The jury finds her quilty

Blackcat13th said:
Yeah i feel trying the oops factor was a mistake. Cops, dont try that sht.

When you go into a self defense case you have to be certain you had no other choice or that the perp brought it on the.selves. a jury is automatically looking to convict. Any excuse to convict is an excuse they naturally want to use.
Click to expand...

She's quilty!
 
evince said:
Kim potter seems pretty composed about it
Click to expand...
She accidentally shot an innocent person and is wracked with guilt over it. Going to prison will alleviate that guilt as penance.

My past prediction was five years and serve 2-3.

Should the city pay a penalty too for underfunding police training and qualifications? She'd obviously never been police combat trained very much if at all.
 
McRocket said:
I wonder what would have happened if she had pulled out her pistol and shot the perp deliberately...after warning him to 'freeze or she would shoot him'?

There have been numerous instances where police have shot perpetrators for lesser/similar reasons in the last year.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/atlanta-police-officer-fired-fatally-shooting-black-man/story?id=77505613

And those police got off massively lighter than this gal did.

I truly believe that the main reason she got charged and convicted of this was that she immediately admitted that she did not mean to shoot him with her service pistol.
And that if she had simply drawn her gun and shot him - deliberately?
Or made the mistake but never admitted it and said she meant to pull/fire her gun?
She would have gotten in FAR less trouble.

If true?
That means that she basically got severely punished for being honest.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. Let's see what the sentence it.

Also consider that State's, due to public pressure, are cracking down on police shootings. Consider the LAPD killing another innocent person yesterday; a 14 year old girl. Reckless endangerment against a guy who was nuts and unarmed?
 
Nomad said:
I don't know if she was afraid, but it was definitely a very fast moving situation where split second reactions were taking place.

In a split second anyone could grab the wrong weapon.

She should be punished in some form, but prosecuting her was overkill.

Done for PR I believe.

Being fired might have been more appropriate.
Click to expand...
I don't know if she was fired, or she retired. I know she isn't a cop anymore.

I think Chauvin changed the entire notion of policing in the state, and she probably suffered as a result. It's clear that across the nation, more extensive training is needed to make officers more comfortable in fast moving situations. Hindsight being 20/20, these videos always show gross over reaction under pressure.

I think she makes an extremely compassionate defendant. Contrasted with Rittenhouse's dry 'crying', she is still visibly distraught.
 
TTQ64 said:
neither do you.

her action arent consistant with making a mistake. she was more worried about going to prison instead of trying to help him.
Click to expand...

That's possible, although as we both know far too well, we seldom send cops to prison for shooting unarmed black males.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
I tend to agree. Let's see what the sentence it.

Also consider that State's, due to public pressure, are cracking down on police shootings. Consider the LAPD killing another innocent person yesterday; a 14 year old girl. Reckless endangerment against a guy who was nuts and unarmed?
Click to expand...
I don't agree. Shooting someone in that situation only gets a pass in places with tainted juries. Like Staten Island...cop capitol of NY. Stupidity is never punishable by death. Otherwise, there wouldn't be very many people in the Bible Belt. The victim here was pretty stupid. He got shot over an old traffic warrant?

She's guilty of gross incompetence. She was unqualified to be in that situation. Probably traffic duty would have served her better.

I also think Chauvin tainted her trial.
 
Althea said:
I don't know if she was fired, or she retired. I know she isn't a cop anymore.

I think Chauvin changed the entire notion of policing in the state, and she probably suffered as a result. It's clear that across the nation, more extensive training is needed to make officers more comfortable in fast moving situations. Hindsight being 20/20, these videos always show gross over reaction under pressure.

I think she makes an extremely compassionate defendant. Contrasted with Rittenhouse's dry 'crying', she is still visibly distraught.
Click to expand...

It's overreaction until some worthless thug speeds away from a traffic stop with a cop's arm stuck in the vehicle as he's being dragged down the highway (something that happens more often than it should) at high speed and ends up permanently injured, crippled or dead.

Then it's "Oh well... guess they should have reacted faster... Too bad for the cop."

AFAIC, as soon as some shit head puts a cop in even the slightest danger, all bets should be off and use of force guidelines should be relaxed to all but the most obvious levels of blatant abuse.

Our LEO's need to be backed up by a system of laws that puts the safety of them and society above the safety of thugs and assholes.

OTOH, a strong, universally applied and strictly enforced body cam rule should be in place and if a cop just abuses someone for no reason, especially if it turns out that the suspect was innocent of any wrong doing, the punishment should be substantial.

I think Chauvin was over charged and over punished, BTW.

After the way Floyd fought with them he demonstrated that he needed to be restrained forcefully. I think his poor health and the types of drugs in his system contributed more to his death than Chauvin did and I believe the authorities sacrificed and railroaded him with an exaggerated coroner's report.

My opinion.
 
