Criminally, the officer's "state of mind" is a non-starter. What's the angle there? "Your honor, my client was so shaken by the knowledge of the suspects record/warrant it clearly explains their accidental use of a pistol in place of a taser."? Civil is another story, but we're largely not talking about that yet. Criminally, what the defendant could (and likely will) argue is that whatever knowledge the defendant had about the suspect's record (which is unclear save for the warrant related to fleeing police and possession of a weapon without a permit) justified use of deadly force, and so even though the officer mistakenly discharged their pistol instead of their taser, the officer would have been justified in using the pistol had she so chosen. It's not a really strong argument, but it's probably all they have.
I've been hearing some discussion locally that this might not even get to a trial. Potter might plea to a 2nd degree manslaughter charge with reduced time in case the state adds a 3rd degree murder charge. Because the judge in the Chauvin case allowed that to be added and the conviction of Mohammed Noor shows that such a charge not only could be added but a conviction is very possible.
Not only did she pick the wrong weapon, her weapon barrel crossed paths with her colleagues like 4 or 5 separate times. Yikes.
Yes, but they are not robots and if a woman is attacked by a man (with warrants who doesn't want to go to prison - highly dangerous situation), then you'll have to excuse her for not thinking as clearly as normal.
It's important to note that we are in fact discussing a woman -- she could have been menstruating, suffering hysteria or worried if she would have time to prepare a proper dinner.
She was not fighting Wright. And no other officers on the scene drew their weapons. So what you are saying is she panicked.
i think his prior history was relevant in this particular situation. if the cops knew that he not only had a warrant out for his arrest, but that he had been charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and that he was known to carry a gun (in violation of his parole) then deadly force would be warranted. he broke free of the officer while they were trying to cuff him, jumped back in his car and could have been going for a gun. like i said a few times already though, her claim that she thought she had a taser totally ruins her ability to make that argument.
This is the first I'm hearing of this and will have to see details. My understanding though is that there already is an unarmed traffic division. These are more derisively known as "meter maids" and don't drive squad cars but white crossovers.
Except if they considered Wright to be such a threat why did Potter allow an inexperienced LEO try to cuff him next to the open door of his car? Potter was the ranking officer and this just adds to that she behaved with gross negligence.
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/File/5151/Unarmed Traffic Safety Division Staff Direction.pdf https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/File/3168/2020 Budget Adoption Summary of Amendment and Directives.pdf
i did wonder why they were cuffing him right next to his door like that. bad mistake on their part and very well might be against their training...if it isnt, it should be. ive been asked to step out of my car by cops a couple times and in both instances they made me stand either behind or infront of my car. i had a cop searching my car and he not only had me stand infront of my car, but made me turn around while he searched. i wasnt even allowed to watch him search and i remember when i turned around just to watch him go through my car he stopped searching and told me to face the other direction.