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

[blastula]

Hell, she will probably end up spending more time in prison than that truck killer in Colorado because invertebrate Jared Polis will likely commute his sentence.

Aguilera-Mederos is still in prison, and won't be eligible for parole till 2026.

 

[Politesse]

Last I looked, murder in the US is not defined by intent to kill, but by malice aforethought.

Otherwise, anyone could claim that they "didn't mean to" kill their victim. We do distinguish between several degrees of murder. In Minnesota, for instance, a person might be held to have murdered someone by giving them contaminated drugs, even if they had no intention of killing them, as they did intend to commit a crime and knew that it was dangerous, but it is considered murder in the third degree.

In Potter's case she was convicted of manslaughter, not murder, and the judge thought even that was too much, as she rebelled against the jurors' determination and gave Potter a token 16 month sentence rather than the full six to eght years that would have otherwise been customary. I don't agree with that decision, but I'm obviously very unusual in that regard. Most Americans are content with the sentence and explanation given, by all accounts, except those who feel that as a police officer (and sobbing person) Potter should not have faced charges at all.

People who believe that police officers shouldn't be held subject to the law usually don't get selected for jury service, though.

 

[Derec]

The invertebrate governor of Colorado (he is the guy who thinks male college students should be expelled even if it is likely they are innocent) still commuted his 110 sentence to mere 10 years though.

 

[blastula]

Otherwise, anyone could claim that they "didn't mean to" kill their victim.

What are you saying is the difference between intent to kill and malice aforethought?

 

[blastula]

The invertebrate governor of Colorado (he is the guy who thinks male college students should be expelled even if it is likely they are innocent) still commuted his 110 sentence to mere 10 years though.

Yes, so? Maybe it should have been shorter?

 

[Politesse]

Otherwise, anyone could claim that they "didn't mean to" kill their victim.

What are you saying is the difference between intent to kill and malice aforethought?

The malice aforethought part means that you meant harm to the person that you killed, or (depending on what state you live in) perhaps even just that you were aware of but negligent of the harm that you were likely to cause. No one has to prove that you intended for someone to die as such, the proving of which mindset is a nearly insurmountable challenge.

 

[blastula]

No one has to prove that you intended for someone to die as such, the proving of which mindset is a nearly insurmountable challenge,

????????????????

Sec. 609.185 MN Statutes

609.185 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.​

(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life:

(1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another;

 

[Politesse]

No one has to prove that you intended for someone to die as such, the proving of which mindset is a nearly insurmountable challenge,

????????????????

Sec. 609.185 MN Statutes

609.185 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.​

(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life:

(1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another;

Yes. Do we need to review the concept of classes of murder again?

 

[blastula]

You might need to.

Last I looked, murder in the US is not defined by intent to kill, but by malice aforethought.

 

[Toni]

Potter believed, and had reason to believe, that Wright was a violent criminal with illegal weapons in his possession. That her life, and the lives of the law abiding folks around her, were in danger.

You're still misstating the facts of the case. She tried to tase him to stop him from fleeing, not because she thought he had a gun or that she was in danger.

Not exactly correct. When he dove into the car, the other officer was partially in the car. she testified that she feared Wright would drive off and injure the other officer. That seemed supported by evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Potter believed, and had reason to believe, that Wright was a violent criminal with illegal weapons in his possession. That her life, and the lives of the law abiding folks around her, were in danger.

You're still misstating the facts of the case. She tried to tase him to stop him from fleeing, not because she thought he had a gun or that she was in danger.

Not exactly correct. When he dove into the car, the other officer was partially in the car. she testified that she feared Wright would drive off and injure the other officer. That seemed supported by evidence.

She intended to tase. That's basically incompatible with considering him a deadly threat. Cops do not use tasers against deadly threats except when it's someone armed with a contact weapon and they're backed up by another officer with a gun.

 

[Toni]

Potter believed, and had reason to believe, that Wright was a violent criminal with illegal weapons in his possession. That her life, and the lives of the law abiding folks around her, were in danger.

You're still misstating the facts of the case. She tried to tase him to stop him from fleeing, not because she thought he had a gun or that she was in danger.

Not exactly correct. When he dove into the car, the other officer was partially in the car. she testified that she feared Wright would drive off and injure the other officer. That seemed supported by evidence.

She intended to tase. That's basically incompatible with considering him a deadly threat. Cops do not use tasers against deadly threats except when it's someone armed with a contact weapon and they're backed up by another officer with a gun.

So you are saying g that she lied? It was just a clever fake out because she was recorded as telling Wright she was going to tease him right before she fired.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Potter believed, and had reason to believe, that Wright was a violent criminal with illegal weapons in his possession. That her life, and the lives of the law abiding folks around her, were in danger.

You're still misstating the facts of the case. She tried to tase him to stop him from fleeing, not because she thought he had a gun or that she was in danger.

