Kimberly Potter Trial

It was an accident. He was a thug and she was incompetent.
I really dont know what the outcome should be other than her never wearing a badge again.

How are they supposed to convicted in a court of law when a giant part of the problem is they never show up for court.

cexcutioner956]

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>B-man wrote:</div>
Karry I don’t believe anyone here believes he “deserved” to die.

Oh I disagree. Read through this thread and you will see multiple posts indicating he got what he deserved.

Opening statements are this morning.
[/quote]

I’m more seeing that people are seeing he created the situation that lead to the mistke that caused his death. I still don’t see anyone that says he got what he deserved, that says the cop should be praised because she didn’t a great job as judge, jury, and excutioner. That is putting words in peoples mouths.

crappie55369 wrote:

A criminal is someone convicted in a court of law. the things B-Man is posted about in this thread were not things Duante was convicted of.

Sounds like you are disputing that Duante was a criminal.

The Dictionary definition of a criminal reads ” A person who has committed a crime. I would say that the convictions of a crime in 2019 and 2020 justify his status as a criminal. Not to mention his attempt to resist arrest for a outstanding warrant.

fishthumper wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>crappie55369 wrote:</div>
A criminal is someone convicted in a court of law. the things B-Man is posted about in this thread were not things Duante was convicted of.

Sounds like you are disputing that Duante was a criminal.

The Dictionary definition of a criminal reads ” A person who has committed a crime. I would say that the convictions of a crime in 2019 and 2020 justify his status as a criminal. Not to mention his attempt to resist arrest for a outstanding warrant.

i dont know the kids entire history. im sure he was convicted of some crimes. My point was he was never convicted of the crimes B-man posted on here; the crimes which everyone in this thread is using to determine hes a POS and got what what was coming to him.

I learned from IDO that the media are all liars. im still trying to sort out when its ok to use them to make our case and when to call them liars however… For example last week i posted an article about Kyle Rittenhouse showing him posting with members of a white supremacy group and was quickly told by multiple IDO members that this was all a lie and the media was out to get him. just trying to understand when they lie and when they tell the truth, as they clearly do in this case…. does anyone have some sort of scale or formula?

fishinfreaks wrote:

cexcutioner956]

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>B-man wrote:</div>
Karry I don’t believe anyone here believes he “deserved” to die.

Oh I disagree. Read through this thread and you will see multiple posts indicating he got what he deserved.

Opening statements are this morning.

I’m more seeing that people are seeing he created the situation that lead to the mistke that caused his death. I still don’t see anyone that says he got what he deserved, that says the cop should be praised because she didn’t a great job as judge, jury, and excutioner. That is putting words in peoples mouths.
[/quote]

The cop was called a hero in this thread multiple times and there were additional comments saying they agree with those comments. what do you consider praise to be lol?

Her intent was to shoot him with a taser, her shooting him with a live round was a mistake, I’m not a 100% sure which charge this fully falls under.I think the persecution will have they’re hands full proving she intended to use a live round to intentionally shoot him.

Beast wrote:

Her intent was to shoot him with a taser, her shooting him with a live round was a mistake, I’m not a 100% sure which charge this fully falls under.I think the persecution will have they’re hands full proving she intended to use a live round to intentionally shoot him.

The prosecution this morning in their opening statement argued that she held her pistol for 5.5 seconds before firing.

I initially posted this wondering if there was a big difference in the way a pistol feels and a taser does in the hand. Apparently the prosecution thinks that 5.5 seconds is more than enough time to figure that out, and to use the right one.

I also don’t see the difference between “getting what he earned” vs “getting what he deserved”. Earn is a synonym for deserve.

Choose the Right Synonym for deserve

DESERVE, MERIT, and EARN mean to be worthy of something. DESERVE is used when a person should rightly receive something good or bad because of his or her actions or character. A hard worker deserves to be rewarded. MERIT is used when someone or something is especially worthy of reward, punishment, or consideration. These students merit special praise. EARN is used when a person has spent time and effort and gets what he or she deserves. You’ve earned a long vacation.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deserve

SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING:

RESISTING ARREST MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH

Whether you deserve, merit, warrant, justify, be entitled to, be worthy of, be deserving of, have a right to, gain, win, attain, achieve, secure, establish, obtain, procure, get, acquire, come to have, find, clinch, bag, net, or land it, it has a chance of being hazardous.

IDO Reminder.

Ok to state you opinion. Everyone has one. The thing that gets these posts locked down or dusted is when people start slinging insults or degrading remarks toward other members. That and getting so off topic post/reply have nothing to do with the original post.

Carry on.

