Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man part II

[Doug]

So, what was the prosecution's strategy on crossing the Defendant, "be mean to her and build empathy with the defendant from the jury?" If so, they nailed it.

Maybe the prosecutor's strategy was "White cop, black victim, obviously a racially motivated execution by a White Supremacist."

 

[HoughMade]

So what are the odds she walks? I'm not asking should. But do you sense the jury would get it right.

Personally, I don't think they proved criminal liability for either charge. I don't know what kind of jury they have...which is a challenge for me in making a prediction. I would say she has a good chance of a not-guilty.

Civil liability- absolutely when (not if) that case is brought.

 

[cobber]

So, what was the prosecution's strategy on crossing the Defendant, "be mean to her and build empathy with the defendant from the jury?" If so, they nailed it.

Is that not Prosecution 101?

 

[BugI02]

It's insane. My son does that. My nieces do that. I dunno. I use my thumbs when I type into my phone, but it's really not all that fast or accurate.

We noticed

 

[jamil]

Personally, I don't think they proved criminal liability for either charge. I don't know what kind of jury they have...which is a challenge for me in making a prediction. I would say she has a good chance of a not-guilty.

Civil liability- absolutely when (not if) that case is brought.

Yeah, I think "oops" really shouldn't be criminal unless it's serious enough negligence. It sounds like this was a stupid mistake in the moment. Civil court seems like a better place to settle such things as this absent an element of malice.

 

[nonobaddog]

Yeah, I think "oops" really shouldn't be criminal unless it's serious enough negligence. It sounds like this was a stupid mistake in the moment. Civil court seems like a better place to settle such things as this absent an element of malice.

Yeah. Maybe if she was doing something illegal at the time of the shooting then criminal charges might make sense.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Yeah, I think "oops" really shouldn't be criminal unless it's serious enough negligence. It sounds like this was a stupid mistake in the moment. Civil court seems like a better place to settle such things as this absent an element of malice.

I see it much like a negligent discharge resulting in death, which I would think is some kind of negligent homicide or unintentional manslaughter.

I do completely believe her that she mistakenly drew her weapon instead of her taser, but that she was negligent in doing so, and someone died because of her negligence.

 

[HoughMade]

I see it much like a negligent discharge resulting in death, which I would think is some kind of negligent homicide or unintentional manslaughter.

I do completely believe her that she mistakenly drew her weapon instead of her taser, but that she was negligent in doing so, and someone died because of her negligence.

Therein lies the problem when Minnesota does not have a general negligent homicide statute or unintentional manslaughter.

What she is charged with is essentially "reckless" conduct which requires proof that her acts were conscious or intentional as to the risk of great bodily harm or death. They certainly weren't intentional and I think there is good evidence that she was not "conscious" of that risk as I do not thing a stun gun rises to that level and that is what she believed (if one believes her) she was deploying. I think that if there was a straight "negligent homicide" statute and that was the charge, she may have pled and certainly, her defense case would have been in trouble.

I think there may have been an assault charge that would fit, but they did not charge her with that.

 

[HoughMade]

Oh, closing arguments going on now. I don't know how long they will be, but in one of my cases, a 2 week trial would be 1.5-2 hours...but that's civil. Criminal closings seem to be longer for some reason.

 

[HoughMade]

Based strictly on a reading of the statutes, it looks like a First Degree Assault charge would have been appropriate:

“’Assault’ is:…(2) the intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another.” Minn. Stat. § 609.02

Clearly, Potter intended to inflict bodily harm- a Taser does that.

“Whoever assaults another and inflicts great bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $ 30,000, or both.” Minn. Stat. § 609.221

Now, there may be additional defenses available to an assault charge that have to do with arrest that make this an unattractive charge. I just don't know. All I know is that this charge would not require proof that she was conscious of the risk of great bodily harm or death, only "bodily harm"- and that is any level of harm.

 

[KG1]

Based strictly on a reading of the statutes, it looks like a First Degree Assault charge would have been appropriate:

“’Assault’ is:…(2) the intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another.” Minn. Stat. § 609.02

Clearly, Potter intended to inflict bodily harm- a Taser does that.

