Kim Potter trial: Minnesota National Guard says ‘reaction force’ prepared to help (parade, drug)

[Grlzrl]

Originally Posted by Berteau

If I was a cop I would immediately resign. It’s the only career where you can go to jail for making a mistake and have to deal with the scum of society everyday all while risking your life. The only reason anyone even knows about this case is because of the race of the “victim”.

Meanwhile violent crime is still at record levels all around America and the left can’t figure out why. The silent majority is watching and it will be a republican sweep next elections

[foodyum]

Originally Posted by yspobo

He was not innocent. He was resisting arrest and committing other crimes and had an active warrant out for his arrest. There's even a man that is paralyzed from the neck down because of him and he served no consequences for it. He was a violent thug.

If wasn’t dead he could stand trial and face the consequences.
You know he was never charged with that crime and it is a pending civil suit from the parents of the “victim”. Luckily they can and will sue the estate so being dead won’t make any difference in any money they might possibly receive.
His crime of paralyzing anyone is highly suspect and far from a proven fact.
You may believe it and it may sound better but it is most likely not true.

[Taratova]

The culture of blacks with the rap crap is glorifying thuggery. No wonder they are a scourge on the liberal cities and cops have a tough job. What makes me sick is most blacks are glorifying these thugs who resist arrest and have a rap sheet a mile long. The black people call this their justice. No ethics as they threaten to burn down and loot if they don't get the right verdict. Another unjust way to get their justice. Sickening.

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by Annandale_Man

She was justified to use either.

Yes. That’s the irony here. Had she just pulled out her gun and shot him on purpose, it’s very unlikely charges would have been filed. Very twisty.

[reneeh63]

Originally Posted by hapaleeretired

She made a MISTAKE. I will bet my last dollar that you judgmental folk have never had your adrenaline level anywhere near what that poor police officer was experiencing. Had the POS simply complied this would never have happened. He had an active warrant!
You people want to "defund the police". I wish you the very best of luck in finding anyone in his/her right mind who would ever want to become a police officer in your state. That prosecution team made it loud and clear that anyone who would apply for a law enforcement position in the state of Minnesota (where I will NEVER spend on red cent) is totally insane.

"'Sorry' don't feed the bulldog". Just because you're sorry and you call it a 'mistake' doesn't mean you are not responsible for making that mistake. Grow up people!

[yspobo]

Originally Posted by foodyum

Don’t you need a gun to shoot someone?
Are you thinking he was going to steal the policeman’s gun?
I’m not understanding why you think they were lucky to not get shot.

He had a warrant for a weapons charge and had previously shot someone in the head. He was a violent criminal thug.

[foodyum]

Originally Posted by yspobo

He had a warrant for a weapons charge and had previously shot someone in the head. He was a violent criminal thug.

I don't think he was ever charged and certainly not found guilty for shooting anyone in the head. Are you sure? Or is this something you think is true.

[yspobo]

Originally Posted by kell490

News show attorneys are saying she will be sentenced for both. I guess can convict twice for killing a person one time. Prosecutors are asking for upper end which could be as high as 20 years for both. Glad I never went into law enforcement in my 20's I had considered it I guess I would be retiring now but still can't see how anyone would even consider doing this job. I could see officers now being charged when struggling over a gun that goes off with a suspect because they shouldn't have stopped, or let them go even with a warrant.

She might be spending the rest of her life in prison for an accident.

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by Oldhag1

I don’t know why anyone would be a cop in the United States right now.

Why, just because we dare hold the corrupt cops like Piggy Chauvin, Piggy Geiger and Piggy Potter who actually broke the law to be responsible for their actions like they would as a private citizen? Why do you think that police should be given carte blanche to get a way with murder? I have respect for police, not for corrupt pigs that get to kill people and think the badge absolves them of guilt and the people that make excuses for them.

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

Honestly, it sounded outlandishly believable to me. Who in their right mind would purposefully shoot someone with a gun and then come up with that story immediately after?

Exactly, the way a gun and tazer feels in your hand and the weight in your hand should feel different to make the confusion idiot proof. Piggy Potter is apparently cannot. She is not fit to be a police officer and should be held out of society like a layman would for committing the same crime.

Originally Posted by Chuckity

She didn't murder anyone.

Not under the law of Minnesota. She did however kill someone which made her be found guilty of manslaughter. I see federal charges in her future as well given how Chauvin and his cronies were treated.

Originally Posted by PullMyFinger

Not one of those jurors had the guts to stand up for Kim Potter. This society is so screwed.

Why just because they disagreed with you and said she was guilty? I would have figured her not knowing the difference of the feel and weight of their tazer versus their gun, was a dead give away.

Originally Posted by Feltdesigner

Finally feels like these juries are starting to have the stones to hold cops accountable for their actions.

I am glad for that. I am tired of the unions... I'm sorry Police Benevolent Associations defending known crooked cops.

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

I haven't been glued to the trial but thought that she would get off because she lacked intent. But then I saw the closing arguments where the prosecution explained that there is no "mistake defense". The law is what it is: Guilty!

Exactly. She wanted the jury to believe a gun and a tazer had the same weight and feel in a hand. You would think they wouldn't to avoid these.

