The sacrifice of Kim Potter is the price we pay to maintain a civilized society

[Shermann]

I've only seen the highlights of the trial, but I can't say I'm impressed with the arguments provided by the defense. There was an effective characterization of her character and her mentality at the time of the shooting, but there was also an unconvincing attempt to justify the shooting. I think the focus should have been on this being a sensory overload situation. This can occur with jet fighter pilots in the heat of battle. There is so much going on that they become oblivious to some of the sights and sounds going on in the cockpit. To me it is entirely conceivable that Potter had tunnel vision on the threat of Wright at the wheel. Potter's training as an officer would have built up her muscle memory of drawing and firing, so that mechanical process could occur with less conscious thought than with one who is untrained. Where were the expert witnesses on this?

Potter was tested and, tragically, failed that test. As an officer armed with deadly force, she assumed the elevated risk of prosecution resulting from these types of scenarios. Members of the armed forces assume the risk of court martial as well. Most Americans can lead their entire lives without ever being tested in these ways.

There are other types of crimes for which there is no criminal intent, or where the intent does not match the actual crime. Drunk drivers rarely have any desire to harm others. Tagalongs to burglaries can become unwitting accomplices to murder. Crimes can be committed by those who are incompetent to stand trial.

Whether it is insanity or incompetence or negligence or irresponsibility, what is a society to do with these "offenders"? The Potter trial left us with two bad options. She can walk scot-free after a clearly unjustified shooting. This would result in protests and a sense of unfairness and injustice. Or we can lock up an individual who has not demonstrated a criminal mindset or likeliness to remain a threat. While devastating for the few, this appears to meet the needs of the many.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

1. Kim Potter is not the sacrifice in this scenario.

It's Daunte Wright.

[Ferrets are Cool]

2. Sacrifice?? Maybe another word would work better to describe Kim Potter.

[Shermann]

10. She's not a criminal in the traditional sense. She's not a threat.

She has not demonstrated a deservingness of severe punishment. But she will receive it for the reasons detailed in the OP. That sounds like making a sacrifice to me.

[uponit7771]

23. Neither was Muhammod Noor who was convicted of murder for similar situation. Nah, we need ...

... blind justice for .. EVERYONE.

Sacrifice wasn't used in his situation and it was the same city

[Shermann]

69. See post #67

[uponit7771]

70. Saw it, false equivalence based on even some of the facts Potter admits to.

[Celerity]

25. tell that to Daunte Wright

She's not a threat.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

41. What is a criminal "in the traditional sense"?

[CrackityJones75]

45. Not a threat?

You have got to be fucking kidding me.

Not a threat?

Sure if yer white.

[PCIntern]

59. Well, you are absolutely correct in that surmise...

There is absolutely no way that a white driver would have been shot for doing exactly what the deceased did in this instance. How many times have we seen pursuits on video lasting God knows how long, only to culminate in taking the driver into custody via relatively benign means? This man had an air freshener dangling and expired tags, these are not capital offenses. I would venture to say that they were not capital offenses in Iraq during Saddam Hussein‘s reign, much less in some American community. If you possess a badge and a gun then you damn well better know when to use it and when not to , this was a great tragedy for the kid who was shot to death for panicking. This lady will eventually walk out of jail and resume some form of her life, and this is what happens when you kill an individual who did not earn a death sentence.

[CrackityJones75]

62. That was very well said.

Regarding police chases. I think they too are often adrenaline rushes for the cops. Unless someone’s life is in immediate imminent danger I would guess almost all of them should not happen. It puts too many innocent lives at risk for police to be playing dukes of hazard when we have the ability many times to wait it out and pick them up in a less dangerous manner.

When I was learning to drive as a kid my father told me. This car is a dangerous piece of machinery that if you do not respect enough to operate responsibly could easily kill you or someone else.

Those words stuck with me to this day and I will make the same statement to my daughter when I teach her to drive this summer. These cops do meed to be trained on special skills for driving and apprehending criminals. What they also need to be taught is that just because they have learned these skills they are not always applicable.

[uponit7771]

74. +1

[Ferrets are Cool]

60. Bull crap

She MURDERED a man. She is a criminal. It cannot be whitewashed.

[Withywindle]

101. She literally killed someone completely unnecessarily

That's a crime, she committed a crime, therefore she is a criminal. (What do you mean by "in the traditional sense" anyway?)

