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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sorry but you change ownership and insurance before you let someone else "own" the vehicle. They are pre-empting questions and answers they expect from the defense imo. It makes sense and I feel for the victim's mother but common sense tells why neither the car nor the insurance was in his name.

Not a judgment, I just do not believe they intended to switch it over or put insurance in his name.
 
that's why I wonder how often they actually trained in situations for using all their devices they have, not just "here's a stun gun. Use it when you need to".
I'm sure they do. I've seen police demonstrations on T.V. training and having one stunned to show what is does to a person. I can't see them not training. Especially if they are told what side of their body to wear them.
 
I caught part only of the prosecution opening which was strong I guess, same woman as in the Chauvin case, and then got a phone call I was waiting for. I now have defense on but only just got it up and on and probably won't see the rest of that.

I can say there is nowhere near the number of people watching or in the chats as I normally see in a case. There are, however, several big trials going on right now.

Oh sure, I just get it on again and they break for lunch.
Santa?📞
 
I'm sure they do. I've seen police demonstrations on T.V. training and having one stunned to show what is does to a person. I can't see them not training. Especially if they are told what side of their body to wear them.
But how much and how often was she trained? Evident!y not enough, no matter the actual answer. Just because you are shown how fo use it, does not mean you Were actually trained to use it.

I can show my dog what "stay" means, but we actually had to train on it to make it stick - repeatedly, not just a time or two. That kind of difference.
 
I'm sorry but you change ownership and insurance before you let someone else "own" the vehicle. They are pre-empting questions and answers they expect from the defense imo. It makes sense and I feel for the victim's mother but common sense tells why neither the car nor the insurance was in his name.

Not a judgment, I just do not believe they intended to switch it over or put insurance in his name.
I don't know what the law in MN is, but here in FL, car insurance covers the car, no matter the driver. And, the driver, no matter the car. My sons drive my car frequently, but I have not formally added them to car insurance, cuz if I did, insurance would go up drastically for teen boys. And, they are still covered if anything happens while driving. They are not covered for driving someone else's car unless that car is insured.

When they decide to get their own cars and register it in their own name, they need to call the General and get their own insurance policy :)
 
Last edited:
I don't know what the law in MN is, but here in FL, car insurance covers the car, no matter the driver. And, the driver, no matter the car. My sons drive my car frequently, but I have not formally added them to car insurance, cuz if I did, insurance would go up drastically for teen boys. And, they are still covered if anything happens while driving. They are not covered for driving someone else's car unless that car is insured.

When they decide to get their own cars and register it in their own name, they need to call the General and get off my insurance policy :)
Yeah, not sure, it did used to be that way in these states but they do ask when you get a policy, renew, etc. about licensed drivers in the household, birth dates, etc. Many people do that I'm sure and for the price they charge, I get it. I think a claim or too many though with a teenager driving and you might just find yourself not renewed or something.

In this case though the mom knew he did not have a driver's license, the plates were expired, no insurance put on it at all, pot was smelled, he had a warrant for his arrest, and prior charges... To me when that is all added together, I don't think there was any intent to put his name on the car or insure it, etc. and yet they gave it to him to drive. I don't believe that part of her testimony that they intended to do all that.

All that said however does not mean I think the cop is innocent, I'm just remarking on not buying that part of her testimony.
 
I don't know what the law in MN is, but here in FL, car insurance covers the car, no matter the driver. And, the driver, no matter the car. My sons drive my car frequently, but I have not formally added them to car insurance, cuz if I did, insurance would go up drastically for teen boys. And, they are still covered if anything happens while driving. They are not covered for driving someone else's car unless that car is insured.

When they decide to get their own cars and register it in their own name, they need to call the General and get their own insurance policy :)
In MN that is not the case. My insurance agent told me when a daughter hit me driving her mom's car.
 
Potter is gonna testify about the emotional damage she has suffered since this. Jeez o flip!
Not a good defense, in my opinion. I wonder if they are allowing her to talk about that because they don’t want her painted as a monster? Then talk about how badly she feels for the victim and his family!
 
I don't know what the law in MN is, but here in FL, car insurance covers the car, no matter the driver. And, the driver, no matter the car. My sons drive my car frequently, but I have not formally added them to car insurance, cuz if I did, insurance would go up drastically for teen boys. And, they are still covered if anything happens while driving. They are not covered for driving someone else's car unless that car is insured.

When they decide to get their own cars and register it in their own name, they need to call the General and get their own insurance policy :)
When my boys got their drivers licenses, they were required to be added to my insurance. They figured that I would be letting them use my vehicle regardless. So as long as they lived here, they had to be insured. It’s a difference from Florida, I see.

I watch a lot of Judge Judy when I’m at the gym, and there are a lot of people that sell their vehicles and don’t get the title transferred and get it insured in their name. For months! Kind of surprises me but that’s what a lot of people do. I don’t hear people getting shot over it, that’s for sure.😠
 
In MN that is not the case. My insurance agent told me when a daughter hit me driving her mom's car.
I never even let my kids drive my van except for when my oldest son turned 30! Yet they still make me add them to my insurance policy when they were living here. They are very strict about it here.

Once they become adult age and have their own vehicles, the rule doesn’t apply. I don’t know if it would have if they didn’t have a vehicle at all? I can’t remember. I know YDS was insured in college but he was also not an adult when he started college.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,006
Messages
240,493
Members
965
Latest member
tanya
Back
Top Bottom