The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[Malthus]

It was a different time ...

https://youtu.be/due92VSljwA

[DGuller]

Wow, Kim Potter found guilty on both charges.  Seems a little twisted how so many psychos with itchy trigger fingers don't even make it out of the grand jury, while someone who openly and credibly admitted to an awful mistake is found guilty.  Obviously the jury is aware of much more than what is known to the public, but given my level of knowledge, this outcome just seems to reward blue code of silence mafia approach to police accountability.

[grumbler]

Yeah, the Potter verdict, like the Potter indictment, surpass my understanding of the law.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, the Potter verdict, like the Potter indictment, surpass my understanding of the law.

Well, yeah...

[Berkut]

Wow, Kim Potter found guilty on both charges.  Seems a little twisted how so many psychos with itchy trigger fingers don't even make it out of the grand jury, while someone who openly and credibly admitted to an awful mistake is found guilty.  Obviously the jury is aware of much more than what is known to the public, but given my level of knowledge, this outcome just seems to reward blue code of silence mafia approach to police accountability.

She was found guilty of manslaughter, right? After she killed someone because she shot them while thinking she was tasering them?

Isn't that pretty much the textbook definition of manslaughter?

[DGuller]

Wow, Kim Potter found guilty on both charges.  Seems a little twisted how so many psychos with itchy trigger fingers don't even make it out of the grand jury, while someone who openly and credibly admitted to an awful mistake is found guilty.  Obviously the jury is aware of much more than what is known to the public, but given my level of knowledge, this outcome just seems to reward blue code of silence mafia approach to police accountability.

She was found guilty of manslaughter, right? After she killed someone because she shot them while thinking she was tasering them?

Isn't that pretty much the textbook definition of manslaughter?

Obviously I am not a lawyer, but I think there is more to a manslaughter conviction than just killing someone by accident.  I think it requires some recklessness, where your bad choices coupled with bad luck lead to someone's death.  I guess the separating line is whether you think a brainfart is reckless or just something that happens. 

I'm inclined to believe that in high pressure situations, especially ones not encountered often and which come up suddenly, the brain can really fuck up in inexplicable ways.  The airline industry is full of examples of how pilots who had no interest in killing themselves nevertheless acted in ways almost seemed desgined to crash the plane after encountering trouble, which is why there is a lot of training done for that now to try to work around that human tendency.  I don't see what social purpose is served by punishing people that in the situation they were in were just victims of their own brains reacting badly to highly stressful situations.

In my mind, a manslaughter conviction would be warranted if Kim Potter blew off the weapon confusion training course and faked its completion, as that is a reckless act that could take someone's life much further down the road.

[grumbler]

She was found guilty of manslaughter, right? After she killed someone because she shot them while thinking she was tasering them?

Isn't that pretty much the textbook definition of manslaughter?

She was convicted of both first- and second-degree manslaughter.  First-degree because she was convicted of committing the crime of recklessly mishandling her firearm in such a way as to knowingly endanger others while also killing someone, and second-degree because she "consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm."  The jury believed that she consciously chose to risk killing Wright when she pulled out her "taser."

As I said earlier, the dissonance between the facts known to me and the law as I understand it, and the indictments and verdict, is extreme.  There must be facts which have not been made public, or the law doesn't work the way I thought the law worked.

[Sheilbh]

She was found guilty of manslaughter, right? After she killed someone because she shot them while thinking she was tasering them?

Isn't that pretty much the textbook definition of manslaughter?

Yeah - that's how I'd read it too.

I know nothing about criminal law - and I know nothing about this case or American law. But if there's recklessness I wonder if there' an element of objectiveness - so is it a mistake a reasonable police officer (with all the training that should include and in that situation) would make? So would a reasonable police officer pull out the wrong weapon?

[Berkut]

She shot someone.

She used a tool whose entire purpose is the killing of another human being, and killed another human being.

She run a red light and hit someone with her car (which, I bet, could also result in a manslaughter charge). She pulled out a gun, aimed it at someone, and shot them.

If that is second degree manslaughter, I am not sure what is...

This was not "killing someone by accident". How is pulling out a gun, aiming it at someone, and pulling the trigger simply an accident?

