DAUNTE WRIGHT: Minnesota vs. former officer Kim Potter for manslaughter in Minneapolis shooting *GUILTY*

1618802053231.png
In response to this article. 1. I have been pulled over for it. 2. There is information that he was pulled over for expired tabs.
minnesota.cbslocal.com

Can Drivers Be Pulled Over For An Air Freshner?

Minnesota is one of a number of states with laws that prohibit drivers from hanging objects from their rearview mirrors on the grounds that the items could obstruct their view.
minnesota.cbslocal.com minnesota.cbslocal.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Click to expand...
Cousin Dupree said:
I would not be comfortable at all with how a man, who skipped a hearing for carrying a concealed weapon, fighting against arrest and going towards his glove compartment. I probably would have done the same thing.

It is ridiculously been reported as a case of racism. IMO, that couldn't be further from the truth. George Floyd: YES, Ahmaud Arbery: YES. Given the stuff I've mentioned above I think a white person would have been handled similarly. It bothers me when cases like this are lumped in with racism. It dilutes the ability of prejudiced people to admit that George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery were racism based.
Click to expand...
I 100 percent agree. Our irresponsible media and some groups tried to make this one about race and while some of that is out there, it never took off in the same way Chauvin and Arbery did thank goodness. It is clear this was not about race, she has no former anything in her career to indicate that and has also never had anything like this happen before. Were it about race, she would shoot someone here and there wouldn't she?

Anyhow, I agree Arbery was race. Chauvin I am torn about. I think he would do the same to any color if he perceived the guy to be of the same caliber, you know, former charges, maybe into drugs, poor, etc. He also had some prior issues in his career if I recall...
 
daisy7 said:
I don't think it was racism, either. What is concerning to me is that officers carry their gun on their dominant hand side. IMO, that would be more likely they pull out their gun.
Click to expand...
I understand your point but I disagree and would worry if they did not. They need that gun in some situations, even if just threatening to shoot or holding someone at arm's length. She screwed up here but I still think officers need to be armed and have immediate access to their gun when necessary. Jmo.
 
kdg411 said:
View attachment 13479

Here is a still I grabbed from the trial.
Click to expand...
I didn't see most of the trial nor some of these pics so with my having no context, what I notice is his hands are not on the steering wheel in sight nor is he looking at the officer or looking like he is following what they are saying, whether it is to get out of the car or put his hands on the wheel. Also who is to the right of the officer with the gun?
 
daisy7 said:
I don't think it was racism, either. What is concerning to me is that officers carry their gun on their dominant hand side. IMO, that would be more likely they pull out their gun.
Click to expand...
They are supposed to have enough training to know which side they are on. They should have so much training on them that this should be muscle memory for them. She couldn't even name one time she had training on this. That speaks volumes to me.
 
kdg411 said:
Interesting

Click to expand...

That makes sense. I think many jurors are comfortable with taking a middle position, they don't think they deserve to be found innocent or the facts don't let them find that but they aren't comfortable with sometimes the harder charge, the first degree. I think it probably is fairly common in cases where intent is lacking, at least with a juror or two.

Well sentencing will be coming and I think many judges try to please both sides on sentencing but in this case, I'm not betting on the sentence yet. This woman I don't think set out to kill someone that day nor wanted to kill him at that moment. She appears to have no bad record or disciplinary actions, etc.

I don't usually feel bad at all for most defendants but in this one I do. No one wins but I do see the issues here and the reason for the verdict.

As a mother, I will say though that the victim's mother here put her adult son in this car when he had no right to be in one or driving or enabled to do so. I am not blaming her, just stating a fact, all parents are imperfect and don't always make the right choice. It doesn't take away from the officer's actions or possible mistakes but it has a lot to do with the fact he could even be pulled over or was out on the road. I hope she understands there was no intent here and it was not the officer breaking the law that caused this stop, she was doing her job.

Just my opinion on it all.
 
Guess Who said:
They are supposed to have enough training to know which side they are on. They should have so much training on them that this should be muscle memory for them. She couldn't even name one time she had training on this. That speaks volumes to me.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, coming from a family in law enforcement, absolutely. I was taken back when she testified that in 26 years as a patrol officer & she did not once ever have to pull her weapon in defense. I wonder how often Minnesota or Brooklyn Park requires recertification for both the taser & firearm.