If she's ever allowed to carry a gun again, she absolutely IS a threat. She's proven she's a pretty damn dangerous threat to young Black men with expired tags and a forbidden air freshener. If he'd had a burned out taillight she'd probably have shot him five times.

It's not a "sacrifice," it's justice. She committed manslaughter, and she should do the time for it just like any other person who commits manslaughter. Injustice would be allowing her to walk because of cop impunity (which happens FAR too often). The problem isn't one cop going to jail for killing someone, it's that cops facing justice at all is so rare. We don't have a civil society really - if we did, cops would not be above the law and not constantly get away with things that would rightfully send anyone else to prison for a good long time.

[iemanja]

80. I agree

The word disturbs me. She is being penalized for taking a man's life, not offering a sacrifice.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

3. Also, cops do not maintain a "civilized society."

[Shermann]

7. That's not the position stated here nt

[hlthe2b]

4. I don't consider her being held to account a "sacrifice." Had she not been a cop but had behaved

in a similar highly reckless and unjustified manner would you call it a "sacrifice?" While it is a rare conviction for a cop, that doesn't mean the ones who skated should not have been similarly held to account, IMO. She wasn't drunk or on drugs, but she likewise was not a novice cop who made the decision to escalate a traffic stop over a hanging air freshener. Clearly, the other cop was not at risk from the car so even drawing the taser was a questionable act. Not all negligence is a simple accident. This resulted in death and her actions and culpability clearly do rise to the level of criminal negligence. I am only glad the jury saw through the oft-repeated claim that the victim "deserved it" and "brought their own death."

I can say in my decades working in health, I have seen or at least heard of three physicians being held criminally liable for their negligence when sufficient factors accompany the actions (usually a pattern, but one significant act, such as a surgery gone wrong performed under the influence) can be sufficient. So, if a decades-long pattern of care can be erased by one horrendous, yet preventable error resulting in death, why, conversely would a cop's being held accountable for her highly negligent act resulting in death be so different?

[Shermann]

6. If it was sensory overload due to adrenaline and other factors, then it wasn't really reckless

She was performing her job function as she saw it at the time.

Nor was it really negligent. Neither of those would be the best characterization in that event.

The idea that this is an open-and-shut case where we can lock her up and throw away the key and put it out of our minds makes me very uncomfortable. The whole matter should make you uncomfortable regardless of where you stand. I stand by my use of the word "sacrifice".

[yardwork]

9. The jury disagrees with you.

[Shermann]

12. This is a fact

I would argue that the verdict is a kind of appeal to consequences fallacy.

[hlthe2b]

16. Police have pushed this line for decades to justify indefensible shootings. I find your argument

at a minimum, just indefensible and dangerous. Even the police use-of-force experts counter your assertion that such acts are justified, even while they have been excused in the past.

[Shermann]

21. My assertion: "a clearly unjustified shooting"

Please don't misstate my assertions.

[hlthe2b]

24. I am stating the conclusion of your assertions, which are, according to the use-of-force expert in

the case based on an "unjustified use of force." No misstatement was necessary nor was it the case.

[uponit7771]

18. It was really negligent, all the shit she could've done BEFORE she pulled her weapon spells that

... out.

After she pulled a weapon, accident ... BEFORE? Hell no

[hunter]

29. People who suffer that kind of "sensory overload" shouldn't be cops...

... let alone be allowed to carry guns.

Open-and-shut.

[Shermann]

42. Cops do simulation training

I don't know that you can simulate the effects of stress during a real-world encounter, however.

The reality is that you won't know how you'll perform until you are actually tested.

[DiamondShark]

104. I don't agree.

It is clear you have not been through boot camp, and your opinion on the situation is moot.

[NowISeetheLight]

106. This is true

I remember in Submarine School going thru the Damage Control Trainer. Despite being shown it, watching a video, being trained how to use pipe patches, and having a “buddy”, it was really scary. When that chamber was filling up with cold water, cutting leaks spraying everywhere, yelling and struggling, we had a lot of students NOT perform. I myself lost sight of my “buddy” during a repair and was admonished for it. I was so focused on what I was doing I had tunnel vision. We had “simulations” before this. Real world was very different.

A good video (actually it has triggered a flashback for me). The DCT segment starts at 4:08 for anyone interested in seeing what it looks like.

[CrackityJones75]

47. It wasn't negligent to use the wrong tool for the job?

Wow.

