Is that really relevant to whether or not a shooting would have been justified?
That's my thought reading as in: "She would have been justified to shoot him under the circumstances, even if she didn't want to or intend to."
Is that really relevant to whether or not a shooting would have been justified?
You may have bolded the text, but since it’s all in a bold font once posted, we can’t tell the difference.I have been following this a bit. The evidence seems to be that she would have been justified in tasing him, but she made a mistake. There is no evidence to controvert that she thought she had pulled her Taser.
She was charged with 1st degree and 2nd degree manslaughter- these are somewhat different from the way this is done in Indiana.
The 1st degree manslaughter requires a finding of causing someone's death while committing or attempting to commit a lesser crime. I don't see the lesser crime here and the evidence does not seem to be there for this finding.
The 2nd degree manslaughter requires a finding of causing someone’s death through culpable negligence, by creating an unreasonable risk and consciously taking chances of causing death or great bodily harm. At first, the "culpable negligence" sounds right for this case, but as I bolded, there has to be evidence that she consciously took the chance of causing death or great bodily harm. The evidence was that she flat out screwed up and was not "conscious" that she had her gun until after the shot. Now, she "consciously" deployed a Taser (or so she thought) so the question is whether deploying a Taser is considered to be "great bodily harm" under Minnesota law. In other words, the statute uses the term "culpable negligence", but the further definition sound a lot more like "recklessness".
It does not appear that Minnesota has a straight "negligent homicide" outside of vehicular cases.
Seems to me that if they have a law against accidentally causing a death because she did something stupid, maybe that could stick, but as you’ve laid out what was charged it does sound like she should get off.“In Minnesota, the definition of "great bodily harm" includes an injury that "causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ."”
State v. Moore, 699 N.W.2d 733, 737 (Minn. 2005 Minn.)
I don't see that applying to a Taser...but ultimately, it will go to the jury.
Again, we look at whether a Taser inflicts "great bodily harm" rather than a gun because the evidence indicates she thought she had the Taser. What makes 2nd degree Manslaughter depends upon the state of mind.
I don't know about other cases, but here, both during and immediately after the shooting, Potter's words and acts were consistent with someone who thought she had pulled her Taser.
If she were charged with an Assault of some variety, they probably could make that stick.
I can tell the difference. Maybe you need new glasses?You may have bolded the text, but since it’s all in a bold font once posted, we can’t tell the difference.
Criminal recklessness w/a deadly weapon?Seems to me that if they have a law against accidentally causing a death because she did something stupid, maybe that could stick, but as you’ve laid out what was charged it does sound like she should get off.
It’s the reading through the dark helmet visor…I can tell the difference. Maybe you need new glasses?
It’s the reading through the dark helmet visor…
Maybe he's on a phone. I hear he has teeny-tiny thumbs.The difference shows up here too.
In Wokology intent does not matter. If the DA is woke, the cop is guilty simply because she caused the death of someone above her on the intersectional scale-o-oppression.I've forgotten a lot of the details about this case, Hough. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is not this the one where she can be heard on body cam audio saying 'Oh ****, I thought I had my taser' or some such immediately after firing her weapon
I think that would be powerful evidence of lack of intent harm
Well. iType on iPhone with iThumbs. They’re Phat iThumbs.Maybe he's on a phone. I hear he has teeny-tiny thumbs.
I CAN'T BREATHE IN THIS THING!!It’s the reading through the dark helmet visor…
You have it on backwards.I CAN'T BREATHE IN THIS THING!!
No more beaming!!You have it on backwards.
While I was at a hockey game in the Twin Cities (the only reason to ever go there) and in between periods I noticed a girl in front of me typing on her phone. With just two thumbs she could type faster than I can think.Well. iType on iPhone with iThumbs. They’re Phat iThumbs.
I hate phone "keyboards". I learned to type on a manual typewriter. I need all my fingers and thumbs. Home row... ASDF JKL; And I don't look at the keyboard when I type (on an actual keyboard - on a phone I'm a hunt-and-pecker).While I was at a hockey game in the Twin Cities (the only reason to ever go there) and in between periods I noticed a girl in front of me typing on her phone. With just two thumbs she could type faster than I can think.
I'm sure there's a smart a## statement in there somewhere.While I was at a hockey game in the Twin Cities (the only reason to ever go there) and in between periods I noticed a girl in front of me typing on her phone. With just two thumbs she could type faster than I can think.
Typing on a phone is a mild form of torture best reserved for emergencies.I hate phone "keyboards". I learned to type on a manual typewriter. I need all my fingers and thumbs. Home row... ASDF JKL; And I don't look at the keyboard when I type (on an actual keyboard - on a phone I'm a hunt-and-pecker).