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...
They didn’t offer her a plea deal? I just don’t get why we’re going to trial on this case. Obviously it was manslaughter, meaning that she killed someone unintentionally. But maybe something else is coming out at trial and this was all a big media mess again, I don’t know?
 
She pled not guilty so there's a trial. Her attorney said they were absolutely not interested in a plea. No idea if they actually expect her to get acquitted....

www.kare11.com

Potter attorney says there will be no guilty plea in Brooklyn Center case

Some legal experts believe the additional charge added to former officer Kim Potter's case could spur a plea, but her attorney says no.
www.kare11.com www.kare11.com
Former Brooklyn Center police officer Kim Potter's trial is scheduled for Nov. 30. With her most serious charge now upgraded to first-degree manslaughter, it does not appear she will face a murder count.

According to her attorney Earl Gray, who spoke to KARE 11 Friday, there will be no guilty plea either.

"It's just an abuse of power by Keith Ellison, but that doesn't surprise me. And when we go to trial, we'll win both cases," Gray said.

"So there's not going to be a plea?" reporter Lou Raguse asked.

"No, never," Gray said.


She could be found guilty of either 1st or second degree manslaughter.
www.npr.org

What to know about the trial of Kim Potter, the ex-officer who killed Daunte Wright

Potter's lawyers say she mistook her handgun for her Taser this year when she fatally shot Wright, a 20-year-old Black man. Her manslaughter trial will begin next week.
www.npr.org www.npr.org
Both prosecutors and defense lawyers agree the shooting was an accident. But prosecutors, led by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, say Potter's actions were criminally negligent.

Defense lawyers have argued that because Wright was resisting arrest, a use of force was authorized and that Potter was not consciously aware that she was holding her gun and is therefore innocent.


Potter faces two counts: first-degree manslaughter and second-degree manslaughter.

Initially, prosecutors sought only the lower charge. But in September, prosecutors added a charge of first-degree manslaughter.

In Minnesota, a person can be convicted of first-degree manslaughter if they cause the death of another while also committing a misdemeanor — in this case, reckless handling of a firearm. Second-degree manslaughter, by contrast, requires that prosecutors prove only that the defendant acted with "culpable negligence" as the defendant consciously took actions that created an "unreasonable risk" of causing death or great bodily harm.

Defense lawyers asked Judge Regina Chu to dismiss the more serious charge, but Chu denied their motion, saying that prosecutors had successfully established probable cause to charge her.
 
I am not saying she did this intentionally, but if you can't tell the difference between these to objects, you probably shouldn't be a cop.

Kim_Potter_-_Daunte_Wright_shooting-models.png


www.politifact.com

Data on police confusing firearms for stun guns

Two major events are unfolding in Minnesota: the trial of a former police officer charged in the death of George Floyd,
www.politifact.com www.politifact.com
Brooklyn Center police officers are trained to carry handguns on their dominant side and the stun gun on their weak side, Gannon said. "So if you're right-handed, you carry your firearm on your right side and you carry your Taser on the left," he said.

We don’t know if Potter is left- or right-handed. But the Washington County Attorney’s Office said that a Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension investigator examined Potter’s duty belt and found that the handgun is holstered on the right side of the belt and her Taser is on the left side.
 
I don't see this case at all like some of the other "political" cases. I don't look at them politically but media and some politicians sure do. I think Ellison is way out of line on this one.

This guy resisted arrest, there was a reason he was pulled over and he also tried to drive off or harm someone didn't he? It was a rapidly evolving situation. I'd have to look back at all of the details but I know I see it entirely differently than other cases of cop and victim, "race" cases or ones they are using politically.
jmo.
 
GrandmaBear said:
I don't see this case at all like some of the other "political" cases. I don't look at them politically but media and some politicians sure do. I think Ellison is way out of line on this one.

This guy resisted arrest, there was a reason he was pulled over and he also tried to drive off or harm someone didn't he? It was a rapidly evolving situation. I'd have to look back at all of the details but I know I see it entirely differently than other cases of cop and victim, "race" cases or ones they are using politically.
jmo.
Click to expand...
So, you don't think she's guilty of manslaughter? Unintentionally causing his death by negligence / using her firearm inappropriately? She hasn't been charged with murder...
I don't see this case as political either. That doesn't mean she's not guilty.
She was negligent enough to go for the WRONG weapon with the WRONG hand on the WRONG side of her body. That, IMO, is "reckless handling of a firearm". At the very least, and the very least of her charges, she took actions that created an "unreasonable risk".
I disagree that manslaughter charges are "way out of line"...
 
