Potter convicted

[Metal god]

The circumstances of the situation can not, in and of themselves, justify the use of deadly force. The reasonable belief of the person who is using it that it is immediately necessary is NECESSARY/REQUIRED to prove justification.
__________________

I don't disagree on the legal aspect but the practical aspect I have doubt . Lets say a person did not believe deadly force was necessary . Can the state step in and say , we know you didn't think so but the evidence shows it did . Based on your reasoning it doesn't matter if deadly force is truly warranted if the "victim" does not believe so .

Example bad guy has wrecking ball hung right above you and a button to release it in one hand and says here I go I'm going to push the button and starts moving his other hand towards the button with finger out to push the button . You then shoot him before he pushes the button . However on the stand you say you shot him to stop him but you didn't think he'd really do it but just in case he did ....

Maybe a bad example but my point is a situation where maybe some ignorant sole doesn't actually think they are about to die but in all actuality they are . Does it really matter what they think if everyone else thinks the opposite ? Isn't that where the reasonable person in there shoes comes in . Maybe the person about to be killed thought process is not reasonable . Maybe another bad example but I hear this from anti gun people or people that don't understand guns . Why didn't the cop just shoot him in the leg or the gun out of his hand . Those people generally would never think deadly force is warranted . Sometimes it is even if you don't think so .

So why can't Potter think it's not necessary and in hind sight others say no mam it was justified you clearly were not seeing the whole picture at the time ?

[ghbucky]

So why can't Potter think it's not necessary and in hind sight others say no mam it was justified you clearly were not seeing the whole picture at the time ?

Because she never attempted that defense. At all.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here? Is it a hypothetical that if she had tried to pass it off as a conscious decision to shoot that she would have gotten off?

How can anyone predict the outcome of that?

She, herself, never attempted to defend her actions. She confessed to accidentally shooting him. Repeatedly [edit: to clarify, she confessed to accidentally shooting him multiple times, NOT that she shot him multiple times].

What, exactly, do you expect a jury to do with that?

[JohnKSa]

Can the state step in and say , we know you didn't think so but the evidence shows it did . Based on your reasoning it doesn't matter if deadly force is truly warranted if the "victim" does not believe so .

Well, they could choose not to prosecute, I guess, but if it goes to trial they can't change the law to simply throw out the part they don't like.

However on the stand you say you shot him to stop him but you didn't think he'd really do it but just in case he did ....

If you want to torpedo your case, you are free to do it. That's really one important lesson to learn from this. You can completely ruin your chance at justifying a deadly force encounter by saying or doing the wrong thing.

Maybe a bad example but my point is a situation where maybe some ignorant sole doesn't actually think they are about to die but in all actuality they are .

The person's belief at the time, based on what they knew at the time is a necessary part of justification.

If you don't believe deadly force is necessary in a situation and you shoot them, that's a serious crime. It is not legal to shoot people if you don't believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent a serious crime.

So why can't Potter think it's not necessary and in hind sight others say no mam it was justified you clearly were not seeing the whole picture at the time ?

Because her reasonable belief, at the time, based on the information she had available to her at the time, that deadly force was immediately necessary is REQUIRED to justify her use of deadly force.

Ask the question 50 more ways. Dream up 100 more scenarios and the answer will still be the same because the law will still be the same.

[Metal god]

Because her reasonable belief, at the time, based on the information she had available to her at the time, that deadly force was immediately necessary is REQUIRED to justify her use of deadly force.

She didn't believe she was about to use deadly force so her reasonableness in using deadly force is irrelevant no? Thats why the first degree manslaughter does not fit . Maybe as someone else said , involuntary manslaughter would have been a better charge ?

I'm not sure what you are arguing here?

My point is exactly what happened in this case . She didn't think deadly force was needed but her actions caused the death . Why can't the state say yes we know you didn't mean it but you were justified anyway ?

I've said how I feel about the wrongness or the rightness of her actions . My questions are not to figure out a way to justify what she did . They are basically using her actions or this case as an example to ask the question , the question is not specifically about her if that makes sense .

Making this only about your thoughts seems to indicate regardless of the situation or if you are actually justified . As long as you believed you are is all that matters . If that's not the case then why can't that hole thing work in reverse ? You don't think so but everyone else does ?

[ghbucky]

Making this only about your thoughts seems to indicate regardless of the situation or if you are actually justified . As long as you believed you are is all that matters . If that's not the case then why can't that hole thing work in reverse ?

But isn't that the very definition of the 'reasonable man' standard?