I mean she only reached for the wrong side of her body, pulled a weapon from the wrong him, seized a weapon made of the wrong material, weighing a completely different weight, and fired it and killed someone. But sure there was no negligence there.

[uponit7771]

52. +1, not only that but even she indicated she shouldn't have pulled a weapon at all and just let

... him go.

I think that's what sunk her defense; she just could've let the guy go and she wasn't worried about other officers around her seeing they didn't pull a weapon at all and she didn't check on them after she shot the driver.

[CrackityJones75]

55. Exactly.

[multigraincracker]

5. Wasn't she the head of the POA?

That seems like a big deal to me. Kind of like a mob lawyer going to jail.

[Delmette2.0]

20. What is a POA?

[multigraincracker]

28. Police Officer Association.

Their Union.

[Delmette2.0]

31. Thank you.

I need another cup of coffee.

[multigraincracker]

32. My fault, I have a hard time

with those things too.

[yardwork]

8. Um, what?

[sop]

11. Don't think of it as a "sacrifice," consider it a deterrent.

Cops all too often create a "sensory overload situation" to establish dominance when the only thing needed is a rational response. Maybe some other cop will think twice before resorting to physical force during a simple traffic stop.

[Scrivener7]

13. Oh, FFS.

[uponit7771]

14. Was "sacrifice" used with Mohamed Noor? No ... well, there it is then

[WhiskeyGrinder]

15. Poor nice white lady.

[yardwork]

17. I know, right?!

[uponit7771]

19. +1, just found out Noor's murder conviction was OVERTURNED !! He got murder for similar

... no intent in the same freakin city.

Ah hell naw, justice needs to be blind

[CrackityJones75]

48. Nailed it!

Great call!

[Shermann]

67. That's one possible comparison

Here's another:

https://www.centralmaine.com/2021/04/21/police-say-westbrook-woman-was-struck-and-killed-in-driveway-accident/

How does somebody mistake the accelerator for the brake? It's hard to fathom, but it happens. Nearly everything you can say about Potter you can say about this man. He had training, he had experience, he assumed the responsibly of driving, and he was controlling a deadly weapon in the form of a vehicle. He had the simple task of pressing the brake pedal instead of the accelerator when a life was at stake, and he failed.

And yet, this man was not prosecuted. What is the difference? The difference is mostly in the optics. It was a vehicle and not a gun. It was an ordinary man and not an officer. But it is fundamentally the same. There are so many stories like this.

[uponit7771]

68. False equivalence, Potter in this case shouldn't have been in aforementioned car in first place or

... or more specifically have pulled out a weapon to begin with.

Even her testimony says this to a degree that even Dante's actual car shouldn't have been stopped knowing CV was causing car registration issues.

There was no need for a weapon to be out, we just assume she should've pulled one because SHE felt someone life was threatened and that's not the case here.

She was the only one who pulled a weapon because she said she wanted to protect fellow officers (who didn't pull THEIR weapons after 9 seconds) then after she shot Dante didn't check on the officers who she was "protecting" ...

The "see something threatening and shoot it" attitude from the PDs have to go ... period

[Shermann]

72. OK now see post #71

[femmedem]

22. I agree with the verdict but find the whole thing tragic, including for her.

I believe in restorative justice, not imprisonment, for someone who is remorseful, is not likely to be a future threat, and who made a horrific error without malicious intent. In my imaginary perfect world, such a person (and I'm certainly not talking only about cops) would be able to perform extensive community service rather than spend years imprisoned. It would make us a less vengeful society and have some good come of it, even if the good cannot begin to equal the pain caused by the original crime.

[uponit7771]

27. She made bad decisions BEFORE pulling the weapon is the reason she SHOULD go to jail. After she

... pulled a weapon, accident ... but the fact that she didn't have to pull it at all is the reason why she's being convicted.

I didn't see Muhamad Noor being sympathized with as much as this person and I think I know why, they're both cops in the same city ... Noor got murder for similar situation.

jus damn

[CrackityJones75]

51. This!

... pulled a weapon, accident ... but the fact that she didn't have to pull it at all is the reason why she's being convicted.

Fucking A right on! We allow this shit because we don’t question whether or not police should have had their weapon drawn in many cases to begin with. We accept that police just walk around with their guns unholstered and ready to shoot and when they do we say “well they were just reacting in real time to a stressful situation” Put the fucking guns and itchy trigger fingers away god damnit!

You are right on here!