SheWhoMustNotBeNamed said:
So, you don't think she's guilty of manslaughter? Unintentionally causing his death by negligence / using her firearm inappropriately? She hasn't been charged with murder...
I don't see this case as political either. That doesn't mean she's not guilty.
She was negligent enough to go for the WRONG weapon with the WRONG hand on the WRONG side of her body. That, IMO, is "reckless handling of a firearm". At the very least, and the very least of her charges, she took actions that created an "unreasonable risk".
I disagree that manslaughter charges are "way out of line"...
Click to expand...
I don't know. I'd have to look at the degrees of the charges and look back at the circumstances. I am really interested to hear her testimony as well along with that of others there. I remember thinking a few things when I read the details of the overall traffic stop. And when they upped it to first degree and why they did.

I certainly do not see it as anything like the Chauvin case or some others which the charges reflect, they are not the same. This is a cop pleading not guilty here and I wonder her reasons and the defense they feel she has. Her attorney states they will not deal... I didn't realize this trial was on.
 
So they were going to offer her second-degree manslaughter and she decides to go to trial and now first degree manslaughter is on the table? That doesn’t sound very wise when it appears obvious what happened! I’m going to try to keep an open mind and see what in the world her defense is going to be. I’m clueless.
 
Kimster said:
So they were going to offer her second-degree manslaughter and she decides to go to trial and now first degree manslaughter is on the table? That doesn’t sound very wise when it appears obvious what happened! I’m going to try to keep an open mind and see what in the world her defense is going to be. I’m clueless.
Click to expand...
I'm not up on it either but that's one thing that bothers me--if that charge is recent but they didn't think there was enough to charge with it previously but now they have? I hate it when justice is more about courtroom games and strategies (some) that disgust than about what's fair and right.

It's like if you have something for sale in your thrift shop for $20 and someone offers you $16, we all know it is hoped you will meet in the middle at least at $18. All fine and fun with bartering but not when it's someone's life and freedom. That is what this seems like, she wouldn't take a deal so they up the charge maybe trying to force their hand--do they risk trial and being found guilty of the higher charge or does she get nervous and take the deal?

This case had far different circumstances than many of the recent very public ones. I remember thinking in the beginning if she didn't actually go for her gun under the circumstances but then she or she and others felt it would be better for her to say she confused the two weapons... I"m not saying this is the case but I did wonder because this was I recall a rapidly changing split second decision making traffic stop I think...

I'm pretty open on this one with an opinion until I either get time to refresh on the facts or see some of it at least. Her decision to testify I think means they feel there is reason to do so and take that chance.
 
Kimster said:
So they were going to offer her second-degree manslaughter and she decides to go to trial and now first degree manslaughter is on the table? That doesn’t sound very wise when it appears obvious what happened! I’m going to try to keep an open mind and see what in the world her defense is going to be. I’m clueless.
Click to expand...
Her defense is going to be that she was "so terrified" she couldn't think clearly and that's why she grabbed her gun instead of her taser. Which was bright yellow. And on the other side of her body. If that's not reckless handling of a firearm, or at the very least, actions that created an unreasonable risk, I'm not sure I understand the terms.

GrandmaBear said:
I'm not up on it either but that's one thing that bothers me--if that charge is recent but they didn't think there was enough to charge with it previously but now they have? I hate it when justice is more about courtroom games and strategies (some) that disgust than about what's fair and right.

It's like if you have something for sale in your thrift shop for $20 and someone offers you $16, we all know it is hoped you will meet in the middle at least at $18. All fine and fun with bartering but not when it's someone's life and freedom. That is what this seems like, she wouldn't take a deal so they up the charge maybe trying to force their hand--do they risk trial and being found guilty of the higher charge or does she get nervous and take the deal?

