The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[DGuller]

I think maybe I am too deferential to the innocent dead person and how devastating this was to them and their family.

Plenty of completely innocent people die every year without the clearly guilty parties being criminally charged, and presumably it's always devastating to their families.  The goal of the criminal justice system seems to me to punish the criminal or reckless intent, not to exact revenge on behalf of the victims.  That doesn't mean that you get off without consequences if you kill someone due to your error, you're still civilly liable and will likely lose your career if you do that on the job.

And again, I don't think of someone pulling out a gun and shooting someone else all that "innocent".

We're just going in circles now.  Pulling out a taser and deploying it was an entirely innocent thing to do in that circumstance, it wasn't in any way inappropriate.  Yes, the taser in her mind turned out to be a gun, I think we all get that.

[grumbler]

Maybe I'm just too deferential to the concept of confirmation bias, and put too much weight on how devastating it can be to an innocent person with innocent intentions.

I think maybe I am too deferential to the innocent dead person and how devastating this was to them and their family.

And again, I don't think of someone pulling out a gun and shooting someone else all that "innocent".

Of course, resisting arrest and trying to flee doesn't seem "all that 'innocent,'" either.

One of he facts of which I was unaware was that Potter had the gun in her hand for more than five seconds before she fired.  Presumably, the prosecution argued that a reasonable person would realize within five seconds that the weapon in her hand was the heavier Glock and not the lighter tazer.

I'm still not seeing the reckless act on Potter's part.  Negligence, maybe.  But the judge seems to be using the reckless claim as the basis for sentencing Potter more severely than the sentencing guidelines call for. I'm tempted to think that the reckless charge (which was added to the count after the initial indictment) and conviction is designed to mollify the mob.

[DGuller]

Reckless driving and child negligence are examples of innocent intent? 

Yeah - I think so.

If the alternative is intent then that's what the prosecution would have to prove. So the person set out to drive dangerously or to harm a child. If it's negligence it's just that, say, you're driving in a way that's below the level of a reasonable driver and that a reasonable driver would know is dangerous. Similar with child neglect and a reasonable parent.

I don't think that lack of criminal intent means innocent intent.  There is a place in the middle between these two extremes, and that's precisely where manslaughter falls.  Manslaughter isn't a complete oops, it's a bad thing that results in a foreseeable but not foreseen deadly result.

[Berkut]

When it comes to police, it is a bit harder though. This goes to I think part of what DG is saying.

If I drive my car and get into an accident and kill someone, then we have a process by which we try to figure out if this was just an accident, even a mistake on my part, that resulted in a tragedy, or something criminal, where my not following the rules and laws was so egregious that it is reasonable to hold me responsible, even if it was clear it was never my intent to kill anyone. But when I get into a car, there is never a contemplated scenario where I want to, or society wants me to, actually get into an accident.

That is not the case with police. We actually want them to tase people sometimes, and we even want them to shoot and kill people sometimes. That puts them at a different calculus I think, both in the level of care we ought to demand from them in the employment of force, but also in the level of tolerance we need to have with their mistakes when they do so.

At the end of the day, when a tragedy occures, we look at the facts and try to determine what went wrong. Was the process wrong? Training? Failure in mechanics? What? Where is the responsible party or parties?

Grumbler compared this to Baldwin killing someone. We do that same thing - who are the responsible parties? Is it Baldwin since he pulled the trigger? It is the person who handed him the loaded gun (which as I understand the process is implicitly a statement that the gun is in fact safe), is it whoever decided it would be a good idea to mix in real guns with the prop guns? I don't know the answer, hopefully the investigation will figure it out. I don't think it is Baldwin though - from what little I know about this, actors have to be the ones pulling the trigger on movie sets, but actors are probably the *last* people you want fucking around with prop guns, and it probably isn't even possible to have the actor properly check the safety of the prop.

But in this case, she wasn't handed a gun by someone else who said it was a taser. She is the only person involved in the chain of events (other then the victim, and I don't think that should be ignored either - you do stupid shit and get involved in cops having to tase you because you are a threat, you have already made choices that can certainly result in rather bad outcomes for a lot of people) that led to her pulling that trigger. If it wasn't her fault....then whose was it?

[Berkut]

Maybe I'm just too deferential to the concept of confirmation bias, and put too much weight on how devastating it can be to an innocent person with innocent intentions.

I think maybe I am too deferential to the innocent dead person and how devastating this was to them and their family.

And again, I don't think of someone pulling out a gun and shooting someone else all that "innocent".

Of course, resisting arrest and trying to flee doesn't seem "all that 'innocent,'" either.

One of he facts of which I was unaware was that Potter had the gun in her hand for more than five seconds before she fired.  Presumably, the prosecution argued that a reasonable person would realize within five seconds that the weapon in her hand was the heavier Glock and not the lighter tazer.