[femmedem]

65. I do agree that he should never have been pulled over in the first place

and that there was no good reason to tase him, either.

[Shermann]

71. This has been mentioned several times in this thread

I believe it is true that police departments should make a concerted effort to reduce the number of unnecessary interactions with the public. However, it is also true that Potter was justified in the eyes of the law in pulling over Wright due to the expired tags and windshield obstruction. Both of these things can be true.

So, since the latter is true, it cannot serve as an aggravating factor for what came later.

[uponit7771]

73. She was not justified in pulling her weapon, it wasn't needed and no other officer pulled their

... weapon for 9 seconds while she yelled taser.

That's a lynch pin for me, the other LEOs didn't see Dante as a threat and after she fired the weapon she didn't even check on the other LEOs making her on the stand explanation of concern less credible.

This was a good outcome and looking at the fact that she didn't have to pull the weapon (she could've just let Dante run off, no need for near lethal or lethal force), none of the other LEOs pulled weapons and she didn't check on the LEOs she was trying to protect afterwards.

The pulling over being justified isn't factored in my decision seeing there are too me "cover charges" for LEOs to credibly pull over a car.

What's clearly factored is the need to pull a weapon in the first place, she never justified that to me looking at the full picture.

[uponit7771]

75. Ah, also it looks like there was a "use of force expert" that says that pulling a weapon wasn't ...

... justified either.

I was wondering why none of the other leos were pointing a weapon at him ... nah, the pulling of the weapon was no simple "mistake" ... that's BS now that I've seen that post

[Shermann]

76. A cop pulling a taser is almost a non-event

The bar for pulling a non-lethal weapon out is very low. I'm not sure they even need to file a report if they fire one. Since that was a non-event, it can't be an aggravating factor for what came later.

[uponit7771]

77. That bar is irrelevant, it wasn't needed because the weapon wasn't needed and no other LEOs for 9

... seconds pulled their weapon either.

Dante wasn't a threat enough for even a taser, that's what the actions (or lack of it) of the LEOs on the scene and use of force expert says.

I don't think opinions of "bars" or standards can overcome those facts that aren't in dispute in regards to whether Wright should have had a weapon pointed at him at all.

[Shermann]

79. Maybe the situation only called for one taser

It's not very compelling evidence that more tasers weren't drawn.

[uponit7771]

81. According to use of force officer it didn't call for any taser, I don't think that fact can be talke

... around or ignored.

The fact that she yelled taser for 7 seconds and held the weapon for 9 and no other office decided to do anything similar **IS** compelling on its face especially Potter saying Wright was a threat to the officers around him (not to her) ... why didn't the other LEOs see things her way and treat him as such and do something similar?

Cause he wasn't a threat to them ...

and just to prove that

Potter didn't check on the other LEOs after firing her weapon ...

Unnnn ...

There are too many facts WE AGREE ON going against her "accident" claim not to convict her IMHO

[Shermann]

83. Sorry, there isn't agreement that this wasn't an accident

It can be an accident and rise to the level of being a crime at the same time.

The accident part is just an inconvenient truth.

[uponit7771]

87. We agree on the fact that 1. a use of force officer said she didn't need to pull a weapon 2. no ...

... other officers around her pulled their weapons for nearly 9 seconds while she was yelling taser, 3. She didn't check on other LEOs after killing Wright

Correct?

Cause all of that is in the record?

[Shermann]

88. Those are really just talking points for the prosecution

I've already addressed this.

[uponit7771]

89. They can be both relevant fact and talking points for prosecution no? I mean if I was prosecution

... I'd use talking points and facts too but mostly facts ... right?

I'm thinking we need to agree on the facts first not dismiss them cause the prosecution used them

tia

[Shermann]

90. It's not relevant to me

If you read my posts carefully, you'll see that I'm not arguing for a non-guilty vote. That would be highly problematic for the reasons I've given. I'm obviously not arguing for a guilty vote either but concede that a guilty vote best fits the law as written as well as the evidence. But a guilty vote is kind of an appeal to consequences in this case.

That's not what this is. This thread is a somber reflection on what happens in our judicial system when somebody falls in the twilight zone between guilty and innocent. This is something I haven't seen here yet, so here it is. I think some great points have been made.

[uponit7771]

93. She's guilty of gross negligence for needlessly escalating a situation. Muhamad Noor was too ...

... there was no need to escalate the situation he was in.