“Whoever assaults another and inflicts great bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $ 30,000, or both.” Minn. Stat. § 609.221

Now, there may be additional defenses available to an assault charge that have to do with arrest that make this an unattractive charge. I just don't know. All I know is that this charge would not require proof that she was conscious of the risk of great bodily harm or death, only "bodily harm"- and that is any level of harm.

Doesn't this case hinge on whether there is any evidence that she consciously knew she drew a gun instead of a taser and went ahead and used the gun anyway?

 

[HoughMade]

Doesn't this case hinge on whether there is any evidence that she consciously knew she drew a gun instead of a taser and went ahead and used the gun anyway?

Pretty much. She had to conscious of the risk of causing "great" bodily injury or death which sound a lot like being conscious she drew her gun.

 

[printcraft]

Based strictly on a reading of the statutes, it looks like a First Degree Assault charge would have been appropriate:

“’Assault’ is:…(2) the intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another.” Minn. Stat. § 609.02

Clearly, Potter intended to inflict bodily harm- a Taser does that.

“Whoever assaults another and inflicts great bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $ 30,000, or both.” Minn. Stat. § 609.221

Now, there may be additional defenses available to an assault charge that have to do with arrest that make this an unattractive charge. I just don't know. All I know is that this charge would not require proof that she was conscious of the risk of great bodily harm or death, only "bodily harm"- and that is any level of harm.

Qualified immunity? There would have to be otherwise any use of a taser by police would mean a first degree assault charge could be brought. Now, I'm sure the defund the police crowd would like to see that happen but...

 

[HoughMade]

Qualified immunity? There would have to be otherwise any use of a taser by police would mean a first degree assault charge could be brought. Now, I'm sure the defund the police crowd would like to see that happen but...

There are statutes with allow for the use of force to affect arrest, but the key here is the use of a firearm when, allegedly, deadly force was not warranted.

 

[KG1]

Pretty much. She had to conscious of the risk of causing "great" bodily injury or death which sound a lot like being conscious she drew her gun.

I think a good point that the defense made was how could she consciously disregard if she was not aware that she had a gun instead of a taser? The state only tried to make their case that she "should have" known not that she did.

I don't believe that the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she "consciously" knew the risk of causing great bodily harm by using deadly force if she was not consciously aware that she had her gun instead of the taser.

 

[HoughMade]

I think a good point that the defense made was how could she consciously disregard if she was not aware that she had a gun instead of a taser?

That, in a nutshell, is what the entire case is about.

 

[KLB]

That, in a nutshell, is what the entire case is about.

Nut-uh! It's about feelz!

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Therein lies the problem when Minnesota does not have a general negligent homicide statute or unintentional manslaughter.

What she is charged with is essentially "reckless" conduct which requires proof that her acts were conscious or intentional as to the risk of great bodily harm or death. They certainly weren't intentional and I think there is good evidence that she was not "conscious" of that risk as I do not thing a stun gun rises to that level and that is what she believed (if one believes her) she was deploying. I think that if there was a straight "negligent homicide" statute and that was the charge, she may have pled and certainly, her defense case would have been in trouble.

I think there may have been an assault charge that would fit, but they did not charge her with that.

Ok, thanks! Went back and looked at the 2nd Degree Manslaughter and I see what you mean even though IANAL. The first part, negligent in drawing the gun instead of the taser, is IMO pretty easy to prove.

The second part, consciously taking chances of death or GBH... no, I don't believe that is the case (I do think she meant to draw the taser) and is a required element of the crime.

(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or

So, I think as the law is written, this should be a not guilty on that count, even though I do think that her negligent actions directly led to someone's death.

 

[Leadeye]

Design the taser in the shape of a broom.
I RARELY mistake my broom for a boom-stick.

They have those down south, called picanas, nasty, but effective.

 

[HoughMade]

So, I think as the law is written, this should be a not guilty on that count, even though I do think that her negligent actions directly led to someone's death.

I agree. I don't know what the jury will do (they are deliberating), but I don't see that charge.

I agree that in a civil case, negligence seems crystal clear. If Minnesota had a straight negligent homicide statute, liability as well, but straight negligence as a crime is VERY rare. Generally speaking, the law is fine with people paying damages caused by negligence- a mistake- but there are very few places where mere negligence can result in a deprivation of liberty. Even where "criminal negligence" is on the books, it usually looks more like recklessness, as in this case or at least "gross" negligence.