Daunte Wright shooting Brooklyn MN

[Mystery]

————————-
@Mystery in matters like this you need to understand “culpable mental state”. What was the intent of the person committing the act.
Since I am in Texas, I will refer to Texas law... but EVERY state has their own version of this. The prosecution has to prove some level of intent for a conviction. What was her intent in that event? Was her intent to kill or injure him?

REQUIREMENT OF CULPABILITY. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person does not commit an offense unless he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence engages in conduct as the definition of the offense requires.

(d) Culpable mental states are classified according to relative degrees, from highest to lowest, as follows:
(1) intentional;
(2) knowing;
(3) reckless;
(4) criminal negligence.

Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES.
(a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.
(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.
(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

————
Mystery, you keep wanting to compare the officers actions to that of a civilian. The difference is the officer is acting on behalf of the state, and is expected to use force as a normal part of her duties. She is expected to stop bad guys from escaping. She is paid to prevent him from starting a car chase that could cause multiple deaths... so her use of force is judged by a different set of standards than yours would be. Because she is required to use force sometimes in the course of her duty, you are not.

So, Mystery, ask these questions:
Was she a lawfully employed officer, on duty, acting in accordance with her states laws?
Does she have lawful authority to use force to effect an arrest?
Dose she have lawful authority to carry her lethal and less lethal tools with her?
Does she have probable cause to stop the vehicle?
Does she have the legal authority to remove the driver of the vehicle under Pennsylvania V Mimms?
Does she have the legal authority to arrest the drive after confirmation of the warrant?
Does she have the legal authority to use reasonable force to overcome the resistance to arrest under Graham v Connor?
Would it be reasonable to use a taser giver the circumstances know to the officer at the time the trigger was pulled?
Would it be a great danger to the community at large to allow the suspect to flee in a 3000lb projectile as he attempt to evade arrest?

The answer to all those questions are the same.

The issue goes back to the top of the post. Pedal misapplication under stress. Were her actions so reckless and negligent as to rise to “criminal” levels, beyond a reasonable doubt? That is the $27 million dollar (civil suit) question.

Lose of her job could be seen as reasonable. Loss of her freedom? Are we that worried she will roam the streets shooting other fleeing felons on accident? She is acting on behalf of the state of MN, using training/tools/policy dictated by the state. This is why these cases usually end with a cash payout. It’s hard to put the state of MN into a jail cell.

She screwed up. Driver should be alive.

I am not a lawyer. These are just random thoughts. If new info comes forward I could change my analysis.

Thank you for informational reply.
This is a discussion board and neither "You're wrong" type of one liner replies add anything to the discussion nor all one sided content.

Yes, you are right and answer to those questions is yes.
She did everything right until she mistook gun for taser.
I agree the officer accidentally killed this person.
So what's the minimum conviction? Accidental discharge?
I know court doesn't decide to make people happy but what will tell them justice is done?
Yes, it's pretty bad for the officer. Losing a job and making a bad publicity will hunt her all her life.
As for your loss of freedom comment, we don't keep people in jail only if they are danger to others. People are in jail for unpaid parking tickets as well.
I'm not saying that needs to happen specific to this case.

Comparing cops to civilian is what the nation is doing, that's what the public is doing and will do forever. It's part of the society.
Whenever these types of "accident" happen, public is outraged and the reason is same, "They are cops so they get away with murder".
Just read through some of the comments in any news or social media.
Is that wrong statement? Maybe, depends upon who you ask.
If every single civilian knew law in and out, all would be good.

However, public sentiment matters because violent protests happened/will happen that can mess up civilian property and lives.
It matters to cops all over as well as angry people try to harm cops after these incidents.
As I saw few months back in Denver, police buildings and statues were damaged, a civilian shot to other protesters etc..., it effects everyone and nothing anyone could do.

There'll be a guaranteed suit against PD and city and the family of deceased may get millions regardless of why/how the decision will be made.
Even after that public takes that payment as a get out of jail card, not as justice.
It's a messed up situation. Will see how things unfold. Hopefully, no violent protests like last year.