I'm think people take this needless escalations by LEOs at face value were being black in this country I can not.

Oh, its the ... DEFENSES ... witness that said the use of force against Wright was uncalled for

“The use of deadly force was not appropriate and the evidence suggests a reasonable officer in Officer Potter’s position could not have believed it was proportional to the threat at the time,” said Seth Stoughton, a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law.

[NowISeetheLight]

105. There were only three officers present

Potter, the trainee, and the supervisor. The other two were actively wrestling with Wright (from both sides of the car). In the heat of the moment it’s not unreasonable for them to NOT reach for their tasers. Potter was standing outside the car, behind the trainee, and had free hands. Her decision to attempt to use the taser to assist in the arrest was probably appropriate per POST guidelines. At the trial the former Brooklyn Center Police Chief testified the use of a taser would’ve been appropriate.

If Potter hadn’t screwed up, grabbed the wrong piece of equipment, and had actually tasered Wright, it would’ve been viewed as completely legitimate. While the use of deadly force was not appropriate, deadly force wasn’t her intent in the first place, so it’s kind of apples and oranges.

I don’t view Potters conviction as a “sacrifice”. It was appropriate based on the crime of negligently utilizing deadly force. The fact it was an accident doesn’t really play into it. Because there was no intent to kill Wright, this wasn’t a “murder” as defined by statute. Manslaughter was appropriate.

The ACLU (no less) has a sample taser policy on their website. It supports the use of a taser to affect an arrest. It even specifies the tasering officer should verbally warn the individual they could be taser. Potter did this.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/30099-30102%20Taser%20policy.pdf

[Mary in S. Carolina]

99. Not true

A police officer tasering someone is a huge event, please see the numerous lawsuits regarding excessive force.

[Zeitghost]

98. Not that similar

Noor drew and fired his weapon intentionally and shot an innocent victim. Potter mistakenly drew a gun while intending to draw a taser to subdue a criminal attempting to flee. Both deserve jail time, but it's not the same situation.

[uponit7771]

102. "Potter mistakenly drew a gun .." she should not have drawn ANYTHING it wasn't called for and she ..

... was in no immediate danger

[hunter]

26. Most cops don't have the temperament or the skills to use guns appropriately.

Personally I'd like to live in a nation where ordinary cops are unarmed.

Otherwise I'd like racist trigger-happy cops to know they'll be in deep shit, unemployed and possibly prison, if they kill or injure ANYONE with their guns, damage property, or otherwise recklessly use their weapons.

That's no "sacrifice."

If police emulate the gun culture of gangsters they're just another gang. Historically, of course, that's just what racist white U.S.A. wanted them to be.

I've personally seen the police shoot unarmed people who probably wouldn't have been shot had they been white, armed or not.

[CrackityJones75]

54. I don't know if it applies in this case or not but

I don’t know if it applies in this case or not but we have GOT to stop the pipeline of ex-military going into policing. In the military it is your job to defeat the enemy(killing when it is necessary). The police’s job is to protect and serve the community. There isn’t an enemy. There are criminals but we can’t have police approaching the public as the enemy.

It has to stop.

[marmar]

30. "who has not demonstrated a criminal mindset or likeliness to remain a threat"

How do we know what her mindset was? What if she was just a trigger happy cop who enjoyed it? .... I'm not saying that was the case, but I don't think you can just assume she was an otherwise decent person who made a mistake.

Sacrifice? Hardly. ..... Justice.

[multigraincracker]

33. Police have greater powers than everyone else, so

they need to be held to a higher standard.

[Shermann]

39. I agree with that

However, "being held to a higher standard" is another way of saying "being at an elevated risk of prosecution".

[CrackityJones75]

56. So are doctors. They carry special insurance.

So are CDL drivers. So are all sorts of professions. You carry a gun on your hip you damn well better believe that you are at a higher possibility of prosecution. Whether you have a GD badge on or not!

[MoonRiver]

34. She was NOT sacrificed. Justice was served. Nuff said

[Fullduplexxx]

35. Sounds like she's your Ashley babbit

[CrackityJones75]

57. Boom!

No pun intended.

[greenjar_01]

36. SHE. KILLED. A. HUMAN. BEING.

Holy fuck the deep contemplation here.

[CrackityJones75]

58. Amazing.

Isn’t it? Just fucking amazing.

I hear Stockholm is nice this time of year.

