"Taser, taser, taser...holy shit, I just shot him" trial begins this week

[V-P]

Former Minneapolis police officer, Kim Potter, goes on trial this week for mistakenly using her service firearm on Daunte Wright rather than the taser she thought she was holding.

You'll recall Wright feigned compliance, then resisted and attempted evasion when Officer Potter was arresting him for illegal firearms warrants. She warned Wright he'd be tased, but drew her firearm instead before calling out, "taser, taser, taser!"

Actual bodycam footage behind at the 6:12 mark of the following video.

 

[brosept]

Not guilty. It’s an unfortunate mistake.

Criminal once again chose to put himself in a situation where a very bad thing could happen. Eventually it will. Another situation where if you keep people in jail where they should be they aren’t free to stain society and ruin lives like this.

She should lose her job, but that’s it.

 

[F-LTigerfan0716]

This will be an interesting one to watch. While I agree she should not face prison time for a mistake, there are consequences for mistakes.

I’m curious what the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt for her to be found guilty.

 

[CTG-Tiger]

Not guilty. If you resist arrest your life doesn't matter to me

 

[Mosnowman]

….but will Al Sharpton attend the trial?

 

[shewbacca]

….but will Al Sharpton attend the trial?

If there’s money to be made off black people then you’ll find the Rev close by

 

[MUTiger91]

Not guilty. It’s an unfortunate mistake.

Mostly agree. I seem to remember that she might not have complied with standards put in place to prevent an accident like this from happening. That could be a negligent homicide. I don't know why she might have varied from procedure and that could also matter.

It clearly is in the officer's favor that 1) The deceased was resisting arrest 2) Her intent to use the taser was very clear and appears to be appropriate.

Before hearing the arguments from both sides, I expect no criminal conviction, she will lose her job and the family will win a civil suit for wrongful death that will be covered by department insurance.

 

[Happytigers]

Mostly agree. I seem to remember that she might not have complied with standards put in place to prevent an accident like this from happening. That could be a negligent homicide. I don't know why she might have varied from procedure and that could also matter.

It clearly is in the officer's favor that 1) The deceased was resisting arrest 2) Her intent to use the taser was very clear and appears to be appropriate.

Before hearing the arguments from both sides, I expect no criminal conviction, she will lose her job and the family will win a civil suit for wrongful death that will be covered by department insurance.

Agreed. However, I'll be the first to admit I don't know the legal standards in Minnesota for the charges she's being tried for. Also, unlike Chauvin, I don't believe this officer had a laundry list of misconduct issues in her employment history. She wasn't some wildcard cowboy cop with a history of questionable force.

 

[MUTiger91]

Agreed. However, I'll be the first to admit I don't know the legal standards in Minnesota for the charges she's being tried for. Also, unlike Chauvin, I don't believe this officer had a laundry list of misconduct issues in her employment history. She wasn't some wildcard cowboy cop with a history of questionable force.

There is also a huge difference between a sub-second error and something done deliberately over the course of 9 min with people trying to tell you that you are doing wrong and hurting someone. I don't see much/any similarity at all between this incident and George Floyd's death.

Objectively, being a police officer puts a person in difficult spots. There has to be some benefit of the doubt for someone with a clean track record who did what they were trained to do. In this case she apparently varied from training, so we need to know how much, why. We need to know if her non-standard practice was brought to her attention and she failed to take action. Or did she have explicit or tacit approval to deviate from standard? Did she have any idea that her deviation could lead to this result? Should she have reasonably known?

 

[brosept]

Agreed. However, I'll be the first to admit I don't know the legal standards in Minnesota for the charges she's being tried for. Also, unlike Chauvin, I don't believe this officer had a laundry list of misconduct issues in her employment history. She wasn't some wildcard cowboy cop with a history of questionable force.

Yep. She either had a piece of equipment on the wrong side of her belt, or reached to the wrong side of her belt. Don’t know which it is, but it’s one or the other.

I feel awful for her, and she’ll probably have nightmares for the rest of her life while losing her career. She obviously didn’t try to shoot anyone, and didn’t create the situation which required a grown man to be tased because he violently resisted arrest.

There are 3 common themes in these police shootings, and none are race…
1) committing crime
2) resisting arrest
3) in 90+% of the cases the deceased should have still been in jail for other crimes

 

[MUTiger91]

Yep. She either had a piece of equipment on the wrong side of her belt, or reached to the wrong side of her belt. Don’t know which it is, but it’s one or the other.

I feel awful for her, and she’ll probably have nightmares for the rest of her life while losing her career. She obviously didn’t try to shoot anyone, and didn’t create the situation which required a grown man to be tased because he violently resisted arrest.

