Would you be on the Jury?

[Deleted User 89]

“He was trying to run away and was unarmed“

sigh...seems to happen all too often

[ousdahl]

I suppose the big question here will be how much weight is given to mistaking the gun for a taser. Historically cops wouldn’t even be charged, and would prob be quickly acquitted if not dismissed even if it made it to court, but maybe the tides really are turning)

And perhaps there does need to be leeway for government to protect the public. Deadly force to prevent more death is one thing, but it seems as often as anything we see cops use deadly force just cuz they can.

How often are police brutality victims unarmed?

I think the standard for use of force just needs to be much higher either way. Make cops think twice about their own responsibilities.

[CrimsonNBlue]

I suppose the big question here will be how much weight is given to mistaking the gun for a taser.

It is the biggest thing, for sure. The mens rea has to concur to the actus reus. She thought it was a taser and it wouldn't kill him and she is allowed to use a taser. So, not only are they going have a hell of a time proving the mens rea of recklessness, you also have a hard time proving concurrence (on my assumption that tasers aren't deemed to be instruments that cause "great bodily harm" under the law).

I think the standard for use of force just needs to be much higher either way. Make cops think twice about their own responsibilities.

Agree. And, taxpayers are paying billions out on police brutality suits. Perhaps you go after the police budgets if settlements are paid out?

[ousdahl]

[Deleted User 865]

Charges filed.

Second Degree Manslaughter.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.205

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.

Only (1) applies. Needs to show (a) the person creates an unreasonable risk AND (b) consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another. I think both elements can be defeated easily in criminal court.

I just don't know how this helps, when the cop gets off, the community. She needs to be held accountable, but bringing up charges the prosecution isn't going to satisfy, is not the way.

[CrimsonNBlue]

I just don't know how this helps, when the cop gets off, the community. She needs to be held accountable, but bringing up charges the prosecution isn't going to satisfy, is not the way.

I don't disagree.

My only thought is, you have a state government that obviously is looking to be tougher on bad policing. You have a situation here where an error was clearly made and it cost a life. That seemed to be enough to charge it, and then let the people give the verdict.

[ousdahl]

The first element, maaaaaybe, cuz it’s awfully negligent to mistake a gun for a taser, thus creating the unreasonable risk?

But yeah, “consciously” taking the chance of death or great bodily harm seems like the defense will have a field day with it. “Holy shit!”

But yeah, re: letting the people give the verdict - would you be on the jury?

[ousdahl]

(And have we discussed the fact she was out training a rookie cop when it all went down?)

[Deleted User 865]

I just don't know how this helps, when the cop gets off, the community. She needs to be held accountable, but bringing up charges the prosecution isn't going to satisfy, is not the way.

I don't disagree.

My only thought is, you have a state government that obviously is looking to be tougher on bad policing. You have a situation here where an error was clearly made and it cost a life. That seemed to be enough to charge it, and then let the people give the verdict.

Maybe. I wonder if the prosecutor is betting that Chauvin gets the book thrown at him, and that calms the temperature, and puts on a good case against Potter, knowing that it's likely to fail, and hopes shit doesn't boil over again. But I can see the outrage on a Potter acquittal undoing the "good" of a heavy handed sentence on Chauvin.

It's just a shitty situation for anyone in the Minnesota area. There really is no good solution here.

[Deleted User 865]

The first element, maaaaaybe, cuz it’s awfully negligent to mistake a gun for a taser, thus creating the unreasonable risk?

But yeah, “consciously” taking the chance of death or great bodily harm seems like the defense will have a field day with it. “Holy shit!”

But yeah, re: letting the people give the verdict - would you be on the jury?

I, as the defense lawyer, argue that it was a high stress moment, she was doing what she was trained to do (yell "Taser" as a warning, using lawful force of the Taser) and that the moment it felt like a taser.

The "consciously," if I'm a prosecutor, I argue she consciously pulled the trigger, thus it satisfies this element. I think this is the best they have, that a reasonable cop would know a Taser from a Glock, and she consciously pulled the trigger. In a criminal case, I just don't see it. Burden of proof is way too high.

[ousdahl]

Is there a lesser charge they could bring that doesn’t hinge on that “consciously” element?

[ousdahl]

And I don’t feel like watching the vid again, but did Wright do anything pause from fleeing or otherwise relent?

If he seemed to be, say, putting his hands up as he heard taser and saw the gun, that could go a long way, but I don’t think he did. It all happened so quick either way.

[CrimsonNBlue]

I wonder if the prosecutor is betting that Chauvin gets the book thrown at him, and that calms the temperature, and puts on a good case against Potter, knowing that it's likely to fail, and hopes shit doesn't boil over again.

AG was handling, so I am assuming was applying a lot of pressure to county to quickly charge.

[Deleted User 865]

And I don’t feel like watching the vid again, but did Wright do anything pause from fleeing or otherwise relent?

If he seemed to be, say, putting his hands up as he heard taser and saw the gun, that could go a long way, but I don’t think he did. It all happened so quick either way.

I'm not watching the video. I've seen too many snuff films over the years. I'll let the jury have to deal with that. But because she obviously wanted to fire a taser, I still think it's going to be hard to satisfy.

[ousdahl]

so many!

[jfish26]

The first element, maaaaaybe, cuz it’s awfully negligent to mistake a gun for a taser, thus creating the unreasonable risk?

But yeah, “consciously” taking the chance of death or great bodily harm seems like the defense will have a field day with it. “Holy shit!”

But yeah, re: letting the people give the verdict - would you be on the jury?

I, as the defense lawyer, argue that it was a high stress moment, she was doing what she was trained to do (yell "Taser" as a warning, using lawful force of the Taser) and that the moment it felt like a taser.

The "consciously," if I'm a prosecutor, I argue she consciously pulled the trigger, thus it satisfies this element. I think this is the best they have, that a reasonable cop would know a Taser from a Glock, and she consciously pulled the trigger. In a criminal case, I just don't see it. Burden of proof is way too high.

I promise I'm the very last person anyone should ask about this, but I think there's also a possible angle in that she was, contrary to training and procedure, carrying both the taser and her firearm on the same side. As I understand it, training/procedure is to carry the taser on the non-dominant side...so as to eliminate the possibility of trying to draw the taser and ending up with the firearm.

[Deleted User 865]

I heard commentary somewhere that there is often no set way of doing things for police officers in general, and it's usually however the officer feels more comfortable/confident. And I heard that there was no set ways of doing things at this police dept. IF you want to argue that, I think then you are suing the police dept for not having the proper procedures in place/training. If they are leaving it up to the officer, and she can reasonably have an explanation why the Taser is where it is, and the Glock is where it is, I don't think that's going to be enough to establish any of the elements.

[ousdahl]

her onlyfans ain’t bad either

[Deleted User 865]

Took a look. I think this should get moved to the Matt Gaetz thread.

[MICHHAWK]

her onlyfans ain’t bad either

As my daddy always told me.....when interacting with the authority keep your yap shut. Do as you are told. Speak only when spoken to. And if you must speak it is yes sir, no sir.