Juror: Kim Potter made mistake but was still responsible

[TU Curmudgeon]

From Associated Press

Juror: Kim Potter made mistake but was still responsible​

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A member of the jury that convicted Minnesota police officer Kim Potter of manslaughter in the killing of Daunte Wright says jurors felt she made an honest mistake when she drew her firearm instead of her stun gun, but that she was still responsible for his death.

The juror spoke with KARE-TV reporter Lou Raguse on the condition of anonymity due to what the station described as the “public animosity” surrounding the case. It published the story Wednesday.

The juror said no one felt Potter was a racist or meant to kill Wright, but that doesn’t mean she was above the law.

“I don’t want to speak for all the jurors, but I think we believed she was a good person and even believed she was a good cop,” the juror said. “No one felt she was intentional in this. It’s ludicrous that some people are assuming we thought she was a racist. That never came up or anything like that. We felt like she was a good person, we felt she made a mistake, and that a mistake does not absolve you from the fact she did commit a crime.

COMMENT:-

I have to admit that I was surprised at the nuance of the jury's decision.

Hopefully that nuance will be reflected in the sentence.​

 

[Integrityrespec]

From Associated Press

Juror: Kim Potter made mistake but was still responsible​

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A member of the jury that convicted Minnesota police officer Kim Potter of manslaughter in the killing of Daunte Wright says jurors felt she made an honest mistake when she drew her firearm instead of her stun gun, but that she was still responsible for his death.

The juror spoke with KARE-TV reporter Lou Raguse on the condition of anonymity due to what the station described as the “public animosity” surrounding the case. It published the story Wednesday.

The juror said no one felt Potter was a racist or meant to kill Wright, but that doesn’t mean she was above the law.

“I don’t want to speak for all the jurors, but I think we believed she was a good person and even believed she was a good cop,” the juror said. “No one felt she was intentional in this. It’s ludicrous that some people are assuming we thought she was a racist. That never came up or anything like that. We felt like she was a good person, we felt she made a mistake, and that a mistake does not absolve you from the fact she did commit a crime.

COMMENT:-

​

I have to admit that I was surprised at the nuance of the jury's decision.​

​

Hopefully that nuance will be reflected in the sentence.​

The prosecution is going to ask for a long sentence. It's politics at that level. It's a tough case. Wright has some responsibility in what happened as he fought police and tried to flee. This is the same story we here over and over, suspect fights with officers, tries to flee, tried to take or use a weapon. So what are cops to do? I don't know what the end of this will be and I agree Potter did shot Wright, but she did it while performing her job in a dangerous moment when split second decisions have to be made. I hope that is considered in the sentencing. I don't think she should ever be a cop again. I'm tired of all the blame being leveled on the police when the beginning of most of these instances starts with a crime and then resisting police. Our society cannot survive without police officers.

 

[Plasmaball]

The prosecution is going to ask for a long sentence. It's politics at that level. It's a tough case. Wright has some responsibility in what happened as he fought police and tried to flee. This is the same story we here over and over, suspect fights with officers, tries to flee, tried to take or use a weapon. So what are cops to do? I don't know what the end of this will be and I agree Potter did shot Wright, but she did it while performing her job in a dangerous moment when split second decisions have to be made. I hope that is considered in the sentencing. I don't think she should ever be a cop again. I'm tired of all the blame being leveled on the police when the beginning of most of these instances starts with a crime and then resisting police. Our society cannot survive without police officers.

Cool story.
You are excuse making for her..

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The prosecution is going to ask for a long sentence. It's politics at that level. It's a tough case.

Yep, and that is what the Prosecution is supposed to do.

The Defence will ask for a very light sentence, and that is what the Defence is supposed to do.

If the jury were to be polled for sentencing recommendations (as is done in some states [the results NOT being binding on the judge]), I rather suspect that the jury's recommendation would be toward the "light sentence" end of the spectrum.

Wright has some responsibility in what happened as he fought police and tried to flee. This is the same story we here over and over, suspect fights with officers, tries to flee, tried to take or use a weapon. So what are cops to do? I don't know what the end of this will be and I agree Potter did shot Wright, but she did it while performing her job in a dangerous moment when split second decisions have to be made. I hope that is considered in the sentencing. I don't think she should ever be a cop again. I'm tired of all the blame being leveled on the police when the beginning of most of these instances starts with a crime and then resisting police. Our society cannot survive without police officers.

Other than the "I don't think she should ever be a cop again." bit, I agree.

While there are lots of "not on the street" positions on police forces which she could likely fulfill quite adequately, I don't think that she actually WANTS to be a police officer ever again (at least not one that has a significant potential for putting her into a similar situation).

 

[Integrityrespec]

Yep, and that is what the Prosecution is supposed to do.

The Defence will ask for a very light sentence, and that is what the Defence is supposed to do.

If the jury were to be polled for sentencing recommendations (as is done in some states [the results NOT being binding on the judge]), I rather suspect that the jury's recommendation would be toward the "light sentence" end of the spectrum.

Other than the "I don't think she should ever be a cop again." bit, I agree.

While there are lots of "not on the street" positions on police forces which she could likely fulfill quite adequately, I don't think that she actually WANTS to be a police officer ever again (at least not one that has a significant potential for putting her into a similar situation).

I'm torn with what you suggest, being an officer at some desk job perhaps. I just don't really know. I think jail time may be warranted but do we jail everyone who accidently kills someone else? I highly doubt it. I know Wrights family probably wants a lengthy sentence but I just don't believe that's a good solution and not sure it's just. We will see when she is sentenced

 

[GummyVitamins]

Yep, and that is what the Prosecution is supposed to do.

The Defence will ask for a very light sentence, and that is what the Defence is supposed to do.

The prosecution is supposed to seek justice. It's important to differentiate the difference between the prosecution and the defense. We saw this in the Rittenhouse case where people were confused and excusing the behavior of the prosecution as being the counterweight to the defense. That's not the case. The prosecution seeks justice and is supposed to be objective and fair.

 

[TurtleDude]

Cool story.
You are excuse making for her..

and you are ignoring a good argument because of your leftwing politics and apparently the race of the mope she shot.

 

[Plasmaball]

and you are ignoring a good argument because of your leftwing politics and apparently the race of the mope she shot.

Look at you making stupid assumptions..

Good for you

 

[Plasmaball]

The prosecution is supposed to seek justice. It's important to differentiate the difference between the prosecution and the defense. We saw this in the Rittenhouse case where people were confused and excusing the behavior of the prosecution as being the counterweight to the defense. That's not the case. The prosecution seeks justice and is supposed to be objective and fair.

The prosecution will consult the book on what guidelines they should request for sentencing. The judge will either agree or disagree with those.

It's already laid out what she will most likely receive as a sentence.

Your opinion on what you feel it should be is irrelevant .

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The prosecution is supposed to seek justice.

Oh PIFFLE.

The task of the Prosecution is to present the evidence collected and to establish to the best of its ability that that evidence shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused person did the deed alleged and that the deed alleged was one proscribed by law.

The person whose antique firearm (that they didn't think was loaded) who accidentally shoots and kills the person attempting to stop them fleeing from the store where they stole a loaf of bread in order to feed their starving family DOES commit a crime - no matter how justified they were in stealing the loaf of bread.

It's important to differentiate the difference between the prosecution and the defense. We saw this in the Rittenhouse case where people were confused and excusing the behavior of the prosecution as being the counterweight to the defense. That's not the case. The prosecution seeks justice and is supposed to be objective and fair.

I will go along with "The Prosecution is not supposed to lie." - but "objective and fair" have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the matter.

 

[Maccabee]

The prosecution is going to ask for a long sentence. It's politics at that level. It's a tough case. Wright has some responsibility in what happened as he fought police and tried to flee. This is the same story we here over and over, suspect fights with officers, tries to flee, tried to take or use a weapon. So what are cops to do? I don't know what the end of this will be and I agree Potter did shot Wright, but she did it while performing her job in a dangerous moment when split second decisions have to be made. I hope that is considered in the sentencing. I don't think she should ever be a cop again. I'm tired of all the blame being leveled on the police when the beginning of most of these instances starts with a crime and then resisting police. Our society cannot survive without police officers.

As a member of law enforcement myself. I'm more than satisfied with the verdict. How someone who can mistake her weapon for a brightly colored taser without previously having similar incidents is beyond me.