Diesel said:
I think that's right. I don't believe it was intentional. If anyone had an interest in proving malicious intent, it was the prosecution. They didn't even try, which indicates to me (along with Potter's reaction after she shot Wright and her testimony on the stand) that it was the worst accident I think that woman will ever make in her entire life.
Click to expand...

I agree. I was a little disappointed after she shot him she was mainly worrying about herself and made no attempt to help the wounded man.
 
Blackcat13th said:
Yeah i feel trying the oops factor was a mistake. Cops, dont try that sht.

When you go into a self defense case you have to be certain you had no other choice or that the perp brought it on the.selves. a jury is automatically looking to convict. Any excuse to convict is an excuse they naturally want to use.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Althea said:
I don't agree. Shooting someone in that situation only gets a pass in places with tainted juries. Like Staten Island...cop capitol of NY. Stupidity is never punishable by death. Otherwise, there wouldn't be very many people in the Bible Belt. The victim here was pretty stupid. He got shot over an old traffic warrant?

She's guilty of gross incompetence. She was unqualified to be in that situation. Probably traffic duty would have served her better.

I also think Chauvin tainted her trial.
Click to expand...

Tainted how?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Tainted how?
Click to expand...
Aren't they both in Minnesota? It's a pretty good bet that the state isn't very cop friendly right now. Don't forget Philando Castile, who was murdered by a cop for following orders, and the cop walked.

Chauvin was just the icing on the cake for any jury pool.
 
Althea said:
Aren't they both in Minnesota? It's a pretty good bet that the state isn't very cop friendly right now. Don't forget Philando Castile, who was murdered by a cop for following orders, and the cop walked.

Chauvin was just the icing on the cake for any jury pool.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Agreed that the potential is there. My take is from a different angle: Americans serving on juries are honest people.

Sure, they can be influenced by media, sharp lawyers and wackadoodles, but most people, as a group, will find the truth.

Add to this that there is an appeals process. Are the states and cities where these trials are prosecuted abiding by the law or not? If not then the solution is obvious. If they are complying by the law, then what?

If there are flaws in our justice system then shouldn't those flaws be identified? Discussed? Action taken against?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Thanks. Agreed that the potential is there. My take is from a different angle: Americans serving on juries are honest people.

Sure, they can be influenced by media, sharp lawyers and wackadoodles, but most people, as a group, will find the truth.

Add to this that there is an appeals process. Are the states and cities where these trials are prosecuted abiding by the law or not? If not then the solution is obvious. If they are complying by the law, then what?

If there are flaws in our justice system then shouldn't those flaws be identified? Discussed? Action taken against?
Click to expand...
But...they are people.

They have flaws, and as we saw in the OJ trial, they were getting back at the system for decades of injustice. I have heard that being a juror has an effect on people, and they ultimately do their best to find justice.

Jury nullification is a thing, though. Many lawyers rely on it. There will always be flaws in the system. Look at the judge in the Rittenhouse trial. They say in the NFL that the refs. should go unnoticed. If the game becomes more about the refs, then they are doing a terrible job. Same for that judge.

There is no way that the Castille jury was on a mission to find justice. None. Chauvin would have walked if not for cell phone video. That jury had no choice but to find him guilty.

Those inbreds in Georgia never would have been brought to trial if not for video AND the removal of a racist D.A.

Qualified immunity makes it impossible to get justice in most police related cases. That's why I feel that this particular jury decided to side with the prosecution. They could have let her go. I think that a different jury in a different venue would have.

She's paying the bill for many that came before her, and also for those who walked away without ever having a trial.

The system will always be broken, and trials will always be a crap shoot. Hell...Rodney King might be one of the most heinous.


 
Althea said:
But...they are people.

They have flaws, and as we saw in the OJ trial, they were getting back at the system for decades of injustice. I have heard that being a juror has an effect on people, and they ultimately do their best to find justice.

Jury nullification is a thing, though. Many lawyers rely on it. There will always be flaws in the system. Look at the judge in the Rittenhouse trial. They say in the NFL that the refs. should go unnoticed. If the game becomes more about the refs, then they are doing a terrible job. Same for that judge.

There is no way that the Castille jury was on a mission to find justice. None. Chauvin would have walked if not for cell phone video. That jury had no choice but to find him guilty.

Those inbreds in Georgia never would have been brought to trial if not for video AND the removal of a racist D.A.

Qualified immunity makes it impossible to get justice in most police related cases. That's why I feel that this particular jury decided to side with the prosecution. They could have let her go. I think that a different jury in a different venue would have.

She's paying the bill for many that came before her, and also for those who walked away without ever having a trial.

The system will always be broken, and trials will always be a crap shoot. Hell...Rodney King might be one of the most heinous.
Click to expand...

Yes they are people. Do you propose using farm animals instead? Computers? Computers are programmed by people. ;)

The appeals process is to catch mistakes such as the ones you mentioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top