Exactly as I see it.
The Kim Potter Trial: should she go to prison?
- Thread starter Irwin
- Start date
Don M.
SF VIP
- Location
- central Missouri
It seems that nearly every time there is a highly publicized police shooting, the "victim" was confrontational, and uncooperative. if they just kept their mouths shut, raised their empty hands, and followed the cops instructions, such incidents would probably never happen.
Amen
Irwin
Well-known Member
- Location
- Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
What was "unlawful" about the killing? Police are allowed to use deadly force in certain situations, and this may be one of these situations. Wright was fighting the police, he may have been armed, and he was trying to flee. Cops shoot people trying to flee all the time and it's ruled justified (or whatever the hell they rule when they say it's okay for the police to kill somebody).
Nathan
SF VIP
- Location
- High Desert- Calif.
That's just my opinion, given the level of training that most law enforcement officers are required to undergo. I don't think that she wanted to murder him, I think the level of fear she was experiencing fueled her action to use the handgun.
Tish
SF VIP
- Location
- Rural N.S.W. Australia
It's not like she is a rookie, we are talking about a seasoned officer here.
I say send her to Jail.
I say send her to Jail.
Again, 99% of police ever fire their guns their entire careers a vast majority never even pull their guns. There's NO training that will come close to being in a real life or death situation. Unfortunately that's when we find out who will panic and who won't, but by then it's too late. I think she just panicked. Does that equal manslaughter? I'll let the legal scholars decide and except that decision. No way do I think she tried to shoot him.
This was from my memory, so I looked it up to see if I remembered correctly, and I did:
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
It was found that use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger.
So, why do we still have cases where the suspect is shot in the back, running away, etc.?
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
It was found that use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger.
So, why do we still have cases where the suspect is shot in the back, running away, etc.?
A seasoned officer who has very likely never been in that situation before. Doesn't matter how long you've been a cop if you've never been in that situation before, your just like a rookie.
It will be a jury that decides.
In this case he wasn't just trying to drive away, but was reaching for something in the car. Correct me if I'm wrong. I agree police shouldn't shoot people in the back who are running away, unless that person is likely to harm other people, like a guy who opens fire in a mall for instance and if he isn't stopped he'll shoot more people.
No kidding, but there will be expert testimony that will play a role in that decision.
In Ohio it would be the = of Negligent or Reckless homicide depending on the facts by definition. In those examples, as in the Potter case, the homicide was not Justifiable. Potter can not be excused from legal culpability, the doctrine here "Mistake of fact" can not be argued as a defense.
oldiebutgoody
Senior Member
Too bad cops don't apply the law uniformly or we would have a better society. Perhaps some day soon everybody will exercise their Second Amendment rights and keep the government off their backs just like our Founding Fathers believed in. Let's have all our NRA pals chime in with their agreement.
The law does not say the fleeing suspect can not be shot in the back, period, it just needs to be justifiable. The Prosecuting Agency of the County then determines culpabilty.
I'm pretty sure anybody fighting an arrest will get the same treatment.
oldiebutgoody
Senior Member
You missed what I posted earlier -- had he been white the cops would have left him alone. I went shopping yesterday and at least twice saw cars with air fresheners hanging from the mirrors. Naturally, neither was stopped by the cops. They never are around here.
You keep saying that but where is your evidence? My husband is white and from Minnesota, he's been stopped by the police. I'm white and I was recently pulled over by the police for the same reason they pulled over Duante -- expired tags, he was not pulled over for the air freshener. (My tags weren't really expired, the policeman just hadn't seen the new five year tags which were the same color as tags three years ago.)
The police initially pulled over Duante for his tags. Then they ran his name and found out there was a warrant for his arrest and that he was known to be armed and dangerous. They got him out of the car and were starting to cuff him when he jerked away, got back in the car, and was starting to pull away while another officer was halfway through the passenger window trying to disable the vehicle. Potter knew that officer's life would be in danger if Duante started to drive with him like that.
At that point Potter yelled, "Taser, Taser, Taser!" as she was starting to reach for her Taser, she saw Duante reaching for something on the other side of his seat and thought it might be a gun.
[ It's my guess that it was her brain thinking "gun" at that moment that caused her hand to pull the gun instead of the Taser. That's just my opinion because I've been known to mix up the coordination from my brain to my hand in ways like that in the past.]
After shooting him she went into shock saying, "OMG I shot him!" Only then did Duante drive off. She did not shoot at him after he drove off so I don't think she can be blamed for the car accident and the people he crashed into.
In his short life Duante had managed to get a girl pregnant, get a restraining order against him and shoot an innocent man in the neck during a robbery, leaving him paralyzed and unable to speak. None of this experience seemed to bother him much. He knew he was driving a car without a license, knew his tags were expired, and even knew that the air freshener he had hung from his rearview mirror was a violation of traffic law. He just didn't seem to think the law applied to him, and he thought fighting with the police and fleeing the stop was a normal thing to do.
I have to side with the law on this one. Potter has already resigned from her job and shows no desire to ever be a police person again so I hope she gets off.
What's with the air fresheners? Around here people drive with dice, beads, air fresheners, & Handicap cards hanging from their inside mirror. There is no law saying you can't do that here in Indiana.
Butterfly
SF VIP
- Location
- Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
Your misogyny is showing, Chet.
oldiebutgoody
Senior Member
they are illegal in Minnesota: https://tinyurl.com/2kzje7du
Fuzzy dice, pennants, elves, and other things are believed to pose a hazard to the public. The problem isn't the law so much as is the continued inconsistent enforcement of the law here. You see these things on cars all the time as thousands of motorists use them. But let one black driver have one and the stupid cops suddenly decide the driver is a public menace.
The expiration date of a tag is in tiny print on the right side of a license. Operating an automobile on city streets requires a driver to keep his eyes on the road all the time. Take your eyes off the road for only a few seconds and you put the public in danger. With all the traffic moving along, the cops have to have eyes like an eagle and take a deep look at a license in order to ascertain that the driver is using expired tags. In other words, they have to be targeting someone in order to be able to make such discernment. Targeting blacks is a specialty among these bigoted pieces of s____t. Small wonder why there are so many racial troubles in Minnesota.
oldiebutgoody
Senior Member
Three cops on an unarmed person and this constitutes an accident? Hmmmm ...
In Minnesota a cop can retire after 20 years on the force with a full pension. Potter was a police supervisor with 26 years on the force which means she could have retired quite comfortably before this unhappy incident took place. Are you sure you want her back on the force?