[Jedi Guy]

37. I recall reading that one of the jurors was very emotional when the verdict was read.

I interpret that to mean that there was very nearly a hung jury. Some of them likely felt that it was a tragic error and that Potter didn't intend to kill Wright. I can understand that point of view.

However, the fact remains that she wrongly took a life. Even unintentional errors carry consequences. I suspect that was the point of view of those who favored conviction, and I can understand that point of view, too.

It's just a horrific situation for all involved. One life is over and another derailed, and both families are hurting to different degrees.

[Shermann]

50. I was certain this would result in a hung jury

I was wrong.

I think it is the situation where those who think she's guilty feel strongly about it, while those who think she may not be guilty are uncertain of it all. So the "guiltys" win. Kind of like this thread.

[Tomconroy]

38. I find it very sad. One life ended. One life ruined. Minnesota

Is a sentencing guidelines state. I read somewhere that her guidelines sentence recommendation will be seven years or so.

[marie999]

40. There will never be any proof, but I believe she knew exactly what she was doing.

[Shermann]

46. I envy you for finding solace in that nt

[Hortensis]

64. :) I find solace in the tight constraints the legal system

mostly keeps on the abilities of citizens called to jury duty to do harm. There's no end of horror stories about the times they fail of course.

[NowISeetheLight]

107. It was nine seconds

[CrackityJones75]

43. Sacrifice? WTF?

That line infuriates me.

Just WHAT THE FUCK?

[leftstreet]

44. "Sacrifice?" Cringe thread

FFS

[Jirel]

49. She was no "sacrifice."

She is a killer, end of story. She is one of the two classes of criminal cop who must be held accountable: the ones who are cruel, intentional criminals from the start, and the ones too hare-brained and easily swayed by a culture of hate and “victimhood” to ever be allowed to handle a weapon in a stressful situation. Killing someone idiotically while high on adrenaline and feelings of invulnerability in your gang is the definition of her crime, manslaughter. She deserves everything coming to her.

[Shermann]

82. You sort of smuggled that "feelings of invulnerability in your gang" bit in there nt

[Hortensis]

53. Whether she INTENDED to kill was not an issue in this trial.

Both sides accepted that the death was an ACCIDENT.

The issues argued at trial were whether a highly trained, experienced police officer armed with the authority of the state should have recognized she was holding the heavier metal gun AND whether she should have drawn either weapon. Mistake, just as some will make after opening their shiny new guns tonight, or did the level of negligence in a trained officer rise to that of criminal "recklessness" and "culpable negligence"?

[Act_of_Reparation]

84. Precisely. Normal citizens go to prison for accidents every day.

Accidentally hit somebody with your car? Go to prison.
Accidentally shoot your neighbor? Go to prison.
Accidentally start a forest fire? Go to prison.

[Hortensis]

96. Right. For criminally negligent accidents. Driver

kills a pedestrian while having a first-ever, completely unpredictable seizure? Innocent accident. No charges.

The same but because he didn't bother to take his anti-seizure medication? Criminally negligent "accident." Go to prison.

[MineralMan]

61. And yet, Daunte Wright is still dead. Shot by a cop who did not

take the time to make sure which weapon was in her hand. Daunte Wright was topped for an outdated vehicle tag and an air freshener hanging from his mirror. At least that was the pretense for stopping a young black man who was driving down the street.

If any good comes from this it will be that some other cop thinks twice before pulling over someone for no real offence because the driver is a young black man. Not doing that would have eliminated the entire incident.

One cop goes to prison for her negligence and haste. If other cops take a lesson from it, that's good, but Daunte Wright is still unnecessarily dead.

The cop made no sacrifice, but a young man lost his life.

[peggysue2]

63. Kim Potter is an example of a police officer being held accountable

Which is something that should be demanded of all officers who hold the power of life and death on our streets. Kim Potter knew this, even predicted she'd go to prison in the first moments following the shooting. In fact, she appeared to care more about her own predicament than the life she'd just ended.

Is she the worst of the worst? No. But there's no question in my mind that she was guilty of gross negligence in a time when citizens are demanding better, much better from law enforcement.

The life of Daunte Wright will never be restored. However, Potter's conviction sends a clear signal that the awesome power afforded police officers no longer carries unlimited immunity, particularly for a training officer in the field who is expected to know better, be better.

As was pointed out yesterday, this isn't an indictment of all police officers but a strong reminder that society at large expects police officers to abide by the very law they're enforcing. Mistakes happen. But when a life is lost due to reckless negligence, even a police officer has to pay the bill.

