Posted on 12/20/2021 10:50:27 AM PST by L.A.Justice
The doodle shows up to post something to stir the pot. That is all you do here. Report back to your DNC masters now
Here’s what I think is a fair analogy. Let’s say a nurse is supposed to give a patient a dose of medicine X. But in her haste (it’s a hectic time on the floor) the nurse gives the patient a dose of medicine Y instead - even though it clearly says Y (not X) on the label.
Is that nurse guilty of anything criminal?
The woman prosecutor is a stone cold b*itch
But I’m in love with the judges soft soothing voice. I could listen to her all day
Felony murder requires intent.
So you're saying that shooting them is part of the procedure? Who knew?
To be fair, the patient would have to be sitting behind the wheel of a running car and trying to escape. The patient would also need to have an arrest warrant for a gun and the possibility she had one under the covers.
Most medical errors are corrected in civil cases. btw.
The split second action situations and multiple movements and actions of a very explosive nature are not taught to be automatic in training, only the basic movements that need each reaction to be done. all confrontations are unique to time and place.
All the conversation about what she thot she had, what trigger she pulled, etc etc is just mumbo jumbo. Don’t the geniuses always tell us we cant’ shoot someone running away, we can’t shoot someone already handcuffed, we can’t shoot someone who is unarmed? and so on. This chick should get the same thing the old reserve officer guy in Texas got for killing the cuffed guy, lying on the ground, face down? This bizness of cops shooting un-armed people has to taper off. Still remembering the Guyer doll in Dallas who shot Big John, in his own apt, watching TV.
Potter had no intent to use excessive force, and never had an arrogant attitude toward the public.
Also I see no political motivation on Potter's part, while considerable on the Prosecution's part.
Yeah, I'd take her job and career in Law Enforcement and leave her liable to Tort, but prison will make no one safer in society.
> Most medical errors are corrected in civil cases. btw <
Yes. And I gotta tell you, I’m really torn about this particular case. As you noted, the cop absolutely did not mean to kill that suspect. It was 100% an accident.
But does her negligence rise to the level of criminal behavior? The more I think of it, the more I think it does not (and trust me, I’m no cop-lover).
Not really. Requires the commission of a felony during which someone dies. Using a vehicle as a weapon in order to escape would be that.
I always come back to the state having to prove it was not an accident. A certain amount of negligence occurs in virtually all accidents.
I also think (solely my opinion) is that the accident occurred when she actually pulled the trigger. Both weapons had triggers. If I understand correctly you are trained to fire once with a taser and twice with a Glock. (I could be wrong on this as I am not a cop) She fired once.
If Wright had not resisted while trying to flee, this never would have happened.
Expecting black people to comply with lawful orders of law enforcement is racist.
“This is only from memory of the jury instruction, but I think 2nd degree in this case requires conscience disregard of risk.”
-———————————Statute-—————
(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
Use to be the billy club. A couple of hits in the solar plexus and down you went.
Thanks. I summed it up well.
Tasers should not be pistol format, they could easily make it a grip style like stapler or similar. Make the experience totally different
Yes really. Here's the Minnesota First Degree Murder statute. Intent is a requirement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.