Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   In Minnesota, the murder trial of Officer Potter is opening. She stands accused of killing an unarmed Black motorist and casting the Tazerus confundus charm on herself   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Fail, Aung San Suu Kyi, Jury, jury instructions Monday, Judge Regina Chu, shot Black motorist Daunte Wright, standard jury instructions, defense requests, Judge  
•       •       •

2774 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Dec 2021 at 4:35 PM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



71 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-12-06 4:07:29 PM  
This doesn't seem a likely conviction.
 
2021-12-06 4:40:15 PM  
Potter never would cast the spell 'Avada Kedavra'
 
2021-12-06 4:42:13 PM  
Manslaughter really seems like a slam dunk here.

Her own admission and claimed defense of the shooting is that she thought she had a taser in her hand, not a gun. Which from the video at least seems plausible.

Not knowing you have a gun in your hand certainly would certainly qualify as "reckless handling" of a firearm to fit the manslaughter statute.

What would even be their defense?
 
2021-12-06 4:43:12 PM  
This one seems so much different from other police shootings. It really boils down to an oops moment. A really, really horrific oops moment with tremendous consequences, but still. On one hand, of course we should demand well trained police, but on the other hand it's difficult for someone like me to imagine what it's like to be in such a stressful situation. I'll be candid: I have a handgun with a flashlight mounted under the barrel, and I often question whether I might accidentally pull the trigger when trying to turn on the light if I ever think there's an intruder in my home. This situation seems similar to me.
 
2021-12-06 4:44:18 PM  
This is why armed police shouldn't be out dealing with crap like minor traffic infractions.
 
2021-12-06 4:45:21 PM  
jusy say'n on this.

the design of mkaing tasers basiaclly hold in the hand just like a gun, and basiaclly be strapped to you, just like a gun, that you reach for, just like a gun.

yeah that basic design does seem to be one that does relate to potential problems. First time i saw  cop wearing on, on their hip, with a pistol grip, i was real sure this is an outcome we're gonna see.

Don't give a fook if it's a made up excuse or real, the point is it is there to be seen and either actually happen or be abused. It don't in practice actually matter which one, the very situation should not be plausible in the first place.

the basic design choose what might be best in one way, while ignoring what might go wrong in the other becasue of it.

A design that makes the taser a little harder to deploy, but also makes it totally impossible to ever, under any circumstances no matter how chaotic, confuse it with the use of the gun.

That would be the public saftey responsibility design that is superior.
 
2021-12-06 4:46:02 PM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: This one seems so much different from other police shootings. It really boils down to an oops moment. A really, really horrific oops moment with tremendous consequences, but still. On one hand, of course we should demand well trained police, but on the other hand it's difficult for someone like me to imagine what it's like to be in such a stressful situation. I'll be candid: I have a handgun with a flashlight mounted under the barrel, and I often question whether I might accidentally pull the trigger when trying to turn on the light if I ever think there's an intruder in my home. This situation seems similar to me.


That's a reasonable and fair assessment of a reasonable and fair concern. However, you aren't a trained police officer. And I bet if someone did break into your home in the middle of the night, you wouldn't mistake your gun for something else entirely.
 
2021-12-06 4:46:10 PM  
 
2021-12-06 4:46:38 PM  
A reminder that this POS police department immediately threw up the blue line flag when this happened.

Earl Brown, whose family owned a large chunk of the now city, who helped found the state police and who the city cultural center is named after, was an admitted member of the KKK (Jury trial testimony, 1923) and vice chair of a eugenics committee.
 
2021-12-06 4:47:16 PM  

kmgenesis23: This is why armed police shouldn't be out dealing with crap like minor traffic infractions.


IIRC, after Wright's death Brooklyn Center passed a resolution to stop having police respond to non-moving traffic violations.
 
2021-12-06 4:48:14 PM  

DoganSquirrelSlayer: Manslaughter really seems like a slam dunk here.

Her own admission and claimed defense of the shooting is that she thought she had a taser in her hand, not a gun. Which from the video at least seems plausible.

Not knowing you have a gun in your hand certainly would certainly qualify as "reckless handling" of a firearm to fit the manslaughter statute.

What would even be their defense?


