First Rittenhouse case and now this. She was negligent. A person died as a direct result. Textbook manslaughter. It’s almost as if the US justice system is trying to give remedial lessons to Law students.
Wonder what the sentencing guidelines are.
There’s no way to know this. She might have been advised to seek a plea deal and decided to go to trial against that advice. (she may have even turned down a plea offer) She also might have attempted a plea deal and learned the prosecution was playing hard ball and required a plea to first degree manslaughter. Or, she might have been advise by her lawyers to roll the dice at trial.
You’d think so, wouldn’t you.
So what? It’s a mistake that led to someone’s death. We don’t exonerate people just because something is a mistake. We need to provide a strong incentive to not make mistakes with such devastating consequences in the future.
That’s very possible, and I’m not a legal expert or anything, and I only “tend to think” so.
But there’s a huge difference between a hunter and this case. A hunter has no great imperative to shoot altogether, let alone to shoot right this second. So the failure to be more careful is a much bigger deal. In the Potter case, she was in a potentially lethal situation which required some sort of split second action by her. So her failure to make sure she wasn’t making some bizarre mistake shouldn’t weigh as heavily.
And I would note again that people who kill people in auto accidents are not routinely charged with manslaughter. So it’s obviously not as simple as “She was negligent. A person died as a direct result. Textbook manslaughter.”
I definitely see that difference.
From my casual observation of the facts and the testimony, though, I think that ‘mitigating factor’ will probably resolve in much the same manner as her conspicuous emotional breakdowns on the stand and her clearly well crafted appearance: in sentencing.
MN Man 2 carries penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment and/or up to $20k in fines.
They could easily hold her criminally liable for her actions but not throw the proverbial book at her.
But against that is fact that she is a trained professional with a job that places her in a position of power over people, with the legal authority to wield lethal force. I think that changes what we as a society can expect from her, there is a much greater duty to avoid mistakes.
that’s very possible. In high-stress situations police are going to react using their training.
What hasn’t been mentioned is a taser that is designed around a gun-like trigger. It creates confusion and that is reinforced by whatever training is most used. It’s a poor design.
And nobody seems to mention Daunte Wright’s involvement. It’s not a function of him NOT deserving to die. That’s a given. It’s a function of his attempt to drive away from an arrest. His use of a car to flee while surrounded by people represents a danger. His behavior is a significant component in his death.
That’s an interesting point. I had thought about this but I don’t know how else to design the weapon for it to be effective. It must be aimed in a way that the probes properly strike the subject, it must be able to be comfortably carried on a duty belt, and it must be able to be accessed immediately.
In and of itself the Taser is not poorly designed. For it’s intended use it’s actually a great design. It’s only when it starts getting confused with an actual firearm (or vice-versa) that problems arise.
One thing that many don’t understand is that Tasers and Stun Guns are not the same. Stun Guns do not shoot probes and only utilize pain compliance while Tasers using probes incapacitate the subject. A Taser can be used as a stun gun if you remove the cartridge and use the internal contacts. This is called a “Drive Stun” and only causes pain, not muscular incapacitation. Take it from me, it hurts like a bitch but you can continue to move and fight while Drive Stunned unlike when you are probe Tasered.
I don’t know what configuration one could make the Taser that made it quite unlike a handgun yet could be effective aimed at a subject and be easy to carry on a duty belt. All Tasers used to be yellow which was supposed to effectively distinguish them from a firearm. But now they are coming out in black as well.
Are there any statistics that indicate what happened in this case is a seriously problem nation wide?
I note well, and appreciate, you making this point.
And I understand this part, but I have difficulty agreeing.
For two reasons:
- I’ve long argued that we shouldn’t really hold people that we basically characterize as criminals to the same standard to which we hold trained, professional, well-equipped, experienced LEOs who are lethal weapons and acting as agents of the State
- I view the situation – lacking as I am in full information – more like a jurisdiction that backs off of vehicular pursuits when they become high-speed chases. Statistically, there’s a strong argument that the risk:reward isn’t there.
Officer Potter had, and made, a lot of choices that led up to this shooting. While I don’t hold Daunte Wright blameless, I think Potter gets the overwhelming majority of the blame on this one.
[segue]
Did I hear that the jurors are asking/going to ask to get their hands on the taser and the Glock (to check look, feel, weight, etc) ?
The Glock would necessarily be given to them unloaded. If they don’t put dummy rounds of a similar weight in the mag (or something equivalent), the Glock will weigh about a half-pound less than fully loaded.
This will narrow the important weight difference between the loaded Glock (2.11 lbs) and the taser (0.94 lbs) to … an unloaded Glock that weighs about 1.6 lbs.
I wonder if this has been anticipated and somehow accounted for.
No, but they can be.
OK, I can see that’s it’s well laid out for it’s purpose. But that still allows for confusion.
That’s almost a discussion in itself. Maybe some clarification would help. What do you mean by the same standard? That can mean anything.