Thank you for all those who replied mentioning me. Information is never enough

On a side note, I request all LEOs to be extra vigilant after these types of incidents and court decisions.
Doesn't hurt to be extra cautious.

[Gadfly]

Thank you for informational reply.

So what's the minimum conviction?

Comparing cops to civilian is what the nation is doing, that's what the public is doing and will do forever. It's part of the society.
Whenever these types of "accident" happen, public is outraged and the reason is same, "They are cops so they get away with murder".
Just read through some of the comments in any news or social media.
Is that wrong statement? Maybe, depends upon who you ask.
If every single civilian knew law in and out, all would be good.

However, public sentiment matters because violent protests happened/will happen that can mess up civilian property and lives.
It matters to cops all over as well as angry people try to harm cops after these incidents.
As I saw few months back in Denver, police buildings and statues were damaged, a civilian shot to other protesters etc..., it effects everyone and nothing anyone could do.

Thank you for all those who replied mentioning me. Information is never enough

On a side note, I request all LEOs to be extra vigilant after these types of incidents and court decisions.
Doesn't hurt to be extra cautious.

You’re welcome...

The minimum conviction? The minimum is to not charge her, as the burden of proving her “criminal intent” is impossible, while proving negligence is far easier. The problem is, “does it rise to criminal negligence” or “reckless disregard”. Remember, the law is supposed to deal in facts, not emotions.

As far as comparing cops to civilians on social media... The problem of social media is full of ignorance, emotion, Dunning Kruger, and people who have an agenda. People don’t understands the law, use of force continuums, elements of an offense, culpable mental states, chain of causation, etc. Reading social media is like listening to virgins argue about sex Ed. Some 8 year old behind the gym explaining “a girl has a baby if a boy pees on her butt”, and then all the other 8 years olds, go “wow, he is a genius”. People actually go on line and argue astrophysics with Neil Degrass Tyson. They have a GED, but they do read a lot of memes on line, so they have more Astro physics knowledges than some guy that works at nasa... A lawyer spend 3 years in law school to get a grasp for the law, and still has a lot to learn once he graduates. A police officer usually has 25-30 weeks of basic academy, and still has a TON of learning to do once they hit the street. But the public has seen Hill Street Blues, and CSI Miami, and they thing they know the job.

That is how social media (and even major news outlets) sound when they try to talk about police use of force. They have ZERO clue about the facts, the law, or how violent encounters unfold. They just want clicks and ratings. And outrage drives those things.

If a surgeon was operating on that kid, and in the midst of the operation, he called for 3 mg of a medication instead of .3 mg of the same medicine, and the patient dies... would that doctor be on trial for murder? Would the public be out burning hospitals? Would the news be questing how to deal with the obvious racism in surgeons because the Dr was white and the patient black? Dr’s mistakenly kill FAR more people than cops ever have. But their mistakes are not on body cam. Their mistakes are just considered mistakes of a stressful and high risk profession. There are no political points to be scored.

Public sentiment does matter. But realistically, the public have no clue.

[Joe S]

I'm maxed out on the freebees. NYT is a sub I would like but I'm too damn cheap. My wife has one and sends me stuff to read which, of course, I can't.

I do Forbes so that probably tells you a lot about my reading.

Not to say that I intentionally use it for such (is that carelessness or negligence?), but the Brave browser on my Android often lets me open up pages that Chrome cannot. I believe that there are also iPhone, Mac, and Windows versions.

[blues]

Not to say that I intentionally use it for such (is that carelessness or negligence?), but the Brave browser on my Android often lets me open up pages that Chrome cannot. I believe that there are also iPhone, Mac, and Windows versions.

FWIW, I opened it on chromebook when I supplied the link. I don't have a subscription to the NYT. Maybe one of my security extensions had something to do with it, dunno.