If a 'reasonable man' determined that they were at risk of [some variation based on where of] great bodily harm or death then the use of lethal force was justified. I.E. Rittenhouse. I doubt any 'reasonable man' metric would convict his actions, and the jury agreed.

But, in Potter's case, she threw away that standard by herself confessing that deadly force was not justified.

How do you argue with a defendant that says they killed someone without justification?

[Metal god]

How do you argue with a defendant that says they killed someone without justification?

She didn't believe she was about to use deadly force so her reasonableness in using deadly force is irrelevant no? Thats why the first degree manslaughter does not fit . Maybe as someone else said , involuntary manslaughter would have been a better charge ?

But isn't that the very definition of the 'reasonable man' standard?

Yes exactly but in reverse . You don't think so but everybody else does . It's you that is being unreasonable in thinking it was not justified when in actuality it was and most other reasonable people think so as well . Why does what you believe only matter if it results in a bad outcome for you ?

[ghbucky]

She didn't believe she was about to use deadly force so her reasonableness in using deadly force is irrelevant no? Thats why the first degree manslaughter does not fit . Maybe as someone else said , involuntary manslaughter would have been a better charge ?

OK, let's play this out. I know that you know guns. Heck, you are the very guy that talked me through reloading 5.56. My respect for you knows no bounds.

To me, what you are offering is an exit strategy for shooting someone.

"I didn't know the gun had live ammo in it when I pointed it at them and pulled the trigger!"
"We were just playing russian roulette! I didn't know there was a live round in the gun"
"Sure he was cheating with my wife, but I didn't know the gun I pointed at him could kill him, it only had blanks in it!"

If you or I do those things, our lives come to an abrupt halt. I do not see why law enforcement should enjoy a separate tier of justice where they are forgiven if they make a mistake.

[edit]

Yes exactly but in reverse . You don't think so but everybody else does . It's you that is being unreasonable in thinking it was not justified when in actuality it was and most other reasonable people think so as well . Why does what you believe only matter if it results in a bad outcome for you ?

It isn't my call. 12 jurors said she did not meet the standard. Why are you pinning it on me?

[JohnKSa]

She didn't believe she was about to use deadly force so her reasonableness in using deadly force is irrelevant no?

No.

It's not "her reasonableness" that's at issue it's "her reasonable belief" that deadly force was immediately necessary that's the focus here.

She had the option of using deadly force but admitted that she chose not to. That is proof that she did not intend to use deadly force--that plus her admission that she didn't intend to use deadly force. If she didn't intend to use it, how could she have reasonably believed it was immediately necessary to use deadly force? Obviously she couldn't have and that means that a necessary criteria for justification does not exist.

Why can't the state say yes we know you didn't mean it but you were justified anyway ?

Because the state can't just make up laws as it goes along or delete parts of laws they go along. The laws are written down and that's what the courts use.

As long as you believed you are is all that matters .

That is absolutely NOT true!

Reasonably believing that deadly force is immediatley necessary is NECESSARY for justification, but it is not sufficient for justification. In other words, if you don't reasonably believe that it is immediately necessary to use deadly force then it can't be justified regardless of the circumstances. But simply reasonably believing it is immediately necessary isn't enough. Then the circumstances of the situation must also fit the criteria in the law.


A person uses deadly force.

Situation 1.
The person states or otherwise indicates by their actions that they did not believe that deadly force was immediately necessary. That is enough to prove that justification does not exist. There is no need to look at the circumstances, indeed, the circumstances become irrelevant to justification.

Situation 2. The person states that they reasonably believed that deadly force was immediately necessary. In this case the circumstances of the situation must fit the criteria in the deadly force laws. If the circumstances do not fit, the reasonable belief of the person that deadly force was immediately necessary is irrelevant.

So if EITHER the circumstances don't fit the criteria OR the person doesn't believe that deadly force is immediately necessary, justification does not exist.

It is necessary that the person reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately necessary AND that the circumstances fit the criteria in the law for justification to exist.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Metal god

Every LEO on scene that testified said they believed deadly force was warranted and 3 of those were prosecution witnesses .

Can any of those witnesses speak more persuasively about what Potter thought than her words and actions that day?

Originally Posted by Metal god

IMO That is 100% wrong . What lead to the shooting was

Dauntay driving a car with expired tags who's owner had a warrant out for there arrest
Dauntay's car smelling of pot with visible signs of pot on the center consul .
Dauntay threatening someone at gun point resulting in a restraining order
Dauntay's failure to appear for a gun charge resulting in a bench warrant being filed
Dauntay resisting arrest and trying to flee while police were hanging from the car actively trying to stop him .

That is what "lead" to the shooting .

