Kim Potter killed a man. She meant to tase him, but shot him instead.
For that mistake, she lost more than her job; she’s going to prison, even though the jury concluded she was “a good person” and “a good cop” who made “an innocent mistake.”
A juror who spoke with the press said they initially believed Potter “was guilty on both counts immediately after closing arguments.” But when they looked “deeper at the law,” several began having doubts.
It’s clear they struggled with the letter of the law; the juror said “at that point we were just arguing semantics and kind of in circles. … Those last couple days were literally just focusing in on the language of the law.”
“Potter’s experience as a police officer came into play” during their deliberations, the juror indicated. “No one felt she was intentional in this. … 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.”
That is the essence of their verdict: A mistake, even by “a good cop,” doesn’t shield those who wear the badge, and exercise the power of life and death on behalf of society when enforcing its laws, from criminal responsibility for a deadly mistake.
Apart from the obvious fact this will depend on the jury — in which case, Potter may just be unlucky — I don’t think for this jury there was a line she crossed. Rather, she was too far out on the spectrum.
“A big turning point for the jury was when they had the opportunity to hold Potter’s gun and her Taser to feel the differences between them … the gun is about twice as heavy … and it’s unholstered and fired differently …. ‘The taser kind of feels like a mouse click whereas the trigger has some trigger draw weight. That was a key turning point,’ the juror said.” In other words, they decided it wasn’t just a mistake, but an inexcusable one.
It appears this was the main issue they wrestled with.
Which, of course, implies there are excusable mistakes. I would guess that a given mistake is less excusable if it results in death instead of injury. An unanswered question is whether the circumstance of a white cop shooting a black person also makes it less excusable; today’s juries may be sensitive to the potential public reaction in such cases.
A commentary I saw elsewhere (no link, because I don’t remember where I saw it) suggested that juries today are less willing to cut police slack. Which is to say, they’re more willing to hold them accountable. .
Philosophically, it’s easy to feel bad for Potter, but it’s probably a good thing that the legal system is increasing pressure on cops to do their jobs right. If the message of this verdict is you can’t walk away from a screw up of this magnitude, that’s probably a good thing. Police are in a unique category; they’re given the power of life and death over citizens. It’s not entirely wrong for society, speaking through jurors, to insist on that power being exercised with extreme care.
Read story here.
Photo: Kim Potter comforted by her lawyers as the guilty verdict is read
There maybe some problems with Minnesota’s manslaughter statutes. They are unique. In fact there are few other states where Potter would have been charged with manslaughter. Or if found guilty on Manslaughter one there is no need for the jury to deliberate on any lower charges as they are incorporated in the statute and the defendant by definition is guilty of the lesser charges. These are the same manslaughter charges Chauvin was charged with and found guilty, but again only in Minnesota.
The question the judge may have fudged and the jury ignored was whether the force applied was appropriate. This will appear in the appeal if she can afford the appeal as it is unknown if the police union will pony up. If deadly force was justified then whether she meant to use the teaser is not relevant. Officers involved stated that she would have been justified if she had pulled her sidearm and shot the suspect.
So an officer runs over a child because the child runs in front of their police vehicle with it lights and siren on and the officer hits the child and the child dies. This would be a mistake, and in most jurisdictions the cop would not be charged, they may be fired, but probably not, but in Minnesota they are going to prison.
This prosecution is a travesty. It will have unintended consequences. Hopefully defendant will succeed on appeal.
Actual legal analyses in appellate courts aren’t so shallow or flippant as your comment. Potter may get her conviction overturned on appeal, or may not; that depends on the nuances of Minnesota law. I’m a Washington lawyer, and don’t feel competent to comment on that, so surely you are not the expert. Your comment is pure, uninformed speculation. The gist of this case is that criminal liability can be imposed for reckless carelessness that results in injury or death. That’s well established in general law; an intention to do harm isn’t required, otherwise involuntary manslaughter statutes — which every state has — wouldn’t exist. The facts of the case are that Wright had a warrant, the officers were trying to arrest him, and he attempted to drive away. That wouldn’t justify shooting him, but if he were dragging Potter and her life was in danger, that would. But these are factual issues, and it’s always up to the jury to decide what the facts are. You can sit in your computer chair and second guess the law and the jury findings, but they had the evidence in front of them, and the judge and jury know the case better than you or I do.