"I'm a police officer. While ordinary people who aren't expecting an interaction with law enforcement need to respond to a group of armed cops screaming at them in a calm and police way, while simultaneously obeying possibly mutually exclusive instructions, not too fast to startle any of the cops, but no so slow that it looks like you're not compiling, without moving your hands in any direction towards your waistband, or having one of the cops believe you were, in order to avoid summary execution or being charged with resisting arrest or assaulting an officer, that's an absurd standard to hold trained police officers to, and it's 100% reasonable for them to accidentally perforate people because it's a stressful situation that you can't possibly expect them to be able to be calm during."
 
2021-12-06 4:48:55 PM  

DoganSquirrelSlayer: What would even be their defense?


FTA, it was going to be casting the victim as a "violent felon" for running away from them.
 
2021-12-06 4:50:36 PM  

DoganSquirrelSlayer: Manslaughter really seems like a slam dunk here.

Her own admission and claimed defense of the shooting is that she thought she had a taser in her hand, not a gun. Which from the video at least seems plausible.

Not knowing you have a gun in your hand certainly would certainly qualify as "reckless handling" of a firearm to fit the manslaughter statute.

What would even be their defense?


"Regular commission of her duties as a police officer.  Qualified Immunity.  Ipso facto quod erat dictum.  Please Stahp, or we will be Very Upset (tm).  Might even be too upset to do our jobs.  Never know."

Might even work.  It shouldn't.  But it just might.
 
2021-12-06 4:51:02 PM  
Here's the thing.  She has how many years of experience as a LEO.  The idea that she wants us to believe that drawing her gun instead of her taser was an accident is ridiculous.

Even if she weren't a LEO, anyone who carries a weapon has to take complete responsibility for what they do with that weapon, and anyone who draws their firearm by "accident" ought to have the book thrown at them for such unforgivable negligence.
 
2021-12-06 4:51:32 PM  

Target Builder: DoganSquirrelSlayer: Manslaughter really seems like a slam dunk here.

Her own admission and claimed defense of the shooting is that she thought she had a taser in her hand, not a gun. Which from the video at least seems plausible.

Not knowing you have a gun in your hand certainly would certainly qualify as "reckless handling" of a firearm to fit the manslaughter statute.

What would even be their defense?

"I'm a police officer. While ordinary people who aren't expecting an interaction with law enforcement need to respond to a group of armed cops screaming at them in a calm and police way, while simultaneously obeying possibly mutually exclusive instructions, not too fast to startle any of the cops, but no so slow that it looks like you're not compiling, without moving your hands in any direction towards your waistband, or having one of the cops believe you were, in order to avoid summary execution or being charged with resisting arrest or assaulting an officer, that's an absurd standard to hold trained police officers to, and it's 100% reasonable for them to accidentally perforate people because it's a stressful situation that you can't possibly expect them to be able to be calm during."


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-12-06 4:51:54 PM  
Tasers are less-lethal, not non-lethal, and thus were supposedly adopted to be used in situations where the danger was such that the only other option was to use a gun.

Surprise surprise, it quickly became the handy multitool for "I don't want to run very far," "I want to punish you for saying mean words to me," and "you're Black and existing."

Was the only option here to shoot him? No. They already knew who he was. They could've just watched him drive away, did some actual police work, and caught up with him a few days later.

Not only that, but whether you tase or shoot someone who's behind the wheel of a car that's running and in gear, they're going to lose control of that car, thus becoming a danger to those children riding bikes down at the end of the block.

I guess what I'm saying is, ACAB.
 
2021-12-06 4:52:53 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2021-12-06 4:54:35 PM  

DoganSquirrelSlayer: Manslaughter really seems like a slam dunk here.

Her own admission and claimed defense of the shooting is that she thought she had a taser in her hand, not a gun. Which from the video at least seems plausible.

Not knowing you have a gun in your hand certainly would certainly qualify as "reckless handling" of a firearm to fit the manslaughter statute.

What would even be their defense?


"Oopsie! But then I'm just a dumb woman!"

/Might work if she's blonde.
 
2021-12-06 4:54:59 PM  

Target Builder: DoganSquirrelSlayer: Manslaughter really seems like a slam dunk here.

Her own admission and claimed defense of the shooting is that she thought she had a taser in her hand, not a gun. Which from the video at least seems plausible.

Not knowing you have a gun in your hand certainly would certainly qualify as "reckless handling" of a firearm to fit the manslaughter statute.

What would even be their defense?