Originally Posted by AZLiam

Completely believable. I know many people who have stated they couldn't locate their phones while they were talking on their phones. People make mistakes.

Yes but a gun/tazer is a lot higher stakes than a phone that maybe in their hand. People make mistakes, but when they break the law we don't hear "Oh you couldn't see that stop sign, so I'm letting you off with a warning." Why expect different for a police officer when they kill someone.

Originally Posted by 303Guy

One might imagine that in the heat of the moment, someone might actually make such a mistake. It seems unreasonable to assume that she did not deliberately shot to kill the miscreant. On the other hand, it does seem strange to an experienced gunslinger like myself, that she could have made such a mistake. Perhaps she wasn't a gun enthusiast? And she was in an extreme situation.

My point is, there is room for reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is all it takes for a not guilty verdict. Just the fact of being not sure. I lean toward being not sure and giving her the benefit of the doubt. It sounds like the jury members were not sure too. They should have stuck with being 'not sure' in my opinion and erred on the side of caution.


And then there is this aspect. One that I suspect is the real reason for the jury to have been in doubt. They were weighing up the odds between convicting an innocent person and the trouble they would get into if they didn't convict.

Sorry, but there is no reasonable doubt to confuse your gun with your tazer. If you confuse them, you should have given up your badge a while ago because the public cannot trust you policing them. Mind you, the bold shoots your argument in the foot. I think for the 12 on the jury, that stuck in their craw.

Originally Posted by AZLiam

Right, but criminals with intent are let free.

Nobody said that. Maybe people like you trying to say that she should have been let off.

Originally Posted by AADAD

She will be released upon appeal is my bet

If there is a case for appeal, yes. I don't know of any way that an appeal should be made other than looking for anyway to get their client off...

Originally Posted by Ted Bear

Worman popped the perp at point blank range. He died. That is murder. There is no excuse which the jury could use to defend her actions.

She was trained. She failed, and by all accounts it was a mistake, but it happened.

Maybe the sentence will reflect that it could have been an accident.

But think about what she "knew" about her subject...fleeing or something from a gun charge of some sort. So there was the likelihood that he was armed. And she was scared/afraid of what he might be holding.

And she lost her cool, pulled the wrong hardware, and popped the kid. Sad situation, but not worthy of a lengthy prison term. Maybe a couple of years, a few years of community service, and then she can get on with her life.

I sure hope not. She should have a year in prison at the least so she cannot vote. I quite frankly hate that we are holding police to a lower standard than a layman. If anything, they should be held to a higher standard.

Originally Posted by kwalk65

Sad day for America today. The jury got this WRONG!

You and a bunch of keyboard warrior think so. Right now all that matters is 12 thought she was guilty on two manslaughter charges. We will see what comes if there is an appeal made.

Originally Posted by Grainraiser

I believe her when she says it was a mistake. Having said this, she took a life so there is a price to pay. You don't get to walk away when you take a innocent persons life. If any of you were to kill a cop by mistake you would be facing a hell of alot more than 7 years. Accountable seems to be foreign word to many here.

Exactly, why do we want to hold police to a lower standard when they commit a crime?

Originally Posted by foodyum

She clearly was not competent.
If no one complained than that’s a problem.

This is where I don't know. I know from the state I'm in, there are a lot of Brady Reports on police that go ignored. These are misconduct cases. Sadly there are many that ignore that because they "back the blue." I do too, there a number of good cops I've known. I've also dealt with a share of bad cops and we all know corrupt ones that deserve to be called pigs too.

Originally Posted by kell490

She is looking at 7 years on Man 1 and 4 years on Man 2. Juries are idiots I been on Jury duty so many can't leave their emotional baggage at home.

If they did, they wouldn't have made the jury unless they hid it during jury screening during the selection process.

Originally Posted by Charlie&Rose

Why was Wright not held acountable for all his crimes......like shooting someone in the head.

Ultimately he was, he is in a grave.

Originally Posted by 303Guy

Rittenberg did not 'get away'. He was lucky in that justice was served. He was in very real danger of being falsely convicted.

Chauvin may have been guilty of misconduct which might have earned him a year or two in prison but being found guilty of murder? That's the kind of injustice and threatening mob and corrupt DA's can and do perpetrate.

Let's hope Potter's sentence reflects her error with a light to no sentence.

Chauvin didn't murder Wright, did you even watch the same video

Originally Posted by vegasrollingstone

I'm surprised as well and disappointed. It seemed like a forgivable mistake to me.

Killing someone is a forgivable mistake to you?

Originally Posted by Wintergirl80

Exactly. I don't hear anyone talking about him shooting a man and ruining his life and robbing a woman....He caused a lot of harm to people.

He wasn't following police orders when he was accidentally shot, I think the jury got this one wrong.

He died, he got his in a case when he shouldn't have but he did pay for his mistakes.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by reneeh63

"'Sorry' don't feed the bulldog". Just because you're sorry and you call it a 'mistake' doesn't mean you are not responsible for making that mistake. Grow up people!

She is responsible, and yes the state will find the task of finding new pd applicants excessively difficult, and that is merited also.

If I lived there, I would move ASAP. Life will be dangerous going forward in that state.