[fixer]

I have a new perspective on this situation.

yes the officer made a mistake in mixing up taser vs pistol. Does this reflect on the officer as well as the department? Yes sure.

Lets think about it another way...

Who cares if this mistake was made?

Stay with me...

There was no guarantee that this officer or this dept was going to have tasers and (assuming) a policy on using less lethal as a first course of action. No guarantee at all.

In another jurisdiction, locality, etc...this shoot would have likely happened anyway.

Given the totality of this including the warrant and the situation unfolding, I don't think a pistol and shooting was the wrong choice.

Put another way, and intentional shoot would likely have been justified under the same scenario.

[wvincent]

I have a new perspective on this situation.

yes the officer made a mistake in mixing up taser vs pistol. Does this reflect on the officer as well as the department? Yes sure.

Lets think about it another way...

Who cares if this mistake was made?

Stay with me...

There was no guarantee that this officer or this dept was going to have tasers and (assuming) a policy on using less lethal as a first course of action. No guarantee at all.

In another jurisdiction, locality, etc...this shoot would have likely happened anyway.

Given the totality of this including the warrant and the situation unfolding, I don't think a pistol and shooting was the wrong choice.

Put another way, and intentional shoot would likely have been justified under the same scenario.

Me, for starters.
Nothing that has been shown in that video justified the use of deadly force.
What you're suggesting is that in this instance it's okay for to LE dispense summary judgement, because the deceased had a warrant and was resisting.

Yeah, he had warrants, and yeah he was resisting. But due process applies to all. Or it applies to none.

[blues]

I have a new perspective on this situation.

yes the officer made a mistake in mixing up taser vs pistol. Does this reflect on the officer as well as the department? Yes sure.

Lets think about it another way...

Who cares if this mistake was made?

Stay with me...

There was no guarantee that this officer or this dept was going to have tasers and (assuming) a policy on using less lethal as a first course of action. No guarantee at all.

In another jurisdiction, locality, etc...this shoot would have likely happened anyway.

Given the totality of this including the warrant and the situation unfolding, I don't think a pistol and shooting was the wrong choice.

Put another way, and intentional shoot would likely have been justified under the same scenario.

Alright...

...So, articulate the justification for using lethal force, (shooting), at that moment in time (in the absence of less than lethal options)...

[EVP]

I have a new perspective on this situation.

yes the officer made a mistake in mixing up taser vs pistol. Does this reflect on the officer as well as the department? Yes sure.

Lets think about it another way...

Who cares if this mistake was made?

Stay with me...

There was no guarantee that this officer or this dept was going to have tasers and (assuming) a policy on using less lethal as a first course of action. No guarantee at all.

In another jurisdiction, locality, etc...this shoot would have likely happened anyway.

Given the totality of this including the warrant and the situation unfolding, I don't think a pistol and shooting was the wrong choice.

Put another way, and intentional shoot would likely have been justified under the same scenario.

Yea I am not following your reasoning. I don’t think there was a need for lethal force.


Edit to add: people already beat me to it.

[fixer]

Alright...

...So, articulate the justification for using lethal force, (shooting), at that moment in time (in the absence of less than lethal options)...

In absence of less lethal options, what options are there?

Also...a guy re-gains control of motor vehicle that could have been used against cops as a weapon. happens all the time.

And maybe even duty to the public to stop this guy from going on a high speed pursuit.

[blues]

In absence of less lethal options, what options are there?

Also...a guy re-gains control of motor vehicle that could have been used against cops as a weapon. happens all the time.

And maybe even duty to the public to stop this guy from going on a high speed pursuit.

Insufficient justification for a lethal response in the moment.

Was there a cop standing in front of the vehicle in imminent danger of loss of life or grave bodily harm?

Can you articulate what the subject would have done with the vehicle once free of the officers? What threat he would have constituted to the public as a result of escape?

Was there imminent danger of loss of life or grave bodily harm at the very moment the trigger was pulled?
(In your scenario, not in the real event, we already know it was unintended by the officer.)