"I'm a police officer. While ordinary people who aren't expecting an interaction with law enforcement need to respond to a group of armed cops screaming at them in a calm and police way, while simultaneously obeying possibly mutually exclusive instructions, not too fast to startle any of the cops, but no so slow that it looks like you're not compiling, without moving your hands in any direction towards your waistband, or having one of the cops believe you were, in order to avoid summary execution or being charged with resisting arrest or assaulting an officer, that's an absurd standard to hold trained police officers to, and it's 100% reasonable for them to accidentally perforate people because it's a stressful situation that you can't possibly expect them to be able to be calm during."


Well sure, but that's a defense for doing it on purpose.

It's a catch 22.
She can't say "It was an accident, I was incredibly negligent with the handling of my firearm."
Then also claim "I was responsibly handling my firearm, I did it on purpose for my safety."

Essentially, she is already admitting to the lesser charge, which is what the prosecution is going with.
It makes manslaughter a slam dunk, but also makes it really hard to go after her for murder (doing it on purpose.)

Which to be honest... is probably fair. It looks to me like she didn't do it purpose, there's too much instant regret and it was really dangerous for the nearby police officers. She did a manslaughter, admitted to doing a manslaughter, and is being charged with doing a manslaughter. What more do you want?
 
2021-12-06 4:57:16 PM  
What more do you want? from this court case.*

Obviously better police training and less trigger happy or even unarmed traffic cops might be nice from a general policy standpoint.
 
2021-12-06 5:01:06 PM  

PvtStash: jusy say'n on this.

the design of mkaing tasers basiaclly hold in the hand just like a gun, and basiaclly be strapped to you, just like a gun, that you reach for, just like a gun.

yeah that basic design does seem to be one that does relate to potential problems. First time i saw  cop wearing on, on their hip, with a pistol grip, i was real sure this is an outcome we're gonna see.

Don't give a fook if it's a made up excuse or real, the point is it is there to be seen and either actually happen or be abused. It don't in practice actually matter which one, the very situation should not be plausible in the first place.

the basic design choose what might be best in one way, while ignoring what might go wrong in the other becasue of it.

A design that makes the taser a little harder to deploy, but also makes it totally impossible to ever, under any circumstances no matter how chaotic, confuse it with the use of the gun.

That would be the public saftey responsibility design that is superior.


I've before had the odd thought that police tasers should be shaped more like Batman's grappling hook gun from B:tAS.

Can't pull that image up in your head immediately?  Here's a picture of a toy version:
Fark user imageView Full Size

It's triggered by a thumb activated button and has a grip very different from a firearm.  I could see angling that grip just a bit to improve aim and accuracy, but...

Plus maybe the incentive of getting to act like Batman will get them to use the firearm less often.
 
2021-12-06 5:01:59 PM  

kmgenesis23: This is why armed police shouldn't be out dealing with crap like minor traffic infractions.


The dude had warrants for waving a gun around and running from them when they tried to arrest him for it.  This wasn't a minor traffic stop.
 
2021-12-06 5:03:34 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: DoganSquirrelSlayer: What would even be their defense?

FTA, it was going to be casting the victim as a "violent felon" for running away from them.


He did have an outstanding warrant, but I don't know whether it would justify deadly force.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.066
Subd. 2.Use of deadly force.

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary:
(1) to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm, provided that the threat:
(i) can be articulated with specificity by the law enforcement officer;
(ii) is reasonably likely to occur absent action by the law enforcement officer; and
(iii) must be addressed through the use of deadly force without unreasonable delay; or
(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony and the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm to another person under the threat criteria in clause (1), items (i) to (iii), unless immediately apprehended.
(b) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger the person poses to self if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that the person does not pose a threat of death or great bodily harm to the peace officer or to another under the threat criteria in paragraph (a), clause (1), items (i) to (iii).
 
2021-12-06 5:15:18 PM  

Jeebus Saves: kmgenesis23: This is why armed police shouldn't be out dealing with crap like minor traffic infractions.

The dude had warrants for waving a gun around and running from them when they tried to arrest him for it.  This wasn't a minor traffic stop.


It absolutely was a minor traffic stop. He was identified as having a body only warrant for a non-appearance at which point things got ugly. But the stop itself was for an alleged minor traffic infraction.
 
2021-12-06 5:15:42 PM  

kmgenesis23: This is why armed police shouldn't be out dealing with crap like minor traffic infractions.


