Page 21 of 31 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 308

Thread: Daunte Wright shooting Brooklyn MN

  1. #201
    Old man yelling at cloud OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    Quote Originally Posted by Borderland View Post
    I was thinking more along the lines of some big fat tickets but apparently they don't do that anymore.
    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).
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.

  2. #202
    Kinetic Clusterf*ck Guerrero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Deep Blue WI
    Quote Originally Posted by blues View Post
    Maybe, maybe not, if this is the statute...
    So this might be another case of "over-charging"? If such a thing exists, the charge should have been third-degree manslaughter?
    "A harmless man is not a good man. A good man is a very, very dangerous man who has it under voluntary control."
    --Jordan Peterson

  3. #203
    Member Trooper224's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Wichita
    Quote Originally Posted by Mystery View Post
    It should be no one gets shot.
    Losing a life over whatever crime or suspicion of crime is horrible.
    Death penalty is an option after trial, not while arresting someone.

    Resisting arrest, point gun. Doesn't pull over, point gun. Walks towards officer, point gun. Suspect has a gun, point gun (of course).
    Regardless of how small or big the situation is, first thing is gun comes out and news happen.
    It's not officers' fault as that's what they have and that's how they are trained but ready to take a citizen's life just because "I'm the LEO, you need to obey or die"...
    That needs to change.
    We need a new invention that can be used to incapacitate suspects, at least the unarmed ones.
    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 hear again.......

  4. #204
    Brass Rat Borderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    The Salish Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by blues View Post
    Maybe, maybe not, if this is the statute...
    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.

  5. #205
    critical race weary blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mtns
    Quote Originally Posted by Guerrero View Post
    So this might be another case of "over-charging"? If such a thing exists, the charge should have been third-degree manslaughter?
    Manslaughter in MN appears to be first or second degree as the only options.
    ...and just like that, I woke up one morning and the America I knew and loved was gone.

  6. #206
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Colorado Foothills

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Guerrero View Post
    So this might be another case of "over-charging"? If such a thing exists, the charge should have been third-degree manslaughter?
    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.

  7. #207
    Illinexit in T-Minus 43 RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Mordor on Lake Michigan
    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.
    Seriously guys, are we not doing 'phrasing' anymore?

  8. #208
    Quote Originally Posted by Mystery View Post
    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.
    Jury gets no other option other than either convict as charged or let the criminal go free. Enlighten me.
    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

  9. #209
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Living across the Golden Bridge , and through the rainbow tunnel, somewhere north of fantasyland.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mystery View Post
    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 that a big loop hole if that's true. Not only for officers charged but any civilian that's charged with higher crime and freed.

    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.
    Jury gets no other option other than either convict as charged or let the criminal go free. Enlighten me.
    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.

  10. #210
    Illinexit in T-Minus 43 RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Mordor on Lake Michigan
    Quote Originally Posted by Mystery View Post
    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 that a big loop hole if that's true. Not only for officers charged but any civilian that's charged with higher crime and freed.

    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.
    Jury gets no other option. Enlighten me.
    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.
    Seriously guys, are we not doing 'phrasing' anymore?

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •