Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not when she couldn't tell the weight difference between her gun and her tazer. C'mon man, who bought that excuse.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiftymh
Get away from areas with Blacks. You are a target for corrupt prosecutors and juries who will convict you under threats of riots.
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.
Not one of those jurors had the guts to stand up for Kim Potter. This society is so screwed.
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.
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.
It's literally not murder.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