Cops shouldn't be accidentally shooting people, so lets let everyone ignore vehicle registration laws and drive around with open warrants. That is some logic straight from the Pol Tab.
 
2021-12-06 5:19:34 PM  

El_Dan: kmgenesis23: This is why armed police shouldn't be out dealing with crap like minor traffic infractions.

Cops shouldn't be accidentally shooting people, so lets let everyone ignore vehicle registration laws and drive around with open warrants. That is some logic straight from the Pol Tab.


For traffic enforcement, use unarmed agents. Write citations and mail them. If you wanna go out and search for people who have disobeyed court orders to appear who might be armed? Do that separately. Nobody was out looking for this kid.
 
2021-12-06 5:20:02 PM  

kmgenesis23: Jeebus Saves: kmgenesis23: This is why armed police shouldn't be out dealing with crap like minor traffic infractions.

The dude had warrants for waving a gun around and running from them when they tried to arrest him for it.  This wasn't a minor traffic stop.

It absolutely was a minor traffic stop. He was identified as having a body only warrant for a non-appearance at which point things got ugly. But the stop itself was for an alleged minor traffic infraction.


Failure to appear on gun charges.
 
2021-12-06 5:20:04 PM  

kmgenesis23: The Dog Ate My Homework: This one seems so much different from other police shootings. It really boils down to an oops moment. A really, really horrific oops moment with tremendous consequences, but still. On one hand, of course we should demand well trained police, but on the other hand it's difficult for someone like me to imagine what it's like to be in such a stressful situation. I'll be candid: I have a handgun with a flashlight mounted under the barrel, and I often question whether I might accidentally pull the trigger when trying to turn on the light if I ever think there's an intruder in my home. This situation seems similar to me.

That's a reasonable and fair assessment of a reasonable and fair concern. However, you aren't a trained police officer. And I bet if someone did break into your home in the middle of the night, you wouldn't mistake your gun for something else entirely.


Alternately, how often have police pulled a taser when they meant to pull a gun?

I bet it's a lot less often than the other way around...
 
2021-12-06 5:21:11 PM  

El_Dan: kmgenesis23: This is why armed police shouldn't be out dealing with crap like minor traffic infractions.

Cops shouldn't be accidentally shooting people, so lets let everyone ignore vehicle registration laws and drive around with open warrants. That is some logic straight from the Pol Tab.


Or - and this is a crazy idea that only works in pretty much every other country - most police could just not carry guns, except when called in for SWAT-type situations when it's specifically called for.
 
2021-12-06 5:22:44 PM  

DoganSquirrelSlayer: Manslaughter really seems like a slam dunk here.

Her own admission and claimed defense of the shooting is that she thought she had a taser in her hand, not a gun. Which from the video at least seems plausible.

Not knowing you have a gun in your hand certainly would certainly qualify as "reckless handling" of a firearm to fit the manslaughter statute.

What would even be their defense?


Was she even justified in firing a tazer?
 
2021-12-06 5:29:48 PM  

Russ1642: Was she even justified in firing a tazer?


Legally and based on existing (crappy) case law? Almost certainly.
As a human being? Probably not.

If you can find an appropriate court to hear the crimes of American policy policy and judicial oppressions (The Hague maybe?) it would be a question to look at...
For this specific case in this court however...
 
2021-12-06 5:30:46 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


Fark user imageView Full Size


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-12-06 5:39:38 PM  

DoganSquirrelSlayer: What more do you want? from this court case.*

Obviously better police training and less trigger happy or even unarmed traffic cops might be nice from a general policy standpoint.


If you need "training" on how not to kill and abuse people then you are automatically not qualified.
I manage to do it every single day with no training at all.
 
2021-12-06 5:41:48 PM  

edmo: This doesn't seem a likely conviction.


If it were me, a noncop, it would be.  Why not?
 
2021-12-06 5:42:43 PM  

WelldeadLink: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: DoganSquirrelSlayer: What would even be their defense?

FTA, it was going to be casting the victim as a "violent felon" for running away from them.

He did have an outstanding warrant, but I don't know whether it would justify deadly force.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.066
Subd. 2.Use of deadly force.