 

[maxparrish]

GummyVitamins said:
The prosecution is supposed to seek justice.

Oh PIFFLE.

The task of the Prosecution is to present the evidence collected and to establish to the best of its ability that that evidence shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused person did the deed alleged and that the deed alleged was one proscribed by law.

The person whose antique firearm (that they didn't think was loaded) who accidentally shoots and kills the person attempting to stop them fleeing from the store where they stole a loaf of bread in order to feed their starving family DOES commit a crime - no matter how justified they were in stealing the loaf of bread.

I will go along with "The Prosecution is not supposed to lie." - but "objective and fair" have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the matter.

Sorry TU... Gummy is correct. ABA:

Standards for the Prosecution Function

Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function. Copyright by the American Bar Association. This work (Criminal Justice Standards) may be used for non-profit educational and training purposes and legal reform (legislative, judicial, and execu

www.americanbar.org

"(b) The primary duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice within the bounds of the law, not merely to convict. The prosecutor serves the public interest and should act with integrity and balanced judgment to increase public safety both by pursuing appropriate criminal charges of appropriate severity, and by exercising discretion to not pursue criminal charges in appropriate circumstances. The prosecutor should seek to protect the innocent and convict the guilty, consider the interests of victims and witnesses, and respect the constitutional and legal rights of all persons, including suspects and defendants."

The prosecution was not seeking Justice within the bounds of the law, they sought to prosecution to satisfy political demands. And they knew that under the law she was not guilty, so they mangled the law to make people think she violated it. The Judge, for her part, refused to step in and the jury thought "mistakes are not excuses" when, in fact, they were.

After the release of Juror interview this should no longer be in dispute.

 

[compote_tom]

This is, to me at least, is a terrible tragedy. Someone is dead and a police officer is convicted.

As I understand the jury was deadlocked until they felt the weapons. I think someone unfamiliar with firearms would need to feel the weapons to grasp how different they are. That fact coupled with the fact that she didn't immediately call paramedics is probably enough to convict her.

I'm liberal and I certainly understand as a functioning society we need police. I also believe police officers (largely because they use deadly force) have to be held responsible. Personally I hope this type of thing never occurs again. I fear it will.

 

[Cardinal]

Yes, she made a mistake, and I take no joy in watching someone go to prison for a death she had absolutely no intention of causing. But there has to be accountability, and police officers can't mistake their firearms for stun guns.

There are careers where people aren't allowed to commit oopsie daisies, and law enforcement is absolutely one of them.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Sorry TU... Gummy is correct. ABA:

Standards for the Prosecution Function

Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function. Copyright by the American Bar Association. This work (Criminal Justice Standards) may be used for non-profit educational and training purposes and legal reform (legislative, judicial, and execu

www.americanbar.org

"(b) The primary duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice within the bounds of the law, not merely to convict. The prosecutor serves the public interest and should act with integrity and balanced judgment to increase public safety both by pursuing appropriate criminal charges of appropriate severity, and by exercising discretion to not pursue criminal charges in appropriate circumstances. The prosecutor should seek to protect the innocent and convict the guilty, consider the interests of victims and witnesses, and respect the constitutional and legal rights of all persons, including suspects and defendants."

The prosecution was not seeking Justice within the bounds of the law, they sought to prosecution to satisfy political demands. And they knew that under the law she was not guilty, so they mangled the law to make people think she violated it. The Judge, for her part, refused to step in and the jury thought "mistakes are not excuses" when, in fact, they were.

After the release of Juror interview this should no longer be in dispute.

You are correct that the operative section is ""(b) The primary duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice within the bounds of the law, not merely to convict. The prosecutor serves the public interest and should act with integrity and balanced judgment to increase public safety both by pursuing appropriate criminal charges of appropriate severity, and by exercising discretion to not pursue criminal charges in appropriate circumstances."

However, you appear to be overlooking the "within the bounds of the law, not merely to convict" bit.

What that means is that the prosecution is not to use illegal methods in order to obtain a conviction. It does not mean that someone will not be prosecuted because the prosecution feels sorry for them.