I don't see how anyone can reasonably ignore all of the above and go straight to it's all Potters fault she caused everything to escalate out of control .

I'd suggest that tags expire, cars smell like pot, and people are the subjects of TROs and fight with POs very routinely, and it doesn't lead to a shooting. On the other hand, pulling a weapon but not knowing which one led directly to the shooting. Had she not done either of those, she could not have shot her pistol.

The smell, TRO and fighting may go to whether Potter herself believed that deadly force was necessary, a different element in the analysis. Unfortunately for Potter, her indication of what she was actually thinking was recorded and clear.


It's a recurring theme in the thread that Potter must have been trained insufficiently; this appears offered as a mitigating factor in her guilt. We should not want a failure of training to serve as an effective defense to individual criminal culpability. That pressure would lead to less and less training by jurisdictions looking to economize, and those are the jurisdictions in which POs are going to be most in need of training.

[Metal god]

It's a recurring theme in the thread that Potter must have been trained insufficiently; this appears offered as a mitigating factor in her guilt. We should not want a failure of training to serve as an effective defense to individual criminal culpability. That pressure would lead to less and less training by jurisdictions looking to economize, and those are the jurisdictions in which POs are going to be most in need of training.

I don't agree with the idea of poor training , at least on her training . Not only did she never mis a training day . The police higher ups felt her 20+ years on the force was good enough to allow her to be a training officer her self . Which is what she was doing at the time of the shooting . She must have proved to someone she was capable and up to the task .

[HiBC]

I don't know Potter I don't now her skills and capabilities. I know nothing about her chain of command.
I'm not commenting on any of those people.

Please do not grab some nit you might find and spin a ball of yarn from it.

There is an old sayng "Those who can'r DO, Teach. Those who can't Teach,write books "

Seemed real,attending a university where the Profs wrote most of the required
textbooks.

It can also be true if you have an employee who is deficient in an area,assgn them the duty of teaching a class on the subject. The required immersion might sink in.

Management can use "Instituted trainng" as a damage control and butt covering tactic.

It can be an alternative to firing cronies.

Don't get me wrong . Training is a good and essential thing. But I would not leap to conclusions upon reading the word "training"

If you are reading the "training" track in the mud on the trail, it can mean deficiency as easily as expertise.

[Aguila Blanca]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Metal god

She didn't believe she was about to use deadly force so her reasonableness in using deadly force is irrelevant no? Thats why the first degree manslaughter does not fit . Maybe as someone else said , involuntary manslaughter would have been a better charge ?

The fact that she used deadly force when she didn't think it was necessary, AND without intending to do so, is "negligence." That's what manslaughter laws are about. Some states use the term "negligent homicide" instead of manslaughter to address such situations.

Do you disagree that pulling a firearm and killing him when all you intended to do was to zap him is negligent?

Originally Posted by Metal god

I don't agree with the idea of poor training , at least on her training . Not only did she never mis a training day . The police higher ups felt her 20+ years on the force was good enough to allow her to be a training officer her self . Which is what she was doing at the time of the shooting . She must have proved to someone she was capable and up to the task .

They obviously thought she was up to the task. I would say that her actions under pressure pretty clearly proved to the world that, in fact, she was NOT up to the task.

[101combatvet]

I have to say that many idiots sit on juries, and this was one of those cases.

[Metal god]

The fact that she used deadly force when she didn't think it was necessary, AND without intending to do so, is "negligence." That's what manslaughter laws are about.

Correct I've not disputed that . Just like murder 1,2,3 there are different manslaughter counts . I have no way to cut and clip the jury instructions but I'll post a link to and with a time where the judge instructs the jury on 1st degree manslaughter as well as second degree manslaughter . If we agree it was a mistake and she did not know she had her firearm in her hand which was not contested at trial . 1st degree manslaughter was and can never be met based on the undisputed facts of this case . Again I'm not saying she is not guilty of any crime only that at minimum 1st degree manslaughter was an over charge which the burden was not met beyond a reasonable doubt . this will be over turned on appeal IMHO

3min 25sec through 7min even - Analysis with judge reading the instructions
4min 39sec through 5min 2sec and 5min 14sec through 5min 36sec - Judge only instructions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S032r1VsXTw&t=308s

[44 AMP]

The trial is over, the verdict is in, and we're wasting bandwidth discussing what WE THINK was done or not done correctly. Unless you're a cop or someone else in the position where taser or gun is a choice, and you could make the wrong one, I don't see any lesson here applicable to regular citizens and our civil rights.

A person was killed due to what the court ruled was criminal negligence. The cop was convicted. Until there is an appeal, and/or something new, relevant to L&CR, this story is over