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary:
(1) to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm, provided that the threat:
(i) can be articulated with specificity by the law enforcement officer;
(ii) is reasonably likely to occur absent action by the law enforcement officer; and
(iii) must be addressed through the use of deadly force without unreasonable delay; or
(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony and the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm to another person under the threat criteria in clause (1), items (i) to (iii), unless immediately apprehended.
(b) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger the person poses to self if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that the person does not pose a threat of death or great bodily harm to the peace officer or to another under the threat criteria in paragraph (a), clause (1), items (i) to (iii).



You missed the point. They were casting the very ACT of running away from them as a 'violent felony'. Not any prior acts or warrants.  Read the article.
 
2021-12-06 5:43:13 PM  
It is clear from the video that his was a horrible mistake on the part of the officer.  A very experienced officer, responsible for training other officers, mistakenly pulled their duty weapon instead of the intended taser.  She lost situational awareness of the different feel and handling between a taser and firearm and fatally shot someone.

Horrible mistakes that have permanent consequences for the individual fatally shot and their family and friends.  Horrible mistakes can and do result in liability and jail time. It is pretty clear that this case should at least result in the 2nd degree manslaughter for culpable negligence. I don't know if they can meet recklessness for the 1st degree charge, but perhaps evidence can prove that element.
 
2021-12-06 5:45:13 PM  

kmgenesis23: El_Dan: kmgenesis23: This is why armed police shouldn't be out dealing with crap like minor traffic infractions.

Cops shouldn't be accidentally shooting people, so lets let everyone ignore vehicle registration laws and drive around with open warrants. That is some logic straight from the Pol Tab.

For traffic enforcement, use unarmed agents. Write citations and mail them. If you wanna go out and search for people who have disobeyed court orders to appear who might be armed? Do that separately. Nobody was out looking for this kid.


Writing citations and mailing them is not consistent with the laws regarding service of a summons in most US jurisdictions. If unarmed agents write citations and mail them, then people are going to just not appear in court. To be legally ticketed in a way that is actually enforceable, they need to be pulled over and handed a summons with a court date on it. And once someone is pulled over, given the likelihood that they may be armed ('Murica) and not cooperate, the cops themselves need guns.

I mean call me crazy, but it seems like the obvious solution is to have cops that are trained enough to not accidentally shoot people. And when a cop screws up, as here, charge them with manslaughter or whatever other crime fits.
 
2021-12-06 5:53:26 PM  

Jeebus Saves: kmgenesis23: Jeebus Saves: kmgenesis23: This is why armed police shouldn't be out dealing with crap like minor traffic infractions.

The dude had warrants for waving a gun around and running from them when they tried to arrest him for it.  This wasn't a minor traffic stop.

It absolutely was a minor traffic stop. He was identified as having a body only warrant for a non-appearance at which point things got ugly. But the stop itself was for an alleged minor traffic infraction.

Failure to appear on gun charges.


... is not a capital crime
 
2021-12-06 5:54:31 PM  

wage0048: Here's the thing.  She has how many years of experience as a LEO.  The idea that she wants us to believe that drawing her gun instead of her taser was an accident is ridiculous.

Even if she weren't a LEO, anyone who carries a weapon has to take complete responsibility for what they do with that weapon, and anyone who draws their firearm by "accident" ought to have the book thrown at them for such unforgivable negligence.


nah, she was a desk cop, who had been in the training department for many, many years.  classic case of if you can't do it, then teach it.  she had to go and then teach a rookie how to do it in real life, and she was completely out of her normal job.
 
2021-12-06 6:09:54 PM  

rfenster: Potter never would cast the spell 'Avada Kedavra'


I think the spell here was blackus begonus.

(crickets)


I'll show myself out...
 
2021-12-06 6:11:42 PM  

Target Builder: DoganSquirrelSlayer: Manslaughter really seems like a slam dunk here.

Her own admission and claimed defense of the shooting is that she thought she had a taser in her hand, not a gun. Which from the video at least seems plausible.

Not knowing you have a gun in your hand certainly would certainly qualify as "reckless handling" of a firearm to fit the manslaughter statute.

What would even be their defense?

"I'm a police officer. While ordinary people who aren't expecting an interaction with law enforcement need to respond to a group of armed cops screaming at them in a calm and police way, while simultaneously obeying possibly mutually exclusive instructions, not too fast to startle any of the cops, but no so slow that it looks like you're not compiling, without moving your hands in any direction towards your waistband, or having one of the cops believe you were, in order to avoid summary execution or being charged with resisting arrest or assaulting an officer, that's an absurd standard to hold trained police officers to, and it's 100% reasonable for them to accidentally perforate people because it's a stressful situation that you can't possibly expect them to be able to be calm during."


