Kimberly Potter Trial

IF and I mean a big if, she is found quilty…. I see a whole lot more cops looking for a new career

glenn57 wrote:

IF and I mean a big if, she is found guilty…. I see a whole lot more cops looking for a new career

I tend to agree. Thinking back to the comparison to Drs, I think the comparison to Drs getting charged if they screw up is a bit different because they have malpractice insurance that protects them to an extent.

glenn57 wrote:

IF and I mean a big if, she is found quilty…. I see a whole lot more cops looking for a new career

I think the ones that would / could quit have already done so. However, I believe traffic stops become a thing of the past. Short of murder you will have a hard time getting a cop to show up anywhere. Can you blame them?

Dutchboy wrote:

I think the ones that would / could quit have already done so.

I agree which is arguably why crime rates are up recently (car jackings). The Defund the Police movement/rhetoric is not helpful either.

Dutchboy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>glenn57 wrote:</div>
IF and I mean a big if, she is found quilty…. I see a whole lot more cops looking for a new career

I think the ones that would / could quit have already done so. However, I believe traffic stops become a thing of the past. Short of murder you will have a hard time getting a cop to show up anywhere. Can you blame them?

X2. There already has been a lot of Law enforcement officers who have already gotten out or are taking steps to get out. I saw that the # of people registered for law enforcement academies is at record lows as well. Sad but without the respect they deserve from Citizens and the backing they deserve from their leaders, who can blame them !!!

It’s too bad they spent so much time muddying the water with a myriad of topics in this case when everyone seems to universally agree (including Potter) that this was an accidental shooting. This case is going to set precedent and it would be nice to more clearly outline if/when it is a crime for a cop to accidentally commit a homicide. This could be one of those things that leads to weird things down the line (e.g. “felony murder”).

I personally wouldn’t be content with the “Oopsie, but I’m a cop” precedent if my kid tried to run from a house party and a cop accidentally shot him.

TheFamousGrouse wrote:

I have to say, I think there actually IS a chance she’s found not guilty entirely. The issue I see is that the definition of Man 2 actually seems to me to be the more difficult charge to prove in this particular case. So that leaves Man 1, and the definition of that charge clearly does not fit at all and IMO the prosecution has done little to nothing to prove that charge.

I agree, though, I think there is strong pressure to say Potter must be held accountable for something, so even if the Man 2 charge doesn’t fit, I think that’s more than likely where the jury goes.

I have to wonder if Potter is found guilty on Man 2, then is there any way that any police shooting can EVER be ruled an accident? Hard to come up with any circumstances under which that would be possible if the jury says guilty in this case that is so clearly an accident.

I agree. She may very well be found not guilty. Looks like the jury is asking the judge how long the have to deliberate and to see the side arm again. Kind of seems like the jury is worried about being dead locked on Christmas.

lol, no way isn’t this settled before Christmas

Juror Hack:

If you are on a jury and are convinced acquittal is correct, but in the minority and the others are pressuring you to give in. You vote yes with them in the jury room, but when the judge asks if that is your verdict, say “no”. Instant mistrial, your jury duty is done.

tindall wrote:

I personally wouldn’t be content with the “Oopsie, but I’m a cop” precedent if my kid tried to run from a house party and a cop accidentally shot him.

What if Kimberly Potter was your kid or wife? Would you want them to do any time for an accident that happened in this manner?

Bass Pundit wrote:

Juror Hack:

If you are on a jury and are convinced acquittal is correct, but in the minority and the others are pressuring you to give in. You vote yes with them in the jury room, but when the judge asks if that is your verdict, say “no”. Instant mistrial, your jury duty is done.

therein lies the problem……no effin way should someone be pressured to vote a certain way. thats the whole problem here..jury feels pressured to vote guilty for fear on the next burning down the town BS. not on the evidence presented……….

glenn57 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Bass Pundit wrote:</div>
Juror Hack:

If you are on a jury and are convinced acquittal is correct, but in the minority and the others are pressuring you to give in. You vote yes with them in the jury room, but when the judge asks if that is your verdict, say “no”. Instant mistrial, your jury duty is done.

therein lies the problem……no effin way should someone be pressured to vote a certain way. thats the whole problem here..jury feels pressured to vote guilty for fear on the next burning down the town BS. not on the evidence presented……….

This feels very similar to inability to accept the outcome to the last election. If it didn’t go the way you want, blame a rigged system.

yea whatever………………i dont lose sleep over election results……. or your posts for that matter.

glenn57 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Bass Pundit wrote:</div>
Juror Hack:

If you are on a jury and are convinced acquittal is correct, but in the minority and the others are pressuring you to give in. You vote yes with them in the jury room, but when the judge asks if that is your verdict, say “no”. Instant mistrial, your jury duty is done.

therein lies the problem……no effin way should someone be pressured to vote a certain way. thats the whole problem here..jury feels pressured to vote guilty for fear on the next burning down the town BS. not on the evidence presented……….

X2. In cases such as this, I don’t know how anyone would get what I WOULD call a fair trial. A juror should never feel the need to base their decision on what other actions may occur due to that decision. But these days that’s nearly impossible.

biggill wrote:

This feels very similar to inability to accept the outcome to the last election. If it didn’t go the way you want, blame a rigged system.

Ya Ya Ya !!!! you quickly forget how well the losing side took the results of the 2016 election and how they treated the elected president over the next 4 years !!!!

If people on both sides want to feel like the results of a election are Fair and honest – Both parties should agree to conduct elections in the fashion that our founding fathers intended. In person voting – or at the least good reasons for those needing to vote by other methods. Large amounts of none in person voting simply opens up doubt in any election results !!!