-J.

One comment I read and on another site I completely agree with. The Tasers police carry have no place being the same shape as a pistol. Easily made in another shape like a flashlight and this shooting would never have happened.

Maybe this will be one of the good things/changes that come out of this case.

-J.

Seems like he made a terrible mistake.

Jon Jordan wrote:

Maybe this will be one of the good things/changes that come out of this case.

Honestly, this happens so infrequently. I’m not sure it’ll make any significant difference.

I haven’t seen the footage in a while but I recall the whole stop being so much longer than it ever should’ve been. I recall the police having him surrounded at the rear of the vehicle then allowed him to go back to the door vehicle. It was a botched arrest and it appeared to be no fault of Kim Potter’s, at least in my memory. If any change needs to occur it needs to happen with how they conduct these stops and arrests.

I seen the victim he robbed at gun point did a sit down interview. That is refreshing that one of his victims gets to share what a true thug he actually is/was. What I read is that he wasn’t charged in those other crimes because he was killed and charges were dropped.

gregory wrote:

I seen the victim he robbed at gun point did a sit down interview. That is refreshing that one of his victims gets to share what a true thug he actually is/was. What I read is that he wasn’t charged in those other crimes because he was killed and charges were dropped.

I think she (or other victims of his assaults) are suing his estate.

All the Legal Beagles ought to watch My Cousin Vinny again.

A yute, What’s a yute?

Seems like a lot of people are getting lost in the weeds – same as the Rittenhouse trial. She is on trial for the 1st degree manslaughter or 2nd degree manslaughter of a person who resisted arrest/ran. The kid’s past actions are not on trial, and they probably won’t have much bearing on whether resisting arrest warrants being shot (despite the defense’s best efforts). Not to mention the most obvious reality of this case is that she screwed up – she is literally on video crying on the ground saying she is going to go to prison.

I think the 1st degree is an overcharge and will fail, and 2nd will stick with a light sentence due to her lack of criminal history. After it blows over she will probably be offered money/employment/support from people emotionally invested in the case, or people who want to use her as a political pawn.

As others have alluded to in this post – people shouldn’t be too willing to toss out constitutional rights.

tindall wrote:

Seems like a lot of people are getting lost in the weeds – same as the Rittenhouse trial. She is on trial for the 1st degree murder or 2nd degree murder of a person who resisted arrest/ran. The kid’s past actions are not on trial, and they probably won’t have much bearing on whether resisting arrest warrants being shot (despite the defense’s best efforts). Not to mention the most obvious reality of this case is that she screwed up – she is literally on video crying on the ground saying she is going to go to prison.

I think the 1st degree is an overcharge and will fail, and 2nd will stick with a light sentence due to her lack of criminal history. After it blows over she will probably be offered money/employment/support from people emotionally invested in the case, or people who want to use her as a political pawn.

As others have alluded to in this post – people shouldn’t be too willing to toss out constitutional rights.

She is on trial for 1st and 2nd degree manslaughter, not murder. Huge difference.

Oops yea – ill fix it.

tindall wrote:

Seems like a lot of people are getting lost in the weeds – same as the Rittenhouse trial.

I agree to an extent but Daunte Wrights character is being used as a defense. Police will prepare and react differently depending on the information they have on an individual. The defense is trying to prove that she indeed made a mistake and truly intended to fire her taser and that use of deadly force was justified if they chose to use it willingly. Either of these defenses would make her not guilty of the manslaughter charges.

I should also add that the defense quite literally argued that if Daunte doesn’t resist, he doesn’t die. Regardless of where you stand on that argument, it is indeed what is being used in court.

Its Sad, but with the current political climate there is almost no way she will get away without some form of conviction ( I’m not saying she should ) These days with all the possible outcomes from the results of the verdict of this trial, Things are much different as for how the Lawyers, Judge, and Jury all respond to a case like this Vs a case without so much media and public attention. No one wants to be in any way even partly responsible for the damage that could possibly be done if she is found not guilty of anything.

fishthumper wrote:

Its Sad, but with the current political climate there is almost no way she will get away without some form of conviction ( I’m not saying she should ) These days with all the possible outcomes from the results of the verdict of this trial, Things are much different as for how the Lawyers, Judge, and Jury all respond to a case like this Vs a case without so much media and public attention. No one wants to be in any way even partly responsible for the damage that could possibly be done if she is found not guilty of anything.

Yeah, but the above post could have been written just the same while the Rittenhouse trial was going on, and the jury did make a decision in that case without regard to how responsible they felt on the damages their decision would have on the community.