There should never be mutually exclusive instructions screamed at someone being detained. That is a pig problem that the pigs need to solve. Accidentally perforate people? WTF? Because pigs can't possibly be expected to remain calm in a stressful situation? I absolutely know I could have remained calm in this situation, multiple officers on the scene, weapons drawn, suspect not violent or threatening.. everything is cool. Trying to run away is an act of violence worthy of death? You will never convince me of that. A person who is legitimately feeling their life is in danger from the pigs who are screaming conflicting orders with their weapons drawn, is not being violent to try to get away from that situation. Fark the pigs.
 
2021-12-06 6:18:38 PM  

caljar: wage0048: Here's the thing.  She has how many years of experience as a LEO.  The idea that she wants us to believe that drawing her gun instead of her taser was an accident is ridiculous.

Even if she weren't a LEO, anyone who carries a weapon has to take complete responsibility for what they do with that weapon, and anyone who draws their firearm by "accident" ought to have the book thrown at them for such unforgivable negligence.

nah, she was a desk cop, who had been in the training department for many, many years.  classic case of if you can't do it, then teach it.  she had to go and then teach a rookie how to do it in real life, and she was completely out of her normal job.


And she didn't know how to turn off her body camera, either.
 
2021-12-06 6:20:50 PM  

wage0048: Here's the thing.  She has how many years of experience as a LEO.  The idea that she wants us to believe that drawing her gun instead of her taser was an accident is ridiculous.

Even if she weren't a LEO, anyone who carries a weapon has to take complete responsibility for what they do with that weapon, and anyone who draws their firearm by "accident" ought to have the book thrown at them for such unforgivable negligence.


As someone about the same age as Kim Potter, I can assure you that moments of temporary confusion happen, to a degree that didn't happen when I was 20 years younger. That's a tragedy, but it's not criminal conduct, and the remedy can't just be to lock someone in a cage for 10 years because it makes people feel better about themselves. Mob justice isn't justice. The real fix here isn't a prosecution, it's addressing all of the idiotic policies that created this situation.
 
2021-12-06 6:29:39 PM  

sandbar67: Jeebus Saves: kmgenesis23: Jeebus Saves: kmgenesis23: This is why armed police shouldn't be out dealing with crap like minor traffic infractions.

The dude had warrants for waving a gun around and running from them when they tried to arrest him for it.  This wasn't a minor traffic stop.

It absolutely was a minor traffic stop. He was identified as having a body only warrant for a non-appearance at which point things got ugly. But the stop itself was for an alleged minor traffic infraction.

Failure to appear on gun charges.

... is not a capital crime


It's also not a minor traffic stop.
 
2021-12-06 6:32:02 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-12-06 6:57:37 PM  

El_Dan: To be legally ticketed in a way that is actually enforceable, they need to be pulled over and handed a summons with a court date on it. And once someone is pulled over, given the likelihood that they may be armed ('Murica) and not cooperate, the cops themselves need guns.


There's some risk, yes, but everyone takes some degree of risk when they do their jobs. According to the NYT, about 1 in 6.5 million routine traffic stops ends with an officer fatality.  Traffic cops are vastly more likely to be killed by getting in a traffic accident than by being assaulted by someone they pull over.

Being a police officer can be dangerous, but it's actually significantly less dangerous than being a garbageman or a lawn care worker.
 
2021-12-06 7:02:32 PM  

DoganSquirrelSlayer: Target Builder: DoganSquirrelSlayer: Manslaughter really seems like a slam dunk here.

Her own admission and claimed defense of the shooting is that she thought she had a taser in her hand, not a gun. Which from the video at least seems plausible.

Not knowing you have a gun in your hand certainly would certainly qualify as "reckless handling" of a firearm to fit the manslaughter statute.

What would even be their defense?

"I'm a police officer. While ordinary people who aren't expecting an interaction with law enforcement need to respond to a group of armed cops screaming at them in a calm and police way, while simultaneously obeying possibly mutually exclusive instructions, not too fast to startle any of the cops, but no so slow that it looks like you're not compiling, without moving your hands in any direction towards your waistband, or having one of the cops believe you were, in order to avoid summary execution or being charged with resisting arrest or assaulting an officer, that's an absurd standard to hold trained police officers to, and it's 100% reasonable for them to accidentally perforate people because it's a stressful situation that you can't possibly expect them to be able to be calm during."