I'm still not seeing the reckless act on Potter's part.  Negligence, maybe.  But the judge seems to be using the reckless claim as the basis for sentencing Potter more severely than the sentencing guidelines call for. I'm tempted to think that the reckless charge (which was added to the count after the initial indictment) and conviction is designed to mollify the mob.

Yeah, see my last post.

I definitely do agree that the victim is hardly entirely innocent. You do shit that results in a police officer deciding they need to tase you, then you are already into the realm of "Who the hell knows how this is going to turn out...."

[Berkut]

Pretty good argument for why this was NOT manslaughter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UDCTx455Gc

They compare it to running a red light that kills two people.

[Razgovory]

Pretty good argument for why this was NOT manslaughter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UDCTx455Gc

They compare it to running a red light that kills two people.

Damn, I thought you were sarcastic when you said

If only we had someone who's profession was reading and understanding laws.  They might be able to clear this up.

I want to see the Youtube lawyers take on this.

Interesting video.

[Berkut]

I was actually thinking of that Legal Eagle guy. He does good stuff, IMO.

[grumbler]

I was actually thinking of that Legal Eagle guy. He does good stuff, IMO.

I've been checking him daily for his take on this case.  Nothing yet.

But I did get sucked into about a dozen other videos by him that I'd previously skipped due to lack of time.

[Berkut]

This has been a good discussion.

I think DG and grumbler have convinced me. Or at least made me question my conclusions enough to go digging around for the actual legal standards involved to convince me.

I cannot see how her actions can be considered criminally negligent. She could not have known she was taking a deadly risk since she did not know she was firing a deadly weapon.

[chipwich]

She didn't know she was firing a deadly weapon but she knew she was carrying one.

[Sheilbh]

What may be helpful, then Berk - according to the NYT:

COUNT I
First-degree manslaughter

One of the ways Minnesota law defines first-degree manslaughter is causing someone's death while committing or attempting to commit a lesser crime — a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor — in a way that a reasonable person could foresee would cause death or great bodily harm.

Specifically, prosecutors accused Ms. Potter of causing Mr. Wright's death through the reckless handling or use of a firearm.

First-degree manslaughter is a felony, punishable by up to 15 years' imprisonment and a fine of up to $30,000. The standard prison sentence for someone without a prior criminal record, like Ms. Potter, would be a little more than seven years.

COUNT II
Second-degree manslaughter

One of the ways Minnesota law defines second-degree manslaughter is causing someone's death through culpable negligence, by creating an unreasonable risk and consciously taking chances of causing death or great bodily harm.

Prosecutors persuaded the jury that Ms. Potter had done so in the use of her firearm.

Second-degree manslaughter is a felony, punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment and a fine of up to $20,000. The standard sentence for a person without any previous convictions would be about four years. But because Ms. Potter was also convicted of a more serious charge, first-degree manslaughter, in connection with the same death, this count is unlikely to affect the total length of her sentence.

[grumbler]

The problem I have with the first-degree manslaughter charge (and verdict) is that it supposes that Potter mistakenly drawing her gun rather than her taser was itself a crime; that she would have been guilty of that crime even had she not pulled the trigger.  I don't buy that, and it mystifies me that the jury did.

[Berkut]

Yeah, how do you define her attempting to engage in a perfectly legal apprehension as a crime? I do not see how first degree can even possible apply.

1. She was not commiting another crime. Even if she was ridiculously sloppy, what is the crime she was committing?
2. Being reckless with her weapon is not a crime. Was she charged with such a crime?

I think the first degree was basically just appealing to the juries sense of outrage, and I doubt it survives appeal.

The second degree seemed very much legit for me, until I dug into what is actually required for "culpable negligence". What is the actual, legal difference between negligence (which is a mistake that could result in you getting sued) and culpable/criminal negligence (which is a mistake that your can be held *criminally* liable for).

And that requires, as I understand it, three things (this is mostly from that video I posted).

1. You have to engage in a dangerous or reckless behavior that is not justified by the circumstances
2. You have to recognize that the behaviour is dangerous or reckless.
3. You have to disregard that danger and do it anyway.

Clearly #1 is there. She pointed her gun at someone and shot them.

But I don't think 2 or 3 are there. She did not know her actions were dangerous or reckless, nor did she disregard that knowledge (since she did not have it to begin with).

[Berkut]

She didn't know she was firing a deadly weapon but she knew she was carrying one.

The standard for criminal negligence demands that the person held criminally responsible be aware of the risks they are taking, and choosing to take that risk anyway.

I don't see how, given the information we have, that standard can be argued to have been met. Maybe the jury knows more then we do?