Upd: Kim Potter trial resolved: guilty of manslaughter 1&2

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

The former Minneapolis, Minnesota police officer charged with manslaughter in the deadly shooting of Daunte Wright during a traffic stop when the officer mistakenly shot the victim with her sidearm, when she thought she was holding her taser, has gone to the jury.

Potter has been charged with 1st and 2nd degree manslaughter in this case. The defenses primary case is that it was an accident, and that deadly force may have been warranted due to the arrest warrant outstanding for Wright.

The prosecution has argued that people are still accountable and accidents can be criminal.

Seem like a pretty slam dunk case for the prosecution. I expect if the jury struggles at all it will be whether to convict on 1st degree or 2nd degree.

2

Even if she had actually gone for her taser, tasers are potentially lethal, too, and should be used accordingly. Were circumstances such as to justify use of potentially-lethal force?

3

Odds are that if she had tased him instead…Wright would be alive today. If not, the case may have delved into many deeper issues.

As it is, she was reckless and negligent in carrying out her duties as a police officer and a citizen died. She didn’t even attempt to render aid as a result of the car accident that resulted from her actions…just was concerned about going to prison…which she will most likely be doing.

4

I sense that she is genuinely remorseful for her crime. There are lots of people in prison who are remorseful, but still in prison. She is deserving of an equal amount of sympathy given to any other remorseful criminal. No more, no less. Equal.
(If she is found not guilty, I say that killing a person that didn’t require killing is a crime. And I’m not on the jury. If she walks, she has gotten away with a crime, even if it was a genuine accident.)

5

Curious…should remorseful assailants plead guilty and use their attorneys to negotiate the best plea deal, instead of wasting the judiciary systems time and resources with a trial?

Clearly she was advised by legal counsel that she should go to trial, I guess hoping for some sort of technicality that might (-----------------------------stretch) get her off.

In cases where the individual goes to trial and is convicted when they clearly were guilty and they themselves knew they were guilty, should the sentence not contain any leniency?

6

This is a good question. I think, in her case, leniency is the point of taking it to trial. I feel bad for Ms. Potter. I feel much worse for the family of Dante Wright. I don’t think she deserves life in prison, but she needs to do her time.

7

I don’t know what her legal strategy should have been. But someone who was a live person on this planet is now dead and gone. Oopsie ain’t good enough.

8

Batons and OC can also be “potentially” lethal as can fists, forearms, feet, and knees, but like Tasers are not considered lethal force on the force continuum. Deaths occurring from such devices and body parts are rare and happen either because they were applied incorrectly or because an anomaly occurred. But your stance that a Taser should only be used if lethal force is justified is legally and procedurally incorrect. If lethal force were justified a Taser would be the wrong tool to use.

I don’t think she should get off but I do think from what I read that her attorney did not do a very good job and missed a couple of key factors he should have brought up.

9

I don’t think that is a consideration of a sentence for manslaughter, even in Minnesota.

Max time for 1st degree is 15 years. Max for 2nd degree is 10 years. She’s 49.

10

Thanks. Though I live in MN, I’m not sure of the current sentence guidelines.

11

Is Police Chief Magazine not a reputable source? It refers to batons, pepper spray, and tasers as “less lethal weapons”.

12

True, that is the new politically correct term flavor of the day. But under the force continuum when used properly those devices in and of themselves do not fall under lethal force. There are “untrained but justified” situations and “dynamic applications of a trained technique”. But as a stand alone they do not fall under deadly force like you seem to implicate in your last post.

13

Sorry is this is a repeat. I wasn’t clear on the difference.

1st degree
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.20

Summary

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;

(3) intentionally causes the death of another person because the actor is coerced by threats made by someone other than the actor’s coconspirator and which cause the actor reasonably to believe that the act performed by the actor is the only means of preventing imminent death to the actor or another;

(4) proximately causes the death of another, without intent to cause death by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule III, IV, or V; or

(5) causes the death of another in committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.377 (malicious punishment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.

As used in this section, a “person of ordinary self-control” does not include a person under the influence of intoxicants or a controlled substance.

2nd degree
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.205

Summary

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

(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or

(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or

(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner’s premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or

(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.

If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim’s death.

14

I referred to it as “potentially lethal”, not as “lethal” or “deadly”.

Regardless, the question is whether the situation was such as to justify the level of force represented by use of a taser.

15

Except “potentially lethal” is not an official term in the DAAT system and not found anywhere in the Force Continuum hierarchy.

And from what I saw any level of non-lethal force was justified, and one might be able to justify lethal force. But the defense did not do that strongly enough which is one of the criticisms against her attorney some have mad.

One of the physiological things I observed is that (and I don’t know how it is done in Minnesota) officers train 2, 3, even 4 times a year with handguns, but only once every 2-3 years with Tasers. The muscle memory from handgun training, especially under stress, may be why she drew her pistol yet gave the universal Taser warning. This is only an observation and theory on my part.

16

Here’s the Wikipedia account including background.

Killing of Daunte Wright - Wikipedia

Bodycam

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKZ72LUqZ8Y

It looks pretty clear that a taser was appropriate once it got to that point - he’s resisting arrest and trying to drive away. But did the cops act reasonably in the initial stop and subsequent events leading up to what we see there? No idea.

17

Side note: She was not a Minneapolis cop, she worked for the city of Brooklyn Center. BC is a first ring suburb of Minneapolis. In the early 50’s it was the northern white flight place to go - population went from about 4K in 1950 to over 24K in 1960. In the mid-late 60’s it was firmly middle class, businesses flourished.

By the late 80’s, a few of the larger apartment complexes became notorious for crime. The worst was torn down, but crime stayed. By 2000, many of the businesses left. The major mall was torn down to become a Walmart, the areas around became quick businesses - often shuttered in less than five years.

Now, it’s considered the most diverse city in Minnesota, and many issues stem from change happening too fast for the city to absorb it. Well, that and mismanagement.

18

By that logic you would imprison all people who accidently kill other people, including in car crashes and the like. I don’t think this is the law in any state or that such a law would be accepted by society.

The key question in this trial is how negligent was she in making this particular mistake.

I tend to think she should be found innocent. There appears to be zero doubt, based on the video, that at the time she shot him she genuinely thought it was a taser. However likely or unlikely it is that someone would make such a mistake, the fact is that she did.

19

You mean not guilty.

I am going to repeat my theory that it has to do with muscle memory.

I can’t speak to her department, but mine we qualifiy with our handguns 4 times a year. On top of that we do training that involves handguns but no shooting like weapon retention, room clearing, high risk traffic stops, etc. while we only recert with Tasers once every 2 years.

She clearly meant to draw her ECD and thought she did, having given the universal warning for it. My theory is the overwhelming amount of firearm training overrode her thought process during the time of stress. Her attorney should have presented this theory better and hammered on it.

20

At least in terms of second degree Manslaughter, I think there’s a strong case for convicting her.

I’m focused on the example given below. A hunter mistaking a human being for a game animal is clearly a mistake, certainly one that could be made ‘in good faith,’ but it’s also a felony charge.

IIRC, the prosecutor said that “some mistakes are crimes.”