The "and by exercising discretion to not pursue criminal charges in appropriate circumstances." bit is encapsulated in the "If no reasonable chance of conviction, no prosecution." formula. It does not mean "We don't care how much evidence there is that the accused did the deed and that the deed was contrary to law, we feel sorry for the accused so we won't prosecute them.".

What would you do if you were the Prosecutor and the case involved a noted drunken wife beater who had been shot six times in his own kitchen and whose son kept on repeating that they, not their mother, had shot their father (when you knew damn well that the boy was lying and that his mother had actually done the shooting) - [NOTE - This was in the days before "battered spouse" was even thought of as a defence.]? Remember, what you have is a clear cut case of deliberate killing (and premeditated after the first couple of rounds from the bolt action rifle that was used to do the shooting). How far would you reduce the charges in the hopes that the son would stop shielding their mother and allow her to admit guilt?

PS - Reducing the charges didn't work and the prosecution was forced into trying the son for the killing, but did so by charging with the least severe offence that was applicable (and the son got the shortest available sentence [and was released on parole in the minimum time possible]).​

 

[maxparrish]

You are correct that the operative section is ""(b) The primary duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice within the bounds of the law, not merely to convict. The prosecutor serves the public interest and should act with integrity and balanced judgment to increase public safety both by pursuing appropriate criminal charges of appropriate severity, and by exercising discretion to not pursue criminal charges in appropriate circumstances."

However, you appear to be overlooking the "within the bounds of the law, not merely to convict" bit.

What that means is that the prosecution is not to use illegal methods in order to obtain a conviction. It does not mean that someone will not be prosecuted because the prosecution feels sorry for them.

The "and by exercising discretion to not pursue criminal charges in appropriate circumstances." bit is encapsulated in the "If no reasonable chance of conviction, no prosecution." formula. It does not mean "We don't care how much evidence there is that the accused did the deed and that the deed was contrary to law, we feel sorry for the accused so we won't prosecute them.".

What would you do if you were the Prosecutor and the case involved a noted drunken wife beater who had been shot six times in his own kitchen and whose son kept on repeating that they, not their mother, had shot their father (when you knew damn well that the boy was lying and that his mother had actually done the shooting) - [NOTE - This was in the days before "battered spouse" was even thought of as a defence.]? Remember, what you have is a clear cut case of deliberate killing (and premeditated after the first couple of rounds from the bolt action rifle that was used to do the shooting). How far would you reduce the charges in the hopes that the son would stop shielding their mother and allow her to admit guilt?

PS - Reducing the charges didn't work and the prosecution was forced into trying the son for the killing, but did so by charging with the least severe offence that was applicable (and the son got the shortest available sentence [and was released on parole in the minimum time possible]).​

When Gummy said that "the prosecution is supposed to seek justice" and the ABA says more, that it must be within the bounds of the law, while reminding us that the prosecutors duty is "not merely to convict" I think it clear: "Justice", lawfully delivered, is the goal...not just hunting for scalps. And a part of that delivery of justice is not pursuing criminal charges in warranted circumstances, and obviously the most basic of warranted circumstance is defer charges of the lawfully innocent, on a bogus basis in law, for political purposes. That's not justice.

You see, under our system of justice (including others originally born in the British legal system) the prosecution is also an officer of the court, carrying the ministerial responsibility to be fair and avoid abuse of their inherent government power.

You asked me "What would you do if you were the Prosecutor (etc") and "How far would you reduce the charges in the hopes that the son would stop shielding their mother and allow her to admit guilt?" I am unsure of the point of your question in this context. If being a battered wife is not a legal defense, if the son wished to cut a deal, if I was sure the mother did it and not the son, then yes...I'd prosecute and cut an immunity deal with son.

And if the mother was found guilty, and the battered wife syndrome was a factor in my mind, I'd be the first to suggest a lenient sentence...perhaps very lenient.

Before exploring this thought experiment any further, let's note that this is NOT analogous to that of Kim Potter. None are saying she should never have been prosecuted because she's a great person, or a mother. What many of us have said is that she shouldn't have been prosecuted because she is innocent, she did not break the law AND the prosecutor knew that to be damn well true.