Not exactly correct. When he dove into the car, the other officer was partially in the car. she testified that she feared Wright would drive off and injure the other officer. That seemed supported by evidence.

She intended to tase. That's basically incompatible with considering him a deadly threat. Cops do not use tasers against deadly threats except when it's someone armed with a contact weapon and they're backed up by another officer with a gun.

So you are saying g that she lied? It was just a clever fake out because she was recorded as telling Wright she was going to tease him right before she fired.

???

I'm saying that since she clearly intended to tase him no deadly threat existed and thus using her gun was improper.

 

[Toni]

Potter believed, and had reason to believe, that Wright was a violent criminal with illegal weapons in his possession. That her life, and the lives of the law abiding folks around her, were in danger.

You're still misstating the facts of the case. She tried to tase him to stop him from fleeing, not because she thought he had a gun or that she was in danger.

Not exactly correct. When he dove into the car, the other officer was partially in the car. she testified that she feared Wright would drive off and injure the other officer. That seemed supported by evidence.

She intended to tase. That's basically incompatible with considering him a deadly threat. Cops do not use tasers against deadly threats except when it's someone armed with a contact weapon and they're backed up by another officer with a gun.

So you are saying g that she lied? It was just a clever fake out because she was recorded as telling Wright she was going to tease him right before she fired.

???

I'm saying that since she clearly intended to tase him no deadly threat existed and thus using her gun was improper.

Perhaps I misunderstood. But in fact, police often DO tase unarmed suspects. Sometimes, they die: https://abc11.com/ben-crump-darryl-williams-raleigh-police-death/12823954/

Sometimes, they merely beat the suspect to death. When I googled 'police beat unarmed man to death' because I couldn't recall the name Tyre Nichols, I came up with multiple hits of different instances in a variety of states but I'll only remind you of Tyre Nichols: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/27/us/tyre-nichols-video-memphis.html

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm saying that since she clearly intended to tase him no deadly threat existed and thus using her gun was improper.

Perhaps I misunderstood. But in fact, police often DO tase unarmed suspects. Sometimes, they die: https://abc11.com/ben-crump-darryl-williams-raleigh-police-death/12823954/

Sometimes, they merely beat the suspect to death. When I googled 'police beat unarmed man to death' because I couldn't recall the name Tyre Nichols, I came up with multiple hits of different instances in a variety of states but I'll only remind you of Tyre Nichols: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/27/us/tyre-nichols-video-memphis.html

You're missing my point.

There was reason to use force against him--that's what she was testifying to.

However, there's no overlap between scenarios where a cop would use a taser and scenarios where a cop would use a gun. (Standoffs where they tase knife-wielders have another cop with a gun as backup--that's not the same scenario as cop vs guy with a knife.)

The fact that she intended to use a taser is thus proof that a gun wasn't warranted.

This was a horrible oops that I think is likely a lack of training issue--stray too close to a common path and the human brain is prone to capture by that path. The only way to defeat this is plenty of practice time with the taser so the gun isn't the standard path.

 

[Toni]

I'm saying that since she clearly intended to tase him no deadly threat existed and thus using her gun was improper.

Perhaps I misunderstood. But in fact, police often DO tase unarmed suspects. Sometimes, they die: https://abc11.com/ben-crump-darryl-williams-raleigh-police-death/12823954/

Sometimes, they merely beat the suspect to death. When I googled 'police beat unarmed man to death' because I couldn't recall the name Tyre Nichols, I came up with multiple hits of different instances in a variety of states but I'll only remind you of Tyre Nichols: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/27/us/tyre-nichols-video-memphis.html

You're missing my point.

There was reason to use force against him--that's what she was testifying to.

However, there's no overlap between scenarios where a cop would use a taser and scenarios where a cop would use a gun. (Standoffs where they tase knife-wielders have another cop with a gun as backup--that's not the same scenario as cop vs guy with a knife.)

The fact that she intended to use a taser is thus proof that a gun wasn't warranted.

This was a horrible oops that I think is likely a lack of training issue--stray too close to a common path and the human brain is prone to capture by that path. The only way to defeat this is plenty of practice time with the taser so the gun isn't the standard path.

No, I got your point.

No, I do not think that there is more practice needed with tasers or with firearms.

I think there is much, much, much greater need of training and practice with other policing methods than tasers, firearms, beatings (fists or clubs), tear gas, etc.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This was a horrible oops that I think is likely a lack of training issue--stray too close to a common path and the human brain is prone to capture by that path. The only way to defeat this is plenty of practice time with the taser so the gun isn't the standard path.

No, I got your point.

No, I do not think that there is more practice needed with tasers or with firearms.

I think there is much, much, much greater need of training and practice with other policing methods than tasers, firearms, beatings (fists or clubs), tear gas, etc.

I'm not saying more or less, I'm saying that both paths need a similar level of training so you avoid capture by the common path.