This case had far different circumstances than many of the recent very public ones. I remember thinking in the beginning if she didn't actually go for her gun under the circumstances but then she or she and others felt it would be better for her to say she confused the two weapons... I"m not saying this is the case but I did wonder because this was I recall a rapidly changing split second decision making traffic stop I think...

I'm pretty open on this one with an opinion until I either get time to refresh on the facts or see some of it at least. Her decision to testify I think means they feel there is reason to do so and take that chance.
Click to expand...
You know changing criminal charges happens all the time right? And guilty people testify all the time.
The body cam video is very easy to find.


Obviously this is going to be up to the jury to look at and decide. But again, this is pretty clearly manslaughter, in MY opinion. An accidental death because of negligence.
 
SheWhoMustNotBeNamed said:
Her defense is going to be that she was "so terrified" she couldn't think clearly and that's why she grabbed her gun instead of her taser. Which was bright yellow. And on the other side of her body. If that's not reckless handling of a firearm, or at the very least, actions that created an unreasonable risk, I'm not sure I understand the terms.


You know changing criminal charges happens all the time right? And guilty people testify all the time.
The body cam video is very easy to find.


Obviously this is going to be up to the jury to look at and decide. But again, this is pretty clearly manslaughter, in MY opinion. An accidental death because of negligence.
Click to expand...
I'm really not saying it isn't. I truly need to look into it more. And yes charges change although by now they usually have at least the decision of what the evidence supports--I may often see them add a lower charge if they are worried about meeting the burden of the higher charge.

If she is going to go with "terrified" it sounds similar to the Noor case although circumstances were vastly different. The jury did not see it that way, a cop can't be an overly nervous, panicky cop imo. This situation though was a lot different than a lone woman in her pajamas approaching a cop car.

With the wrong weapon claim, I can believe a cop never looks down for the weapon but reaches for it while keeping their eyes on what's going on. The part I find hardest to believe with mixing up the weapons is the left hand versus the right hand. My dominant side knows which side is which without thinking so I get the point there... I wonder (thought I knew back when) how many times she has had to reach for or use a weapon, either of them.

Your opinion is likely spot on. I have said it before and will say it again, I don't know who would want to be a cop nowadays and I think it will only get worse.

I am hoping I get to see parts of this trial but I may have to watch it well after the fact if ever.
 
SheWhoMustNotBeNamed said:
Her defense is going to be that she was "so terrified" she couldn't think clearly and that's why she grabbed her gun instead of her taser. Which was bright yellow. And on the other side of her body. If that's not reckless handling of a firearm, or at the very least, actions that created an unreasonable risk, I'm not sure I understand the terms.


You know changing criminal charges happens all the time right? And guilty people testify all the time.
The body cam video is very easy to find.


Obviously this is going to be up to the jury to look at and decide. But again, this is pretty clearly manslaughter, in MY opinion. An accidental death because of negligence.
Click to expand...
If she was so terrified that she couldn’t make this kind of a judgment call, she should never have been a police officer. I’m sorry but that wouldn’t fly with me as a juror.

I think I’m preaching to the choir here, too.
 
Kimster said:
If she was so terrified that she couldn’t make this kind of a judgment call, she should never have been a police officer. I’m sorry but that wouldn’t fly with me as a juror.

I think I’m preaching to the choir here, too.
Click to expand...
I agree on that part. If she terrifies that easily then she does not have the nerves for the job. IF that is indeed her defense. I felt the same way about Officer Noor in the Justine Diamond case. It should have come about at hiring, training and psych evals one would think but training and hiring seems to have been an issue in many recent Mpls cases.
 
I can't see shooting intentionally at the car. That seems so extreme. But she was a police officer for quite some time and they wear their gun and tasers on opposite sides of themselves. So how could she not know?. Did the situation make her that angry?. I don't think this was racially motivated. But was made out to be.
 
Mel70 said:
I can't see shooting intentionally at the car. That seems so extreme. But she was a police officer for quite some time and they wear their gun and tasers on opposite sides of themselves. So how could she not know?. Did the situation make her that angry?. I don't think this was racially motivated. But was made out to be.
Click to expand...
I don't see it necessarily as being racial, either, but 100% a lack of proper training.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
3,006
Messages
240,486
Members
965
Latest member
tanya
Back
Top Bottom