There isn't any doubt on this because under Minnesota law, she was not consciously disregarding the risk of using a gun because she didn't know she was holding a gun. An honest mistake is not a crime, and it is an "excuse" under criminal law.

The prosecutors knew this, so much so they didn't even claim she had knowledge of what she was holding. They didn't even try to call a rebuttal expert on slip and capture. Rather, they abused the law by lying about it, over and over.

They didn't give fecal dropping about justice within the bounds of the law.

 

[coyote505]

Whatever the technical legalities of a case, there is, and I think ought to be, a thing called prosecutorial discretion, where following the letter of the law would lead to manifest injustice. Example: In a small town lived a very old and very poor man whose only enjoyments in life were his shade tree and his dog. In the neighborhood lived a punk, who liked to abuse the old man. One day he told the old man "tomorrow I'm going to chop down your tree and shoot your dog". The next day, as he approached the old man's house, the old man shot him dead. The law would say that imminence of the threat had not been shown and the old man was guilty of at least some degree of murder. The police gave the offense report to the D.A., who put it under a stack of more pressing matters. There it stayed for several years, until the old man died of old age, without ever spending a night in jail. Then it got the attention it deserved and was closed.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

When Gummy said that "the prosecution is supposed to seek justice" and the ABA says more, that it must be within the bounds of the law, while reminding us that the prosecutors duty is "not merely to convict" I think it clear: "Justice", lawfully delivered, is the goal...not just hunting for scalps. And a part of that delivery of justice is not pursuing criminal charges in warranted circumstances, and obviously the most basic of warranted circumstance is defer charges of the lawfully innocent, on a bogus basis in law, for political purposes. That's not justice.

You see, under our system of justice (including others originally born in the British legal system) the prosecution is also an officer of the court, carrying the ministerial responsibility to be fair and avoid abuse of their inherent government power.

The key is the "abuse of their inherent government power" bit. The courts do NOT "deliver justice" at the conviction stage - but may well do so at the sentencing stage.

You asked me "What would you do if you were the Prosecutor (etc") and "How far would you reduce the charges in the hopes that the son would stop shielding their mother and allow her to admit guilt?" I am unsure of the point of your question in this context. If being a battered wife is not a legal defense, if the son wished to cut a deal, if I was sure the mother did it and not the son, then yes...I'd prosecute and cut an immunity deal with son.

The "deal" that the son was prepared to "cut" was that his mother NOT be charged with anything. The son was prepared to go on the stand and swear under oath that it was he and not his mother who had shot his father. So, who are you going to prosecute [1] the mother - where you know that she is going to get acquitted because of her son's testimony, or [2] the son - who you know is not guilty but who is having absolutely no difficulty in publicly stating that he was the one who shot his father, or [3] who?

And if the mother was found guilty, and the battered wife syndrome was a factor in my mind, I'd be the first to suggest a lenient sentence...perhaps very lenient.

You aren't going to get a conviction when there is a defence witness who swears under oath that it was they, and not the accused, who did the deed - are you?

Before exploring this thought experiment any further, let's note that this is NOT analogous to that of Kim Potter. None are saying she should never have been prosecuted because she's a great person, or a mother. What many of us have said is that she shouldn't have been prosecuted because she is innocent, she did not break the law AND the prosecutor knew that to be damn well true.

Not quite. You feel that she didn't break the law and you feel that even if she did break the law then she shouldn't be prosecuted because she was in a tense situation and only doing her job. However the trier of fact, after considering ALL of the evidence, concluded that she DID break the law.

There isn't any doubt on this because under Minnesota law, she was not consciously disregarding the risk of using a gun because she didn't know she was holding a gun. An honest mistake is not a crime, and it is an "excuse" under criminal law.

The jury concluded that her statement that she was not holding a gun was false, that her statement that she didn't know that she was holding a gun was not credible, and that any reasonable person would have been able to tell the difference between her taser and her service pistol.

In short, she got tripped up on the "or ought reasonably to have known" bit of the law.

The prosecutors knew this, so much so they didn't even claim she had knowledge of what she was holding. They didn't even try to call a rebuttal expert on slip and capture. Rather, they abused the law by lying about it, over and over.

They didn't give fecal dropping about justice within the bounds of the law.

