The Kim Potter Trial: should she go to prison?

Tom 86 said:
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.
Click to expand...
If not "Specifically" defined, there may be reference to a blocked view of a rear view mirror or front glass as a catch all?
 

I think it was an incompetent mistake made by a policewoman. She put her life on the line every day she worked. No, she does not need to go to prison.
 
Della said:
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.
Click to expand...
Excellent summary of the facts in this case. (y)
 
Irwin said:
You think she intentionally shot him with her 9mm? I don't see what she would have to gain by doing that. The cost is that she may go to prison for many years.

Personally, I think her thinking was extremely muddled because of all the stress and she mistakenly shot him with her 9mm.
Click to expand...

Agreed. In her years of training, she's been instructed a gazillion times to consider what the bullet could hit if it went through or missed the target. In this case, she endangered both the passenger and the other officer. That's why it seems to be a mistake made in the heat of the moment.

Thanks to @ohioboy 's link above, my guess is that she'll won't be convicted of even the lesser charge--2nd degree manslaughter--due to the 609.205 (1) qualifying clause consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another. I've never had anything to do with a real life trial, don't watch trials or legal shows so may be interpreting this totally wrong, but the 'consciously' specification of the qualifying clause seems to be how she'll likely get off. Seems to be a too tall hurdle for the prosecution to convince all 12 jurors that she consciously pulled the gun instead of the taser.
 
Last edited:
There is a weird irony at work here. I have watched the videotapes a couple of times and I think Potter might have been justified in shooting Wright. He was a felon trying to escape, and he was endangering the life of an officer in the process.

The problem is that by yelling "Taser" and then using her handgun (and then breaking down emotionally for doing so) Potter made herself look incompetent and opened the door to manslaughter charges. If she had pulled her handgun and shot Wright without saying anything, there probably wouldn't be an issue. I'm not saying that course of action was correct, just that she probably wouldn't have been prosecuted for it.
 
Tom 86 said:
They have another cop body camera picture in our today's Sunday paper. She looks like she is much older & confused in the picture. Like what did I just do?
Click to expand...


I saw some of those post incident photos as well. Kinda reminds me of Chuck Colson and those Watergate guys who suddenly got an epiphany. They became born again Christians who conveniently repented of their sins with the hope of winning over some mercy from the court. Well, it worked since he spent only 7 months in prison and paid pocket change as a fine for his crimes. You can bet this will happen to Potter as well with all the right wing political correctness that goes on nowadays.
 
Last edited:
This case explains 609.205 a little.

Minn.Stat. § 609.19(1) (990). Second degree culpable negligence manslaughter is committed by one who causes the death of another * * * *328 (1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.
Minn.Stat. § 609.205(1) (1990).

Barsness contends the mental state of intending to cause death is inconsistent with the mental state of consciously taking a chance of causing death. However, the statutory definition of intent is broader than this argument implies. The general definitions of mental state in the criminal code include the following:

"With intent to" * * * means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act, if successful, will cause that result.

https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/court-of-appeals/1991/c6-90-1882.html
 
Last edited:
Lawrence said:
I believe that the police officer should not go to prison over this. This was a bad accident while in the line of duty for a police officer. Given the situation I believe the police officer should be allowed to return to the police force under supervision.
Click to expand...
If she is found not guilty, I strongly feel that she should not be allowed to return to the police force. Anybody who cannot maintain their cool in a stressful situation (and/or who can't tell the difference between a taser in her hand and a firearm in her hand) has absolutely no business being turned loose on the public with a firearm.
 
Butterfly said:
If she is found not guilty, I strongly feel that she should not be allowed to return to the police force. Anybody who cannot maintain their cool in a stressful situation (and/or who can't tell the difference between a taser in her hand and a firearm in her hand) has absolutely no business being turned loose on the public with a firearm.
Click to expand...
If convicted, as a Felon, she can not own/carry a weapon. This is not to say she could not be/return in a civil position.
 
She voluntarily resigned from the force a few days after the incident, I doubt if she would ever want to return to that job, right now she probably regrets the day she joined.

I just read somewhere that unintentional manslaughter usually gets 4 to 7 years, but since Chauvin got an extra ten years tacked on to his sentence (bringing his total to 22 years) she might get extra time added, too.

It's another topic but I don't agree with police officers getting more time than other perpetrators.
 
I think the big thing people miss, is that in most of these situations the smart thing to do, may be to just step away and let the perp go, and get him in a safer location, under much safer conditions. Not saying this would work in every case, but in many cases it would save innocent lives. As in many things, patience is a virtue. This is especially true in high speed chases, get the license number, and back off, and have him picked up by an unmarked car, or a helicopter. There are an amazing number of people killed, and seriously injured in these totally unnecessary chases, including many people not directly involved. Mike
 
Geezer Garage said:
I think the big thing people miss, is that in most of these situations the smart thing to do, may be to just step away and let the perp go, and get him in a safer location, under much safer conditions. Not saying this would work in every case, but in many cases it would save innocent lives. As in many things, patience is a virtue. This is especially true in high speed chases, get the license number, and back off, and have him picked up by an unmarked car, or a helicopter. There are an amazing number of people killed, and seriously injured in these totally unnecessary chases, including many people not directly involved. Mike
Click to expand...
I often wonder why they don't just shoot and flatten the tires so the perpetrator can't drive off, after which time they could just wait until he's ready to give up. Or maybe they need some kind of boot that they can attach to the wheel to render the car undrivable. Or they could attach something to the steering wheel so it couldn't turn to render the car undrivable.

It just seems like there are all sorts of ways to subdue a suspect that don't involve hurting him.
 
Irwin said:
I often wonder why they don't just shoot and flatten the tires so the perpetrator can't drive off, after which time they could just wait until he's ready to give up. Or maybe they need some kind of boot that they can attach to the wheel to render the car undrivable. Or they could attach something to the steering wheel so it couldn't turn to render the car undrivable.

It just seems like there are all sorts of ways to subdue a suspect that don't involve hurting him.
Click to expand...

Really ? ....... And just what would all those sorts of ways be.
 
To me there is no way in hell she can't tell the difference between one weapon and another. It is another of many episodes of citizens refusing to obey the commands of the police. No sympathy for White.
 
fmdog44 said:
It is another of many episodes of citizens refusing to obey the commands of the police.
Click to expand...


cops do not have the right to impose a double standard on people - had the victim been white he would never have been stopped - went shopping today and again saw a couple of white drivers with fuzzy dice and other crap on their rear view mirrors. nobody stopped them, naturally
 
Geezer Garage said:
Della, the thing about police, like teachers, and others who are held to a higher standard, as those "in a position of trust". Mike
Click to expand...
I understand that, but there's also the added stress of dealing with dozens of volatile situations every day, some of them involving dangerous weapons and violent people. Teachers don't often have to wrestle a huge man to the ground while he's kicking and struggling and still be expected to keep cool and always make good decisions. I think it's too much to ask that they be put in situations involving guns day after day and then be punished more than anyone else when something goes wrong.
 
Della said:
I understand that, but there's also the added stress of dealing with dozens of volatile situations every day, some of them involving dangerous weapons and violent people. Teachers don't often have to wrestle a huge man to the ground while he's kicking and struggling and still be expected to keep cool and always make good decisions. I think it's too much to ask that they be put in situations involving guns day after day and then be punished more than anyone else when something goes wrong.
Click to expand...

There were three cops, Wright had his back turned to the cops, was running away because he perceived a threat. He did not pose an immediate threat to the cops because he was clearly unarmed.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top