How so? What is Mrs Potter's net worth? I doubt she has enough money and assets to make it worth a lawyer's attention. Make the department hire her back so they can garnish her pay? Sue the department for not training her enough? The former is absurd, the latter seems likely even with her convicted of a crime.A civil case is the way for the family to get compensation for this mistake.
Code Name: JET STREAM
Any such lawsuit would target the department and the municipality she was working for at the time. Not only was she working for them at the time but they selected hired and trained her.Originally Posted by Jim Watson
What I expect.
Which will leave him dead, her in prison, and the city poorer.
On the other hand, the Wright heirs, their lawyer, and the Expert Consultant paid to devise training that will ensure no crook ever again gets inadvertently shot will make out like bandits.
Code Name: JET STREAM
You know how you can tell my kids have all left home and I don't have to get up early for Christmas?
Given the circumstances, I don't feel the eight-year sentence was justified. I would also like to see a sketch of the intersection including any warnings present for north and south bound traffic. A bus driver, hauling folks needs to be heads up when approaching the intersection of two highways. The bus struck the truck in the intersection, not vice-versa. The truck had traversed the intersection to the extent that, according to the wiki report, it completely blocked the intersection. In view of all that, I think that the truck driver was at fault, but not to the extent of eight years.
Regarding 'are we looking for justice, or vengeance' question, should be justice but looks like vengeance in both the cases.
Merry Christmas.
Adding nothing to the conversation since 2015....
What JCN said. Happens virtually every time someone is seriously injured or killed by police.
Adding nothing to the conversation since 2015....
Just another example of the magical transformation from Little Angel/Gentle Giant that takes place whenever one of these dirtbags gets killed by the police.
History of violence? Check!
Outstanding warrants (for another violent crime)? Check!
Clear cut probable cause (invalid tags)? Check!
Resisting arrest? Check!
And news reports described him as a "motorist", just motoring along, with outstanding warrants, on the motorway with invalid tags, just a motorist. No mention of fighting with the police.
I saw a guy in the grocery wearing a shirt that said "Stop Killing Us", would it be in bad taste for me to get a shirt made that says "Stop Resisting Arrest"?
Potter was screwed beginning with jury selection, IMO.
I am not a lawyer but there were several things in the case, particularly in closing, that seemed problematic to me as a layman and to some of the lawyers that I was listening to at the time...I hope she can successfully appeal.
Keith Ellison and the prosecutors that tried the case can all eat a bag of dicks.
In a just world, Keith Ellison would be completely unknown to us, because he would have no influence whatsoever on anyone but his immediate family.
(Or end up stuffed into an iron coffin with spikes on the inside. I'm not averse to either, but the first choice is preferable.)
The guy is easily the worst of the current crop of national-level race baiters.
"If I ever needed to hunt in a tuxedo, then this would be the rifle I'd take." - okie john
"Not being able to govern events, I govern myself." - Michel De Montaigne
An anonymous juror has spoken about the deliberations:
https://www.wtnh.com/news/national/j...l-responsible/
“No one felt she was intentional in this. It’s ludicrous that some people are assuming we thought she was a racist. That never came up or anything like that. We felt like she was a good person, we felt she made a mistake, and that a mistake does not absolve you from the fact she did commit a crime.Handling the gun and taser in a calm, comfortable courtroom was sure to lead some on the jury to think the differences were unmistakeable, but if they believed Kim Potter was “a good person”, why didn’t she notice the differences on the day of the incident? The answer is not “because she was negligent”, but because, in those circumstances, the differences were not noticeable enough. A handgun and a taser are practically identical, compared to say, a handgun and a radio or a set of hand cuffs.But the jury generally thought that Potter should have known she was holding a pistol and not a stun gun given her years of police experience. The juror said a turning point in deliberations came when jurors handled Potter’s stun gun and pistol and felt the differences.
“The gun was about twice as heavy, and the two weapons had several differences in how they are un-holstered and fired,” the juror said. “The Taser kind of feels like a mouse click whereas the (pistol’s) trigger has some trigger draw weight.”
That is an empirical question. The jury did not buy that or the action error story as sufficient. So how many times have officers drawn their tasers inside of guns in an incident? If were the case that there is no or little difference, that would be reported.
The argument is that go for the gun training overrode in her case a considered decision for action. As I said previously, the argument was that her gun 'automaticity' made the action happen independent of her conscious view of what she was doing. Drawing a gun is probably trained many more times than drawing a taser in FOF.
I also said that from the jury research, holding the actual gun predicts negative outcomes for a defendant. That's why the defense tried to block it on 'safety' reasons - which wouldn't fly.
The training literature suggests that complex but unconscious and correct perceptual schema and actions can be learning and programmed. She never reached that level.
Was the blame in the inadequate training given to her? Listening to the P&S podcast, we will pay for that level of competence?
Is that a criminal matter - that's another debate.
Reply With Quote
