't have to agree with a verdict.

The "so what" is evidence that your opinion was not only not shared by those people but that your opinion is incorrect.

How is it evidence it's incorrect? They're that infallible?

Judges have the power to dismiss cases where there is insufficient evidence to support the charges. All the defense has to do is make a motion to dismiss, and explain why the charges cannot be supported by the evidence. If the judge agrees, he/she can dismiss the case. This is not that uncommon, but it did not happen in this case. Which would lend credence to the assumption that the judge believed that there was sufficient evidence to justify the charges and proceed with the trial. The judge also has the power to set aside jury verdicts if they believe that the decision made by the jury cannot be supported by the evidence presented at trial. That did not happen either.

Us Courts have a track record of not doing what they're supposed to do. Thus a woman can get 5 years in prison for voter fraud she didn't intentionally commit but because it was technically fraud buy bye.

 

[Gospel]

609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.​

A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:

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

The word in red says it all.

609.20 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.​

Whoever does any of the following is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both:

(1) intentionally causes the death of another person in the heat of passion provoked by such words or acts of another as would provoke a person of ordinary self-control under like circumstances, provided that the crying of a child does not constitute provocation;

(2) violates section 609.224 and causes the death of another or causes the death of another in committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense with such force and violence that death of or great bodily harm to any person was reasonably foreseeable, and murder in the first or second degree was not committed thereby;

Intentionally also shows up under section 609.224. I'll give them the reasonably foreseeable in the First Degree manslaughter charge due to the officer's training however even that is not beyond all doubt.

What I think the law needs are sections for citizens similar to what Judges, officers, etc have in place to discourage violence against them.

For Example:

Whoever assaults a citizen by using or attempting to use deadly force against the citizen while the citizen is engaged in the performance of a duty imposed by law, policy, or rule may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both.

Something like that would protect officers when a citizen is being unlawful while they (officers) are discouraged from harming law-abiding citizens.


What we have now is a system trying to adapt to a world where officers can't get away with the bullshit they used to (since their establishment) by using laws written without taking that into consideration. It's just gonna screw all of us over in the long run. Because now look, the words intentionally & consciously don't mean anything now.