There are 3 common themes in these police shootings, and none are race…
1) committing crime
2) resisting arrest
3) in 90+% of the cases the deceased should have still been in jail for other crimes

My recollection is that both her gun and her taser were on the same side allowing for the confusion between the two. If I were a juror, I would likely not convict on a criminal charge unless it was clear she had been told that what she was doing was inappropriate and dangerous and she chose to do so anyway. That means either multiple witnesses or documentation in her personnel file. Basically, I would find it hard to think she is personally guilty of a crime if the department didn't have effective controls in place to identify and manage risks like that. It would suggest the department did not see it as a major risk, so why should she?

The above is subject to change based on the applicable law and juror instructions. It's just my opinion absent that info.

 

[brosept]

My recollection is that both her gun and her taser were on the same side allowing for the confusion between the two. If I were a juror, I would likely not convict on a criminal charge unless it was clear she had been told that what she was doing was inappropriate and dangerous and she chose to do so anyway. That means either multiple witnesses or documentation in her personnel file. Basically, I would find it hard to think she is personally guilty of a crime if the department didn't have effective controls in place to identify and manage risks like that. It would suggest the department did not see it as a major risk, so why should she?

The above is subject to change based on the applicable law and juror instructions. It's just my opinion absent that info.

Yep. If she had a documented history of doing it the wrong way and continued to do it anyway then fvck her. I doubt that’ll be the case here, but we shall see.

 

[V-P]

she will lose her job

She resigned in the aftermath of the incident to prevent further bad will being brought onto her department.

 

[lawgeek]

Man, what a horribly tragic event. I feel for the family of the man who was shot and for the former LEO.

Let's take a look at MN law. She is charged with first and second degree manslaughter, not murder. First degree manslaughter is a bit of a stretch. I don't see how the facts of this case qualify as first degree manslaughter under MN law. Second degree? Maybe. Here's the statute:

609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.​

A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:

(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; or

(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or

(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or

(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or

(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.

If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim's death.

The only subsection of the rule that makes any sense here is (1). And that's tough sledding for the prosecution. It will have to lean on the argument that she created an unreasonable risk by having both her gun and her taser on the same side. Also, it's tough to say she consciously took the chance of causing "death or great bodily harm" by intending to use her taser.

Ultimately, here, the facts may not matter. I think most potential jurors will feel like a LEO is an expert in guns and gun safety. Confusing your taser for a gun is a huge mistake. A man died, whether she intended it or not. It would not surprise me if she is convicted of second degree manslaughter. It would also not surprise me if she walked. The statute is not a good fit with these facts.

 

[brosept]

Man, what a horribly tragic event. I feel for the family of the man who was shot and for the former LEO.

Let's take a look at MN law. She is charged with first and second degree manslaughter, not murder. First degree manslaughter is a bit of a stretch. I don't see how the facts of this case qualify as first degree manslaughter under MN law. Second degree? Maybe. Here's the statute:

609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.​

A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:

(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; or

(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or

(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or

(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or

(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.

If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim's death.

The only subsection of the rule that makes any sense here is (1). And that's tough sledding for the prosecution. It will have to lean on the argument that she created an unreasonable risk by having both her gun and her taser on the same side. Also, it's tough to say she consciously took the chance of causing "death or great bodily harm" by intending to use her taser.

Ultimately, here, the facts may not matter. I think most potential jurors will feel like a LEO is an expert in guns and gun safety. Confusing your taser for a gun is a huge mistake. A man died, whether she intended it or not. It would not surprise me if she is convicted of second degree manslaughter. It would also not surprise me if she walked. The statute is not a good fit with these facts.

The “consciously” portion is the bridge they’ll have to cross, which seems like a near impossibility. When she is in video yelling “Taser! Taser! Taser!” and then immediately sprung into trying to save his life while clearly horrified by what had happened, I’d say this is another case that probably never should have made it to trial. I also would think that reasonable people would understand that the incident that led to the shooting was the fault of the criminal and not her to begin with. If you fight multiple police officers to avoid arrest, accidents can happen. This guy caused his accidental death to happen. This case feels like charging a tobacco company for manslaughter when a smoker dies of cancer. Did you not know that this could happen if you did it?

I’d have to think that there needs to be evidence that she was known to carry her gear incorrectly, was previously counseled/warned about it, and continued to do it “her way” anyway.

 

[Corn Pop]

I think you are all being a little naive here. The public is not going to care about statutes or law. A white cop shooting a black suspect is going to be all about race complete with the usual amount of shiit disturbers and protesters. There will be tremendous for the jury to convict of the most serious charges. The intentions of the police officer will not matter.
I hope i'm wrong.

 

[V-P]

If the prosecutor is Clair Thomas Binger, I’m guessing he’ll try to convince the jury Officer Potter necessarily believed the victim was, in fact, a deer.