The sentencing will be important in this case too. Do you think Judge Chu will show leniency?
 
kdg411 said:
In my opinion, coming from a family in law enforcement, absolutely. I was taken back when she testified that in 26 years as a patrol officer & she did not once ever have to pull her weapon in defense. I wonder how often Minnesota or Brooklyn Park requires recertification for both the taser & firearm.

The sentencing will be important in this case too. Do you think Judge Chu will show leniency?
Click to expand...

I do and I hope so.
 
chicago.suntimes.com

Prosecutors in manslaughter trial of Minnesota police officer document her Taser training

Kim Potter, who resigned two days after she shot Daunte Wright, was trained on policies as they evolved during her 26-year career and repeatedly signed documents acknowledging the policies, Brooklyn Center Police Commander Garett Flesland testified.
chicago.suntimes.com chicago.suntimes.com

Sgt. Mike Peterson, a use-of-force instructor with the department and certified Taser instructor, showed the jury how officers are supposed to run a “spark test” at the beginning of every shift to check whether their Tasers are working. He did so with his own device, which generated a loud buzz for five seconds as electricity arced across the electrodes.

Sam McGinnis, a senior special agent with the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, testified Monday that Potter failed to run the test on her Taser on the day she shot Wright.

Peterson also walked the jury through the Brooklyn Center department’s training procedures for using Tasers as prosecutor Matthew Frank showed them pages from the manufacturer’s and the department’s training materials that warn against the dangers of mixing up a Taser and a handgun. Frank also highlighted portions that say a Taser should not be used simply to stop fleeing suspects or on suspects who are operating vehicles.
 
I’m shaking my head. I think she should’ve gotten involuntary manslaughter. I don’t think she knew what in the world she was doing because I think she was in total shock. But, she inadvertently killed someone. And that is involuntary manslaughter in my book.

And yes, more intense training is needed. Stat.
 
Probably six or seven minutes in, Scott covers Potter. He explains in a few words how I feel about this particular case and don't have the right words for. Criminal versus civil, etc. Intent, etc.

 
daisy7 said:
www.kare11.com

'The hardest decision I've ever had to make': Juror in the Kim Potter trial opens up about guilty verdict

One juror from the Kim Potter manslaughter trial explains why two jurors held out for an additional day before the panel decided to convict.
www.kare11.com www.kare11.com
Click to expand...
"This case was interesting because there weren’t really facts that were in dispute. It was more our interpretation of our jury instructions and the law. Those last couple days were literally just focusing in on the language of the law."

This is what I think happens more often than not in a lot of cases.
 
Ta-da! They found out what I was saying!

"A big turning point in deliberations came when the jurors themselves handled Potter's gun and her Taser and felt the differences. The gun was about twice as heavy, and the two weapons had several differences in how they are un-holstered and fired. "The taser kind of feels like a mouse click whereas the trigger has some trigger draw weight. That was a key turning point," the juror said."
 
That was a really good read and I recommend anyone who hasn't read it do so. Everyone should ask for such a jury and I think most juries take the weight of what they are doing and the lives they will affect very seriously.

The race thing, protesters and things he mentions of internet remarks, etc. angers me. All such things are imo is attempt to make it into something it is not. I don't think most think this was a race case or that Kim Potter set out or was happy she killed someone.

This was a very thoughtful well spoken juror. The entire jury it sounds are what I think still most of our society is, decent people who try to do the right thing.

I do think the hardest cases is where there clearly was not intent nor anything malicious behind an act. She hadn't hurt anyone before or killed anyone in all of her years serving on duty. Even if she should have known, she thought she was tasing him, not killing him. To the dumb arses out there, it clearly is not a race case or intentional. I saw the remarks about her tears not being real or her remorse real. He addresses that and says they were very real. I can't put her in the same class as some drugged up person who loses it and harms someone, someone who just loses it or even a drunk driver. It was a mistake and a costly one but so unintentional, she was thinking she would tase him.

Scott Reisch with his opinion on this I tend to agree with. Not in ALL negligence kind of cases or unintentional cases or manslaughter cases but I think this one fits.

Honestly, I have to say that was one of the best things I have ever read and it does show what I think most juries consist of. Good people trying to do right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
3,006
Messages
240,487
Members
965
Latest member
tanya
Back
Top Bottom