“Yeah, but the above post could have been written just the same while the Rittenhouse trial was going on, and the jury did make a decision in that case without regard to how responsible they felt on the damages their decision would have on the community.”

This is important, and should at least somewhat calm the people who think that juries are simply led by public opinion. That jury seems to have put aside the public opinion, put aside the “how he got in that situation”, and focused on why he pulled the trigger in that moment (which was the charge). One can feel very strongly that it sets a bad precedent, or that he created the situation of needing self defense, but he wasn’t being charged with “making decisions that led to a shooting” and the law don’t care about your feelings.

If I try to evaluate what objectively happened in this case, I see a trained professional misusing their tools which resulted in the unintentional death of a person (unintentional as demonstrated by her immediate remorse). Involuntary manslaughter seems to fit the bill.

another case to watch will be the one where a teen accidentally shot a 5 year old while making a video, not quite the same,but still simulator circumstances.

biggill wrote:

The law defines when deadly force can be used. This wasn’t one of those instances.

And we learned in the first 5-minutes of the Defense opening statement that in fact, an officer’s life was at risk making this a good shoot. God works in mysterious ways. She thought she was going to go to jail. The Sergeant who was in the car on the other side basically said “hold it together woman. You saved my life and did the right thing even if you didn’t know what you were doing.” It is not amazing that the news never showed that part of the body cam video or told the story of the Sergeant on the scene that dived into the car to try and keep Daunte from doing who knows what. Could have been a gun in the car, a knife, or he could have gotten control of the car and killed all three people in the car and took out a min-van full of a mom and her kids.

Bass Pundit wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Matt Wodziak wrote:</div>
The law defines when deadly force can be used. This wasn’t one of those instances.

And we learned in the first 5-minutes of the Defense opening statement that in fact, an officer’s life was at risk making this a good shoot. God works in mysterious ways. She thought she was going to go to jail. The Sergeant who was in the car on the other side basically said “hold it together woman. You saved my life and did the right thing even if you didn’t know what you were doing.” It is not amazing that the news never showed that part of the body cam video or told the story of the Sergeant on the scene that dived into the car to try and keep Daunte from doing who knows what. Could have been a gun in the car, a knife, or he could have gotten control of the car and killed all three people in the car and took out a min-van full of a mom and her kids.

I’m not suprised at all they didn’t bring this up – if she inadvertantly protected her partner by accidentally shooting someone it doesn’t help against the involuntary manslaughter charge.

If they wanted to use this “protection” argument the defense would either have to claim that she intentionally shot (which would raise a host of problems) or try to constuct some sort of divine intervention argument, which, uh….good luck with that.

Lots of “what ifs” to make this line of thinking work, and even if they were all true, you don’t praise a stopped clock for great timekeeping because you happened to look at it during the minute it showed the right time.

Bass Pundit wrote:

And we learned in the first 5-minutes of the Defense opening statement that in fact, an officer’s life was at risk making this a good shoot. God works in mysterious ways. She thought she was going to go to jail. The Sergeant who was in the car on the other side basically said “hold it together woman. You saved my life and did the right thing even if you didn’t know what you were doing.” It is not amazing that the news never showed that part of the body cam video or told the story of the Sergeant on the scene that dived into the car to try and keep Daunte from doing who knows what. Could have been a gun in the car, a knife, or he could have gotten control of the car and killed all three people in the car and took out a min-van full of a mom and her kids.

They will need to convince the jury through evidence that deadly force was needed and that a taser would not have been effective. Her entire defense is that it was a mistake and that she intended to use the taser. It’s going to make the deadly force defense difficult.

Realize that once she yelled “taser taser taser” all of the cops abandoned the vehicle and once she fired her gun they allowed him to drive off.

“They will need to convince the jury through evidence that deadly force was needed”

The burden isn’t “needed”; it is “allowable” or “authorized.” That condition is met by the circumstances in which Daunte was shot. Daunte was presenting an imminent deadly threat to others. Kim was within policy under that situation to pull a gun on Daunte as soon as he started struggling with Officer Lucky. At that moment everything that happened was on Daunte Wright shoulders. The cops chose to go in as easy as possible in an attempt to descalate the situation. Daune Wright was an easily set off hot head who put the officers in a tough position. It is up to us as a society to insure the cops are not taking L’s for the actions of criminals. Officer Potter is not a criminal for her actions that day. I am betting there will be jurors that see that when they go into deliberations. I would also bet there are going to be jurors who are dead set on conviction. I don’t see Potter being acquitted and fear that the pro-law and order jurors will be moral cowards not standing up for what is right. I think it is a hung jury mistrial at best.