The big spots for that were always the counties north and south of you. Although I was told that the five people pulled over in a mile and a half on Sunday morning on the Duane Berentson bridges was actually the Oak Harbor WASP office, not the Burlington one (in whose "territory" the bridges actually officially were).Originally Posted by Borderland
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
So this might be another case of "over-charging"? If such a thing exists, the charge should have been third-degree manslaughter?
"The victor is not victorious if the vanquished does not consider himself so."
― Ennius
The problem with the VERY broad brush strokes you're painting with is, these situations are far from the norm. Considering the number of contacts law enforcement makes on a daily basis, broken down further into the number of incidents where force is used, yet even further into the incidents in which deadly force is used and it becomes obvious these incidents are the stark exception to the rule. This is not SOP. However, cops just doing their job doesn't boost ratings, advance a political agenda, or provide you with an opportunity to climb up on you box-o-feels and virtue signal with, "It should be that no one gets shot."
We may lose and we may win, but we will never be here again.......
I don't see the officer being prosecuted. Charged maybe, but the DA will have a tough time making a manslaughter charge stick. Of course there will be politics involved. The county where I used to work charged a city cop for manslaughter in the death of one of his children. He left a loaded revolver in his car unsecured for 5 minutes and one of his kids shot a sib with it. Went to trial and the officer was acquitted. The union even got his job back.
My basis for that is she said taser before she shot the dude. She actually thought she had a taser in her hand. Stress induced accident.
Last edited by Borderland; 04-14-2021 at 01:13 PM.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
Manslaughter in MN appears to be first or second degree as the only options.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Doesn't that let the charged officer get away free if it's not proved?
I mean, I see officers charged with 1st, 2nd degree etc... and they are not convicted for anything.
I find it as a big loop hole if that's true.
Not only for officers charged but any civilian that's charged with higher crime and freed.
Basically, a criminal will be free depending upon what he's charged with rather than what he did.
Sounds little Homer Simpson to me.
If they are not convicted of higher crimes, shouldn't they get lesser punishment?
For example, if I kill someone and I get charged with 1st degree murder and jury acquits me for whatever reason (technicalities, wrong trial...), I shouldn't go free instead I should be in trial for whatever is next in the line and put in jail, not free.
I don't know if that's the process but a suspect charged with a crime shouldn't go free just because prosecuting team decided to over charge.
Shouldn't they have something like, this person is charged with 1st degree murder and all other lesser murder charges like 2nd, 3rd, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter... and let jury decide where they convict instead of either convict this person of 1st degree or let this criminal go free.
If jury truly wants to set the suspect free, they'll not convict that person on any of the lesser charges as well.
Jury gets no other option other than either convict as charged or let the criminal go free. Enlighten me.
Last edited by Mystery; 04-14-2021 at 01:35 PM.
As others have noted:
Charged
Indicted
Tried
Are all different steps in the process of "prosecution".
Being charged is not equivalent to being indicted. I don't know if MN uses a Grand Jury approach or other for issuing indictments.
I could go either way on if Officer Potter should be/will be indicted. I think given the totality of the circumstances and public optics, there was no way she avoided being charged, so this doesn't surprise me.
I will be surprised if the prosecution is able to actually convict on a Man 2 indictment, at least given the wording of the statute that @blues posted. Of course wording of a statute and interpretation and precedent are different. So there might be precedent for that conviction.
How they're going to prove that she consciously created a set of circumstances leading to an increased risk resulting in loss of life will be difficult. The audio from that video, alone, would indicate surprise, shock, and confusion. If she'd had her Taser out and then consciously switched to her pistol and then shot Wright, maybe. But I don't see how you argue her mistaking the handgun for a taser was conscious.
I guess they could key in on the pausing of the cuffing to retrieve that piece of paper as that conscious effort and it was negligence in failing to cuff the suspect quickly. That might be a slightly more convincing argument.
Known as "lesser included offenses," see accounts of the Chauvin trial.
If they charge you on a single crime, up or down, without that provision, and then can't prove it; that is their problem. I doubt a DA would be so careless, certainly not in a high profile case.
Code Name: JET STREAM
I'm not trying to be mean here, really, but the ignorance of basic principles of American Criminal Justice procedures in this post is actually one of our biggest problems. People don't even really understand what the "Law" is as a concept, and are therefore surprised by predictable legal outcomes.
You seem to unwittingly be calling for an Inspector Joubert "I'll find something he's guilty of" type of criminal justice system, without actually knowing that's what you're asking for.
Double Jeopardy Clause, 5th Amendment, US Constitution, prevents exactly that.
You cannot try the same person for the same crime (even using a lesser charge) following an acquittal. The exceptions to this are if new evidence comes to light after an acquittal that would incriminate the defendant (think DNA evidence) and even then that's not always the case.
This is why you'll often see people charged at multiple levels for a crime. For instance charged with Murder 2 and Manslaughter 1. If charged with both the jury/judge can decide if the standard of the lesser charge is met if they feel the higher charge isn't.
If we allowed perpetual charging and retrial of people for crimes we can't prove they committed (that's what an acquittal is). Then what's to stop us from creating a tiered system of charges so we can keep people we don't want free in jail perpetually? Nothing.
Reply With Quote