Well sure, but that's a defense for doing it on purpose.

It's a catch 22.
She can't say "It was an accident, I was incredibly negligent with the handling of my firearm."
Then also claim "I was responsibly handling my firearm, I did it on purpose for my safety."

Essentially, she is already admitting to the lesser charge, which is what the prosecution is going with.
It makes manslaughter a slam dunk, but also makes it really hard to go after her for murder (doing it on purpose.)

Which to be honest... is probably fair. It looks to me like she didn't do it purpose, there's too much instant regret and it was really dangerous for the nearby police officers. She did a manslaughter, admitted to doing a manslaughter, and is being charged with doing a manslaughter. What more do you want?


A conviction?
 
2021-12-06 7:16:19 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: El_Dan: To be legally ticketed in a way that is actually enforceable, they need to be pulled over and handed a summons with a court date on it. And once someone is pulled over, given the likelihood that they may be armed ('Murica) and not cooperate, the cops themselves need guns.

There's some risk, yes, but everyone takes some degree of risk when they do their jobs. According to the NYT, about 1 in 6.5 million routine traffic stops ends with an officer fatality.  Traffic cops are vastly more likely to be killed by getting in a traffic accident than by being assaulted by someone they pull over.

Being a police officer can be dangerous, but it's actually significantly less dangerous than being a garbageman or a lawn care worker.


And one in how many routine traffic stops result in the cop accidentally shooting someone? Seems like that should be pretty rare, and solved by better training, and accountability, rather than disarming all traffic cops.

That said, the main thing I'm opposed to here is the idea of not enforcing minor vehicle and traffic laws. Letting people drive around in unregistered vehicles, and without any risk of being pulled over for it, would lead to more people without insurance, driving under revocation, fleeing the scene of collisions to avoid the consequences of these things, etc. If you want to talk about unarmed traffic cops, I guess that's a reasonable enough proposition. Just not enforcing traffic laws, though...not so much.
 
2021-12-06 7:29:38 PM  
Basic training in tasers is that you wear your taser on the opposite side as your firearm so you don't pull the wrong one. With the adrenaline pumping through you, you won't feel the difference between taser and firearm, so you make sure it takes a completely different action to draw one versus the other. That way, no mistakes are made.

Only "mistakes."
 
2021-12-06 7:39:08 PM  

El_Dan: kmgenesis23: El_Dan: kmgenesis23: This is why armed police shouldn't be out dealing with crap like minor traffic infractions.

Cops shouldn't be accidentally shooting people, so lets let everyone ignore vehicle registration laws and drive around with open warrants. That is some logic straight from the Pol Tab.

For traffic enforcement, use unarmed agents. Write citations and mail them. If you wanna go out and search for people who have disobeyed court orders to appear who might be armed? Do that separately. Nobody was out looking for this kid.

Writing citations and mailing them is not consistent with the laws regarding service of a summons in most US jurisdictions. If unarmed agents write citations and mail them, then people are going to just not appear in court. To be legally ticketed in a way that is actually enforceable, they need to be pulled over and handed a summons with a court date on it. And once someone is pulled over, given the likelihood that they may be armed ('Murica) and not cooperate, the cops themselves need guns.

I mean call me crazy, but it seems like the obvious solution is to have cops that are trained enough to not accidentally shoot people. And when a cop screws up, as here, charge them with manslaughter or whatever other crime fits.


The obvious solution is to make "Failure to obey enforcement signals" a misdemeanor and issue an arrest warrant based on the license plate of the car or the identity of the driver (or both) which would apply to both drivers who refuse to stop AND to drivers who refuse to take the ticket. Considering pretty much no one actually opens fire on a police officer just to avoid a speeding ticket (they often will for expired DLs under a three strikes regime or parole violation) this would completely remove the need for armed traffic cops AND completely remove the number one source of conflict between officers and the public. If people aren't expecting you to go on a fishing expedition to try to find some excuse to arrest you, they are ALOT less likely to escalate.

The second most obvious solution is to outlaw private ownership of handguns. But this is America, having the right to kill people is pretty much our one defining trait.
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.