There will probably be a verdict before Christmas...
I think the jury will find her guilty...
I think that she has to get some jail time...But, less than 5 years...I think the prosecution wants her to get more than 5 years...
I think more than 5 years in prison is too much in this case...
I do remember times when officers did not carry tasers and guns together on the duty belt...
Wow, due to the season, I saw Potter and my first thought was George Bailey
Do they have a fail safe procedure for police officers dealing with a perpetrator resisting arrest?
I’m not a fan of the police these days. But in this case I will note that what happened was clearly an accident.
I say that because when she thought she had her Taser she fired it once in the expectation that it would only go off one time.
Had she intentionally fired her pistol in the belief that it was a pistol she would have emptied it into Wright because that’s what cops are trained to do these days. She would have dumped ten rounds into Wright.
So it’s safe to assume her assertion of an accidental shooting is truthful.
Still, she shot someone who did not need to be shot. She needs to be held to the same standard as she would hold anyone else to in the same circumstance.
Imagine her arresting you for accidentally shooting a perp once.
Even if you’d already disarmed yourself she’d aim her loaded weapon at you and shout orders at you.
She’d force you to the ground.
She’d possibly hit you several times before handcuffing you.
She’d toss you in the back of a patrol car.
She’d embellish her report and maybe even make up a few things to charge you with (loitering, resisting arrest, assault on an officer, etc.)
And then she’d testify that her report was accurate.
So yeah, hold her to her own standards.
Armed UK police usually carry their tasers higher up on the chest. That seems like a good idea to me.
Is appropriate here.
Had Wright gotten his car in gear and taken off, accidentally running over Potter and killing her in the process, would less than 5 years be an appropriate sentence for him too?
Under the circumstances, she still had every right to use her glock
What I found surprising, was that in 27 years of mostly patrol duty, she never had a reason to draw her gun on a suspect before and in 18 years, never once fired her drawn taser at a suspect
But I can’t get over the fact, that despite the similarities of the grip and especially being on opposite side of her belt, the difference between the 2 weapons should have been obvious
Tasers for cops always were ridiculous. It’s been made obvious over the last two years what the demoncrat rank-and-file would be up to if the Thin Blue Line weren’t there to protect us, and expecting the police to be that tolerant of someone resisting arrest is an ask to far. If a suspect won’t submit and the cop can’t change their mind with a nightstick, shoot ‘em and leave them for dead. And if the ACLU howls about it, that only confirms that you’ve made the right decision.
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.
But she was still taking down a criminal who was attempting to flee. I do not believe she should be convicted.
her honest reaction to the shooting says enough....it was an accident.....
Do what the cop tells you to do when the cop tells you to do it and your chances of being shot by a cop drop to nearly zero.
L
Tragically, she never should have been in this position in the first place. She simply had no business being a police officer. She clearly did not have the temperament, the clear-thinking needed in a stressful situation nor the confidence in handling the lethal weaponry she was entrusted with.
What makes me angry about this whole thing is that she was likely a "quota" hire at this police department. In order to have a certain percentage of female officers, this department obviously took on women that had no business wearing the badge.
Now this is not an argument against having women as police officers. There are women who make extremely good police officers. This woman was obviously not one of them.
This is what happens when you lower your standards to hit a quota. Maybe in a typical 200-officer police department, you might get 5-10 excellent women on the force who are as good as the men. But when political correctness and woke nonsense forces a department to get to 15-20% women, well then the bar must be lowered and you end up with incidents such as this.
Kimberly Potter seems like a very nice woman who was put in a very bad situation in which she just was not prepared to handle. She had no business being in that situation or in that kind of a job. She should have been doing a job more suited to her skillset. Maybe an office job, a sales rep or just being a wife and mother.
If that sounds sexist, too bad. As a man, I know my own limitations. I wouldn't last two weeks on a deep sea fishing boat for example. Or two days at a high-rise construction site. There are women out there that could probably do both. So it's not a male or female thing.
This woman should never have been a cop. It's clear from the videos presented at trial that she was in way over her head and should have been doing something else for a living.
But quotas...and the silly notion put forth by the feminists that women can be "whoever they want to be" and that they should shoved into roles they are eminently unqualified for.