 

[mugamer]

I think you are all being a little naive here. The public is not going to care about statutes or law. A white cop shooting a black suspect is going to be all about race complete with the usual amount of shiit disturbers and protesters. There will be tremendous for the jury to convict of the most serious charges. The intentions of the police officer will not matter.
I hope i'm wrong.

Hasn’t mattered in a vast majority of cases against police vs minority victims/criminals.


His actions forced her reaction, but if you’re ever trained in the use of firearms and tasers, you don’t confuse them.

She made a literal fatal error and comparing that to the expected outcome, should be held responsible for causing the unwanted death. Honestly, it’s worse for her because it was never her intention to kill him. So why did he die?

 

[Numbahs]

So why did he die?

If he weren't resisting arrest, would she have reached for her taser?

 

[mugamer]

If he weren't resisting arrest, would she have reached for her taser?

Probably… most have their taser ready to go regardless these days right?

 

[Numbahs]

Got it. He bears no culpability whatsoever in his death.

 

[Will_L]

For that she deserves a commendation not condemnation. Saved society from further pain from that criminal with a mistake . Great job.

KARE 11 Investigates: Lawsuit claims Daunte Wright shot a teenager in the head

Two years before he was shot and killed by a Brooklyn Center police officer, a lawsuit claims there’s evidence Daunte Wright shot a 16-year-old boy.

www.kare11.com

 

[brosept]

So why did he die?

A bullet made him bleed, and his heart and lungs to stop.

 

[MUTiger91]

I think you are all being a little naive here. The public is not going to care about statutes or law. A white cop shooting a black suspect is going to be all about race complete with the usual amount of shiit disturbers and protesters. There will be tremendous for the jury to convict of the most serious charges. The intentions of the police officer will not matter.
I hope i'm wrong.

We are a society of laws. We can't selectively follow them to suit our political or social predispositions. Politics should go into making/changing laws. Juries should rely on the product of those laws and a couple hundred years of precedence to decide whether or not those laws were broken. They are finders of fact, not implementers of opinion. As messed up as our politics has been in the last X years, juries seem to be doing their job pretty effectively lately.

 

[MUTiger91]

Hasn’t mattered in a vast majority of cases against police vs minority victims/criminals.


His actions forced her reaction, but if you’re ever trained in the use of firearms and tasers, you don’t confuse them.

She made a literal fatal error and comparing that to the expected outcome, should be held responsible for causing the unwanted death. Honestly, it’s worse for her because it was never her intention to kill him. So why did he die?

She was reacting to a threat with what she thought was the minimum force necessary to subdue the suspect. You saw the law. The standard is: "creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm"

If she didn't do it on purpose, what was her conscious choice that led to this result?

 

[V-P]

If he weren't resisting arrest, would she have reached for her taser?

Probably… most have their taser ready to go regardless these days right?

Absolutely NOT. Before she even approached Wright's vehicle, her partner already had one of Wright's wrists in handcuffs. At that point, none of the three officers present had come even remotely close to reaching for any sort of weapon. Officer Potter didn't draw what she believed was her taser until Wright resisted arrest and put she and her partner at risk of grave bodily harm by getting back into his vehicle and putting it in gear.

This is all on the bodycam footage, if you'd care to see it for yourself.

 

[mugamer]

She was reacting to a threat with what she thought was the minimum force necessary to subdue the suspect. You saw the law. The standard is: "creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm"

If she didn't do it on purpose, what was her conscious choice that led to this result?

I definitely get that she was reacting to a threat, but simply stating that she broke protocols by drawing her firearm and discharging it, as opposed to the taser she thought she was drawing. Obviously, it was an accident, but there's still convictions for accidental deaths. I think it's warranted in some lesser amount.

Absolutely NOT. Before she even approached Wright's vehicle, her partner already had one of Wright's wrists in handcuffs. At that point, none of the three officers present had come even remotely close to reaching for any sort of weapon. Officer Potter didn't draw what she believed was her taser until Wright resisted arrest and put she and her partner at risk of grave bodily harm by getting back into his vehicle and putting it in gear.

This is all on the bodycam footage, if you'd care to see it for yourself.

I've seen it, and it was a generalization that was wrongly applied to this case.

I don't know that the other officers life was in danger, but she was justified to take action and she shouted out the action she intended to take, but made a mistake that caused the loss of life of someone prior to a conviction.

That's the only thing I think justifies legal action, she made a mistake that cost a life and everyone can squabble about how they don't care when criminals get killed before a chance at trial, but it's a core part of our legal system that I actually support.