AMEN! Show an ID, vote on time.
Military and others who have been pre-approved well in advance should qualify. Not a resident -no vote!

Umy wrote:

AMEN! Show an ID, vote on time.
Military and others who have been pre-approved well in advance should qualify. Not a resident -no vote!

100%

fishthumper wrote:

Ya Ya Ya !!!! you quickly forget how well the losing side took the results of the 2016 election and how they treated the elected president over the next 4 years !!!!

If people on both sides want to feel like the results of a election are Fair and honest – Both parties should agree to conduct elections in the fashion that our founding fathers intended. In person voting – or at the least good reasons for those needing to vote by other methods. Large amounts of none in person voting simply opens up doubt in any election results !!!

At no point between November 2016 and November 2020 was there an attempt to subvert the constitution to prevent swearing in or removing a duly elected president. All of that occurred after November 2020 when the sitting president had no moral compass to concede the overwhelmingly secure election but instead tried to subvert the constitution to remain in power. In the summer of 2020 the president began planting the seed of election fraud when it became apparent he wasn’t going to win.

The point being that some of you are already planting the seed of a rigged system in case you don’t like the results of a process defined by our sixth amendment much like what occurred before and during the last presidential election. There seems to be a disturbing trend of being pro-America except when you don’t like the results of the democratic process.

I fully expect to see a hung jury or a not guilty on all counts verdict in this trial. If a guilty verdict is returned on any of the charges, it’ll be because of what was presented in trial and how the jury interpreted the law. Not because the jurors were in fear of the city burning down.

Umy wrote:

Military and others who have been pre-approved well in advance should qualify.

I haven’t voted in person for many years. I do it by mail because election day falls during firearms deer season and there’s no way I’m leaving my stand to go to the voting booth lol

And yes I am a registered voter in the precinct I reside it so at one point I did prove it with an ID.

Sorry I don’t want to side track this thread as its about the Potter trial…

gimruis wrote:

And yes I am a registered voter in the precinct I reside it so at one point I did prove it with an ID.

Every time I have voted I have done so in person. I have not ONCE ever been asked to provide an ID. I simply point to my name on a print out at the table where they hand out the ballots.

Umy wrote:

AMEN! Show an ID, vote on time.
Military and others who have been pre-approved well in advance should qualify. Not a resident -no vote!

Agreed

gimruis wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Umy wrote:</div>
Military and others who have been pre-approved well in advance should qualify.

I haven’t voted in person for many years. I do it by mail because election day falls during firearms deer season and there’s no way I’m leaving my stand to go to the voting booth lol

And yes I am a registered voter in the precinct I reside it so at one point I did prove it with an ID.

Sorry I don’t want to side track this thread as its about the Potter trial…

The 2020 election was on Nov 3rd. MN firearms deer season started Nov 7th.

Woofda…this has gotten off the tracks a bit.

Back to the actual topic – it seems that this could head towards a hung jury. If reports are true that jurors asked directions for what happens with a “deadlock”, there has to be some people in that room firmly rooted into their stance and interpretation of guilt/innocence by law. It’s almost noon on December 22nd. There’s no way that this goes beyond the holiday. All that would do is muddy the waters further and create more grounds for a mistrial or biases with time away from deliberations.

My guess is we hear of a verdict or acknowledgement of a hung jury by the end of the day tomorrow (Thursday).

blank wrote:

The 2020 election was on Nov 3rd. MN firearms deer season started Nov 7th.

My apologies, I should have stated that “most” of the elections fall during firearms deer season. You are right, this past one did not. I still did it by mail though.

Deleted way off track already

Reasonable doubt looks to be in play, longer deliberation goes, well that’s so obvious it doesn’t need elaboration.

basseyes wrote:

well that’s so obvious it doesn’t need elaboration.

Common man intro.

Dutchboy wrote:

Common man intro.

IALTO

biggill wrote:

At no point between November 2016 and November 2020 was there an attempt to subvert the constitution to prevent swearing in or removing a duly elected president. All of that occurred after November 2020 when the sitting president had no moral compass to concede the overwhelmingly secure election but instead tried to subvert the constitution to remain in power. In the summer of 2020 the president began planting the seed of election fraud when it became apparent he wasn’t going to win.

I seem to remember this:

” Hillary Clinton is sticking with her conviction that the 2016 presidential election was not conducted legitimately, saying the details surrounding her loss are still unclear.

“There was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level,” Clinton said during an interview for the latest episode of The Atlantic’s politics podcast, The Ticket. “We still don’t know what really happened.”

“There’s just a lot that I think will be revealed. History will discover,” the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential nominee continued. “But you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here.’ That was a deep sense of unease.”

Clinton also offered copious criticism of President Trump, saying she warned the country about her former rival, and “it was even worse than I thought it was.”

“I really did feel sometimes like the tree falling in the forest. I believed he was a puppet of Putin. I believed that there was relevant, important information in his tax returns.

Ya. Her and Her side took the results really well !!!!

biggill wrote:

If a guilty verdict is returned on any of the charges, it’ll be because of what was presented in trial and how the jury interpreted the law. Not because the jurors were in fear of the city burning down.

Now you are telling us that you know all the things these juror’s are thinking and taking into consideration on their decisions. Jurors in the Derek Chauvin case openly admitted that the aftermath of there decisions did come into play on forming their decision. If you truly believe that this doesn’t effect a Jurors decision then you are even more insane and not even worth a discussion with.