Well that has been the trend in training especially when applied to a moving vehicle. Back off it it becomes a reckless high speed chase. In this case you have police standing around and the car is going to be viewed as a weapon.
If it were me, and I’m far removed from law enforcement, I would focus on situation management. In this case you have someone in a car that you want to keep from using using as a weapon. Shooting is the last resort and then taser for stand-off measures. For some reason batons seem to be considered excessive and it would be hard to wield on someone in a car. That leaves close quarter tactics. If this was a teaching scenario I would have gone with pepper spray. A shot of that up someone’s nose and in their eyes would make it extremely difficult to drive.
Really? I thought she was a graduate of the Rittenhouse school of acting.
Fair question.
With criminals, I tend to embrace the ‘soft bigotry of low expectations.’
I feel the same way when it comes to any major power disparity.
Including corrections officers.
Or warfighters (who often have to engage with civilian populations).
Or a bartender and her inebriated patrons.
Or adult parents and their children.
Or airline pilots.
Or pharmacists.
Or physicians.
Or any number of other types.
This is the job. And lives are in your hands. And it isn’t necessarily an easy gig. Mistakes are incredibly consequential, or can be.
And you may well not be perfect, but when you sign up to deal with this kind of situation on a daily basis, society at large holds you to a pretty high standard.
I expect better behavior from those with far more power, far more support, and a raft of better options than I do from the people that we tend to characterize as “criminals.”
[tangent(s) warning]
But … I think we’ve created a nightmarish perverse incentive by having crime and punishment be for-profit ventures. It’s a huge industry in the US, and I think a seismic shift in our priorities might dramatically lower the crime rates to the benefit of all.
Y’know … like most of the other advanced economy nations do.
I wretched when I first heard “defund the police,” but I immediately told my wife that more traction could be gained by terming it “re-imagine policing.”
And as various people have observed, “You fight the way you train.”
Just my opinion, but Killer Rittenhouse cried in court because he was afraid of going to jail. Kim Potter pretty much lost her shit as soon as she realized she shot someone.
And said that she was going to jail. She knew right away that it wasn’t a justified killing so she started to cry because her life was all sort of fucked now.
Someone a few blocks away had three large and aggressive dogs behind a rickety fence. The fence fell over and the dogs attacked the across the elderly across the street neighbors when they got home from shopping.
Both women were transported with serious injuries but did survive.
The dog owner’s first response was to cry because his dogs had been killed. He also cried a whole bunch in court because he was going to be found responsible for the damage he allowed to happen.
What do you think the two cases have in common? Both of the people responsible for serious damage cried because they were afraid of what would happen to them.
Potter was a exemplary cop that made a mistake. She’s remorseful and it was a very stressful and dangerous situation. Wright was not compliant, tried to drive off, and he didn’t care who got run down. Members of the public and the officers on the scene could potentially be hurt. Potter had a sworn duty to stop Daunte Wright and not allow that car to become a lethal weapon.
How would people feel if Wright had slammed into a car with kids? What would they say about the cop that let that happen?
I’m very conflicted about what punishment she should face. Yes she was negligent and needs some punishment. Apparently the jury is facing the same dilemma. Whats appropriate and what’s too harsh?
I’m glad it’s not my decision to make.
The animal provision isn’t really an “example”, it’s a specific crime in Minnesota. Any theory of conviction needs to be set within one of the provisions of the Minnesota statutes. I think the conduct here should be manslaughter – even accepting Potter’s version as I understand it.
But there appear to be roughly 10 things one can do to commit “manslaughter” in that state (at least under the statutes linked above). Three of them require intentional harm/killing; two involve animals; two involve children; one involves drugs; one involves traps.
It seems to me (without following the case carefully) that she may be guilty under 609.205(1) (“culpable negligence”), but I don’t really see how any of the other provisions apply. (If the arrest was unlawful, then I think it could be 609.20(2)).
(I looked up the criminal complaint and, in fact, they’re charging her under 609.20(2) and 609.205(1)).
I actually agree with everything else you said, and certainly I would struggle to vote guilty in this case, except these two to some extent.
Haven’t we had pretty much conclusive case law that while a cop may have a “sworn duty” to do whatever, they have no LEGAL duty to any person? I know from personal experience where a friend of mine was stabbed over a dozen times in the same room as a policeman who was specifically with her to protect her under an order of protection. The cop (by his own testimony in the murder trial) waited until the estranged husband had exhausted himself either mentally or physically with the stabbing before he took him “peacefully” into custody. The officer not only was cleared by internal review the lawsuit filed by the victim’s family was dismissed because apparently it is settle law that the police have not duty to protect you by taking any specific steps, not matter how obvious that would be.
And if Wright had slammed into another car killing innocent people, ALL the public opprobrium would fall on Wright. I think we have seen numerous cases of this, almost no one ever goes back and asks why such and such officer didn’t shoot the driver when they had a chance.