Yes, yes I do think that is reckless. I do not think it is a brainfart - I don't think she did something that surprise, surprise! who could have thought that would go so badly!

[Berkut]

She was found guilty of manslaughter, right? After she killed someone because she shot them while thinking she was tasering them?

Isn't that pretty much the textbook definition of manslaughter?

She was convicted of both first- and second-degree manslaughter.  First-degree because she was convicted of committing the crime of recklessly mishandling her firearm in such a way as to knowingly endanger others while also killing someone, and second-degree because she "consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm."  The jury believed that she consciously chose to risk killing Wright when she pulled out her "taser."

As I said earlier, the dissonance between the facts known to me and the law as I understand it, and the indictments and verdict, is extreme.  There must be facts which have not been made public, or the law doesn't work the way I thought the law worked.

OK, the first degree charge is a bit harder to understand. Under Minnesota law, I don't really see which of the statutes her actions would apply to...

[grumbler]

She shot someone.

She used a tool whose entire purpose is the killing of another human being, and killed another human being.

She run a red light and hit someone with her car (which, I bet, could also result in a manslaughter charge). She pulled out a gun, aimed it at someone, and shot them.

If that is second degree manslaughter, I am not sure what is...

This was not "killing someone by accident". How is pulling out a gun, aiming it at someone, and pulling the trigger simply an accident?

Yes, yes I do think that is reckless. I do not think it is a brainfart - I don't think she did something that surprise, surprise! who could have thought that would go so badly!

It is an interesting parallel to the shooting on the "Rust" set.  Alec Baldwin shot someone.

He used a tool whose entire purpose is the killing of another human being, and killed another human being.

He pulled out a gun, aimed it at someone, and shot them.

If that is second degree manslaughter, I am not sure what is...

This was not "killing someone by accident". How is pulling out a gun, aiming it at someone, and pulling the trigger simply an accident?

[Eddie Teach]

You forget, Baldwin is also a celebrity.

[DGuller]

She shot someone.

She used a tool whose entire purpose is the killing of another human being, and killed another human being.

She run a red light and hit someone with her car (which, I bet, could also result in a manslaughter charge). She pulled out a gun, aimed it at someone, and shot them.

If that is second degree manslaughter, I am not sure what is...

This was not "killing someone by accident". How is pulling out a gun, aiming it at someone, and pulling the trigger simply an accident?

Yes, yes I do think that is reckless. I do not think it is a brainfart - I don't think she did something that surprise, surprise! who could have thought that would go so badly!

Obviously she did not realize it was a gun she was pointing, so the consequence of her pulling a trigger was indeed a surprise to her (as evidenced by the cameras).  If you legitimately think you're pointing one thing and are in fact pointing another, that's a brainfart.  Not all brainfarts are excusable, obviously; surgeon cutting off the wrong leg is also a brainfart, but one that is not forced by extreme time pressure of the event.  In this case, a very dangerous situation developed in a matter of seconds.

[Berkut]

She shot someone.

She used a tool whose entire purpose is the killing of another human being, and killed another human being.

She run a red light and hit someone with her car (which, I bet, could also result in a manslaughter charge). She pulled out a gun, aimed it at someone, and shot them.

If that is second degree manslaughter, I am not sure what is...

This was not "killing someone by accident". How is pulling out a gun, aiming it at someone, and pulling the trigger simply an accident?

Yes, yes I do think that is reckless. I do not think it is a brainfart - I don't think she did something that surprise, surprise! who could have thought that would go so badly!

It is an interesting parallel to the shooting on the "Rust" set.  Alec Baldwin shot someone.

He used a tool whose entire purpose is the killing of another human being, and killed another human being.

He pulled out a gun, aimed it at someone, and shot them.

If that is second degree manslaughter, I am not sure what is...

This was not "killing someone by accident". How is pulling out a gun, aiming it at someone, and pulling the trigger simply an accident?

That is a good comparison.

The difference is one of context of course. She was not on a movie set, she was acting as a police officer, which implies I think a certain amount of caution, training, and basic respect for her tools.

But that is an excellent counter point. It is a similar set of circumstances, but the differences are legally compelling.

[Berkut]

You forget, Baldwin is also a celebrity.

I don't think that has anything to do with it, actually.