 

[V-P]

I don't know that the other officers life was in danger

It's been widely recognized by prosecuting attorneys and the courts that a vehicle is a deadly weapon and many suspect shootings have been deemed justified as they've occurred around vehicles with dangerous suspects attempting to resist or evade arrest. The officer has a duty to arrest a suspect with a felony warrant. If the suspect resists and puts the vehicle in gear whilst the officer is still in contact with the suspect, that's an extremely dangerous situation for the officer.

I've seen many, many video clips of suspects putting their vehicle in reverse gear and taking down an officer with the open vehicle door. I've seen officer's dragged by a suspect's vehicle because their arm was caught up in the seatbelt strap or in the confines of the steering wheel spokes attempting to remove the keys from the ignition. It's scary af and unquestionably life threatening.

 

[mugamer]

It's been widely recognized by prosecuting attorneys and the courts that a vehicle is a deadly weapon and many suspect shootings have been deemed justified as they've occurred around vehicles with dangerous suspects attempting to resist or evade arrest. The officer has a duty to arrest a suspect with a felony warrant. If the suspect resists and puts the vehicle in gear whilst the officer is still in contact with the suspect, that's an extremely dangerous situation for the officer. I've seen many, many video clips of suspects putting their vehicle in reverse gear and taking down an officer with the open vehicle door. I've seen officer's dragged by a suspect's vehicle because their arm was caught up in the seatbelt strap or in the confines of the steering wheel spokes attempting to remove the keys from the ignition. It's scary af and unquestionably life threatening.

You need to take a break from the internet man. Sheesh. (that's not a dig at you, just it sounds exhausting)

 

[V-P]

You need to take a break from the internet man. Sheesh. (that's not a dig at you, just it sounds exhausting)

That sounds like you need to take a break from the internet then, since I spent all of 45 seconds typing it and didn't get tired at all.

 

[mugamer]

That sounds like you need to take a break from the internet then, since I spent all of 45 seconds typing it and didn't get tired at all.

I was referring to this sizable amount of footage you mentioned.

 

[V-P]

The jury was seated today with 2 alternates. Opening statements begin on Wednesday, December 8th.

The case will be streamed live, gavel-to-gavel, on the Minneapolis FOX 9 YouTube channel. Link below.

https://www.youtube.com/c/fox9

 

[Numbahs]

I was referring to this sizable amount of footage you mentioned.

Some people like to be informed. Others let their emotions guide their beliefs.

I’ll let you guess which one you are.

 

[mugamer]

Some people like to be informed. Others let their emotions guide their beliefs.

I’ll let you guess which one you are.

Lol, I was not criticizing. Thought that was clear.

 

[Numbahs]

Point still stands

 

[DrinkwitzUs]

I was super impressed with the board being in agreement on this topic until one person on either side deviated slightly from the consensus. Still impressive though bc it never happens. The whole thing seems pretty cut and dried. I feel bad for the officer and the victims family. The officer did nothing criminally negligent but an error does leave liability for civic penalties, which I think is fair.

 

[MUTiger91]

I was super impressed with the board being in agreement on this topic until one person on either side deviated slightly from the consensus. Still impressive though bc it never happens. The whole thing seems pretty cut and dried. I feel bad for the officer and the victims family. The officer did nothing criminally negligent but an error does leave liability for civic penalties, which I think is fair.

She is unlikely to have any money to pay out in a lawsuit. She has to pay for a criminal defense. The city's insurance will pay off the civil suit.

 

[DrinkwitzUs]

She is unlikely to have any money to pay out in a lawsuit. She has to pay for a criminal defense. The city's insurance will pay off the civil suit.

I don’t think it’s her responsibility. That’s what insurance is for….people sue who will pay. But it was still her negligence which created the liability. Unfortunate or not….

 

[MUTiger91]

I don’t think it’s her responsibility. That’s what insurance is for….people sue who will pay. But it was still her negligence which created the liability. Unfortunate or not….

I misunderstood your point. I thought you were saying she would still face consequences. For practical purposes she would not. But your point seems to be that the family still has some recourse for justice. That is absolutely true.

 

[bj4mu]

Not guilty. It’s an unfortunate mistake.

Criminal once again chose to put himself in a situation where a very bad thing could happen. Eventually it will. Another situation where if you keep people in jail where they should be they aren’t free to stain society and ruin lives like this.

She should lose her job, but that’s it.

If we were to opine generically that if a suspect resists arrest and/or puts an officer in fear for their safety…then the officer’s behavior deserves a wide latitude…I’d ask who would disagree with this?

Part of why the specious narrative surrounding Michael Brown(yet another govt and media effort at the “noble lie”)was so harmful to national unity.

edit: in tandem with police reforms designed toward de-escalation and transparency… its a missed opportunity toward racial unity and community-police healing to ignore the critical need to educate the people that resisting arrest immediately puts both suspect and officer in mortal danger… and that the peace cannot be maintained if LEO’s can’t aggressively defend against resistance.