[marie999]

78. No, a charge and conviction of 2nd degree murder would have been better.

[uponit7771]

85. +1, "reckless negligence" ... she didn't have to pull a weapon at all

[Mary in S. Carolina]

66. Sensory Overload? What threat? A scented Christmas tree?

Give me a break Shermann, if she views a "black" kid with a scented Christmas tree a threat and goes into sensory overload then she is "racist" and has no place near a gun, let alone be in charge. Please compare apples to apples, a "fighter jet in the heat of battle vs a skinny black kid with a scented Christmas tree hanging from rear view mirror." Wow, just Wow

[uponit7771]

91. +1, just found out Use of Force Expert said she didn't need to pull a weapon and no other LEO

... around her pulled a weapon for 9 seconds while she was screaming taser the afterwards she didn't check on any of the officer she was trying to protect.

and

You're right, what if a black cop shot an unarmed white woman ... o wait, that already happened with Muhamad Noor and he got murder (which was later overturned)

[Swede]

86. Here's Kim Potter at another shooting of a black man, telling cops to turn off their cameras

and get their stories straight.

Link to tweet

?s=20

[NowISeetheLight]

108. How did "don't talk to each other" and "separate squad cars"...

… Turn into “get their stories straight”?

From The Sun. "Potter instructed Officers [Cody] Turner and [Brandon] Akers to exit the residence, get into separate squad cars, turn off their body worn cameras, and to not talk to each other," the filing noted.

Here is an article about another police shooting where the officers were instructed to turn off the cameras afterwards. Read the article… it all comes down to money.

https://blockclubchicago.org/2021/04/12/why-were-police-told-to-turn-off-body-cameras-minutes-after-shooting-adam-toledo-its-standard-policy-police-sergeant-says/

[Sympthsical]

92. I landed somewhere in your vicinity

I think it was a horrible mistake, and there were various factors leading up to it that demand review to prevent such happening in the future.

I do not have the power like many others to see into men's souls. I do not know her thinking. I don't know her motivations. God passed me over that day when he was lending others this magical ability.

I do know, as a police officer, she is given more control over issues of life and death than the average citizen. With that power comes a certain responsibility - and certain consequences for the misuse of it.

She took a life. A functioning society where others are given powers over life and death require punishment, even if it was a mistake.

I can feel for her while still believing justice is served here. Justice for Wright and justice for society in general.

[uponit7771]

94. She needlessly escalated the situation, I can look at that fact BEFORE she pulled a weapon and say

... it was gross negligence she committed for needlessly escalating the situation.

This was a good and correct prosecution looking at all the facts; LEOs need to know when they're needlessly escalating the situation.

[Sympthsical]

95. What's what I was referring to

When I said, "there were various factors leading up to it that demand review to prevent such happening in the future."

I think she made a mistake in shooting. I also think training needs to change so that what you describe doesn't happen.

Things can be two things.

And I have little trouble with the verdict.

[Shermann]

97. Well said

We got a glimpse of her soul on the stand. Unless she's the greatest actress in the world, she's merely a flawed human being who was once in an elevated position of responsibility. However, she's been demonized which has resulted in callousness to her plight. I don't get it.

[Mary in S. Carolina]

100. Shermann, if you "don't get it"

you never will...I wish you the best...I think. Her soul was black on the stand, not only was she the worse actress, but the worse human being and a cold stone murderer.

[Ms. Toad]

103. All crimes require criminal intent (aside from strict liability crimes like statutory rape).

It is not the same criminal intent for all crimes - it is not even the same criminal intent for all homicides.

The mens rea (criminal intent) required for 1st degree manslaughter is recklessness - endangering the safety of another with such force and violence that death or great bodily harm was reasonably foreseeable.

The mens rea required for 2nd degree manslaughter is unreasonable risk and conscious disregard of the likelihood of causing death or great bodily harm.

The jury was given instructions on the mens rea (criminal intent) for each count and, in order to determine she was guilty, had to agree that the prosecution proved that she acted - as to each count with the required criminal intent.

The state moved for acquittal at the close of the state's case - which requried to evaluate the evidence the state presented and determine whether a reasonable jury could find - based on the evidence presented - that (among other things) Kim Potter had the requisite criminal intent. If the state had not provided adequate evidence as to criminal intent, the trial would have been over. It wasn't - it continued to verdict.