I quite agree that some people will simply make up whatever it is that they think will support your position - your last four sentences prove that very nicely.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

wrote

"Whatever the technical legalities of a case, there is, and I think ought to be, a thing called prosecutorial discretion, where following the letter of the law would lead to manifest injustice. Example: In a small town lived a very old and very poor man whose only enjoyments in life were his shade tree and his dog. In the neighborhood lived a punk, who liked to abuse the old man. One day he told the old man "tomorrow I'm going to chop down your tree and shoot your dog". The next day, as he approached the old man's house, the old man shot him dead. The law would say that imminence of the threat had not been shown and the old man was guilty of at least some degree of murder. The police gave the offense report to the D.A., who put it under a stack of more pressing matters. There it stayed for several years, until the old man died of old age, without ever spending a night in jail. Then it got the attention it deserved and was closed."

What he didn't write is the

Several years afterwards, when the "punk's" parents died his effects were examined and a diary found. The last entry in that diary was "Yesterday, I was a real jerk and I finally realized that I had been being a real jerk most of my life. The only thing for me to do is to go over to old man _[fill in the blank]_'s house tomorrow and apologize to him for the crappy things I said to him. Maybe there is something that I can do to help him out and make his life better.".

The DA never said a word about the fact that they had deliberately allowed a murderer to escape prosecution.
​

part.

 

[coyote505]

"Whatever the technical legalities of a case, there is, and I think ought to be, a thing called prosecutorial discretion, where following the letter of the law would lead to manifest injustice. Example: In a small town lived a very old and very poor man whose only enjoyments in life were his shade tree and his dog. In the neighborhood lived a punk, who liked to abuse the old man. One day he told the old man "tomorrow I'm going to chop down your tree and shoot your dog". The next day, as he approached the old man's house, the old man shot him dead. The law would say that imminence of the threat had not been shown and the old man was guilty of at least some degree of murder. The police gave the offense report to the D.A., who put it under a stack of more pressing matters. There it stayed for several years, until the old man died of old age, without ever spending a night in jail. Then it got the attention it deserved and was closed."

What he didn't write is the

​

Several years afterwards, when the "punk's" parents died his effects were examined and a diary found. The last entry in that diary was "Yesterday, I was a real jerk and I finally realized that I had been being a real jerk most of my life. The only thing for me to do is to go over to old man _[fill in the blank]_'s house tomorrow and apologize to him for the crappy things I said to him. Maybe there is something that I can do to help him out and make his life better.".​

​

The DA never said a word about the fact that they had deliberately allowed a murderer to escape prosecution.​

​

part.

This sounds like conjecture, where I had not named the town and the case was not notorious. I got my information from a local lawyer in that town, where it was common knowledge and uncontroversial. In other words, the DA had read his constituency well. Even if your assumptions were all true, they would not have been known to the old man, who acted on the facts knowable to him. What "justice" would have been served by arresting him?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

This sounds like conjecture, where I had not named the town and the case was not notorious. I got my information from a local lawyer in that town, where it was common knowledge and uncontroversial. In other words, the DA had read his constituency well. Even if your assumptions were all true, they would not have been known to the old man, who acted on the facts knowable to him. What "justice" would have been served by arresting him?

The fact that he killed an innocent person would have been recognized and the "punk's" family would have had some closure rather than knowing that, in that town, people of their station were LESS than some others in the eyes of the law.

However, feel free to enjoy living in your "pro-vigilante world" where lynching is "common knowledge and uncontroversial".

PS - Why do I have the feeling that the "poor old man" was "White" and the "punk" wasn't?

 

[coyote505]

The fact that he killed an innocent person would have been recognized and the "punk's" family would have had some closure rather than knowing that, in that town, people of their station were LESS than some others in the eyes of the law.

However, feel free to enjoy living in your "pro-vigilante world" where lynching is "common knowledge and uncontroversial".

PS - Why do I have the feeling that the "poor old man" was "White" and the "punk" wasn't?

More conjecture on your part. I note you don't deny that your last post was. Given the racial makeup of that town, it is highly unlikely that the punk was Black. Ethnicity, to the best of my knowledge, was not a factor in that case (both parties same).

 

[maxparrish]

The key is the "abuse of their inherent government power" bit. The courts do NOT "deliver justice" at the conviction stage - but may well do so at the sentencing stage.

....

Not quite. You feel that she didn't break the law and you feel that even if she did break the law then she shouldn't be prosecuted because she was in a tense situation and only doing her job. However the trier of fact, after considering ALL of the evidence, concluded that she DID break the law.

The jury concluded that her statement that she was not holding a gun was false, that her statement that she didn't know that she was holding a gun was not credible, and that any reasonable person would have been able to tell the difference between her taser and her service pistol.

In short, she got tripped up on the "or ought reasonably to have known" bit of the law.

I quite agree that some people will simply make up whatever it is that they think will support your position - your last four sentences prove that very nicely.

Understandably, you are unfamiliar with American and Minnesota law so, so it's not surprising you are making uninformed and erroneous assumptions.

First, I am unable to make sense of "courts do not 'deliver justice' (etc.)." The goal of the prosecution is to seek justice, within the bounds of the law. Therefore, it is the duty of the prosecution to try to deliver justice, not to just hunt for scalps. And a part of that OBVIOUSLY is not pursuing charges and convictions in "appropriate circumstances", you know, like the circumstances that if a prosecutor knows that under the law the person wouldn't be guilty, and he/she knows the prosecution is only for political or self-aggrandizement then of course you don't prosecute.

Second, it remains that under our system of justice (including others originally born in the British legal system) that the prosecution is considered an officer of the court, carrying the ministerial responsibility to be fair and avoid abuse of their inherent government power. This isn't even in dispute.

Perhaps a PowerPoint slide will be to your benefit: https://pacga.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/2021-Fundamentals-Prosecutors-Role-and-Success.pdf#:~:text=In the 1967 United States Supreme Court case,make sure they do not convict the innocent.



Third, I don't "feel" that she didn't break the law" I THINK and I know she didn't. Unlike you I have read Minnesota manslaughter laws and reviewed the relevant case laws, most of important of which is Frost vs. State (1983) and State vs. Engle (2008). And if she had broken it, she should have been prosecuted because that's that. Whatever compassion she is due would then be in a lenient or very lenient sentencing.

Four, "the trier of fact" jury decided they should mostly be the "finder of the law" (which is the duty of the trial judge to supply) and, intentionally or otherwise, they remained obtuse and illiterate on the meanings in their instructions. As the juror interview showed, they endlessly argued semantics whose meaning eluded them. Moreover, the jury did NOT conclude that her statement that she didn't know she was holding a gun was false, in fact the juror interviewed claimed they thought her mistake honest (which means she is not guilty).

Five, even had they concluded that any "reasonable person" should have known the difference in that situation it is irrelevant. Should have known (see below) does not meet the benchmark of guilt. If, as the juror said, they concluded it was a simple mistake...which adds to impossible to reconcile confused mind of the 12 jurors.

Six, there is no "to ought reasonably to have known" bit in criminal law (it is in civil law, however). It is a myth that I am sure occupied the confused minds of some jurors (aided by a dishonest closing by the prosecution). And I understand your confusion because I mentioned earlier, you haven't informed yourself on Minnesota law or general legal doctrine.

Finally, if you want to be taken seriously, I challenge you to prove I "make things up". Till then, I assume you got nothing.

 

[maxparrish]

The fact that he killed an innocent person would have been recognized and the "punk's" family would have had some closure rather than knowing that, in that town, people of their station were LESS than some others in the eyes of the law.

However, feel free to enjoy living in your "pro-vigilante world" where lynching is "common knowledge and uncontroversial".

PS - Why do I have the feeling that the "poor old man" was "White" and the "punk" wasn't?

In other words, you just made it up.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

More conjecture on your part. I note you don't deny that your last post was.

True, but then again, you didn't supply the necessary details and you also don't deny the fact that "the punk's" family was not accorded closure. Had it been a case of a legitimate killing, they would have known that. Had it not been a case of a legitimate killing, they would have known that as well.

Given the racial makeup of that town, it is highly unlikely that the punk was Black.

And who is it that is complaining about "supposition"?

Ethnicity, to the best of my knowledge, was not a factor in that case (both parties same).

In short, you don't know. In fact you don't even know if your story is true.