One shot while yelling taser taser taser

You forgot to include the Rittenhouse verdict....

.
.
The FACTS show that he was pulled over because of an existing aggravated robbery warrant. His FATHER stated it was because of the air freshener, which is reported as untrue. He had multiple criminal charges on his record. Simple to see that he was NOT an upstanding citizen. His Facebook showed him flashing gang symbols and fanning out $$$ hundreds in his hands.

The police cams showed him being cuffed outside his car, he resisted then pushed the other cop, jumped in his car and ready to speed away with the other cop hanging on. That's when Office Potter was ready to tase, but we all know the rest.

So as is the case in almost all of these 'police killings' - the cause was - a criminal - resisting arrest or fleeing - then the action of the police.

We always seem to hear the relatives say "He was such a good boy".... well.... eyes of beholder.

Personally I am ambivalent re this. Glad that I wasn't on the jury. Of course Potter shot and killed him. She was extremely repentant during the trial and her testimony. Should she have received some 'time'? Probably, but if it's the max 30 years - yikes.
.
.
.

No his tags were expired. He told his mom he was being pull over for the air freshener……

No he was pulled over because of his expired tags

Taser
 

She was on the police force for 26 years and was an instructor on use of tasers. Her actions were negligent and shouldn’t be on the force. Manslaughter is appropriate. It’s HER ACTIONS that were on trial, and not the victim’s character.

A street cop works in a war zone, some areas much much more than others, the weapons officers carry is there for the defense of their life or others, how many of the jurors have ever been presented with a possible kill or be killed situation, the sort of situation the police face every time they get involved in a routine street stop, how often have the jurors been involved in mundane situations that suddenly explode in great violence?

Studies from Johns Hopkins and others estimate that 250,000 to 440,000 people are killed each year from medical mistakes. I would guess the number of people going to jail for those mistakes could be counted on one hand.

The way I understand things, the fact that she was yelling "Taser" over and over indicated that she had determined that lethal force was not warranted. Then she shot him with a gun by mistake. Pretty clearly a screw-up which caused the death of an innocent (until proven guilty of something) USA citizen (not that that should make a difference). In most states, doing something like that gets you jail time. I suspect that she will get less than half the time she could get, but it will be years,

This will set precedence that police will back off arrests in resisting criminals and many police will be quitting. It will
embolden criminals. Now, will self defense be in jeopardy for innocent victims?

I agree it was a terrible mistake, but while I think based on the law, a conviction was the right decision, as the innocent verdict was with Rittenhouse -- in fact, what Rittenhouse did was far more egregious -- I also believe the judge should go easy on the sentence. The problem for her was that while the victim did resist arrest, he never in any way threatened the lives of the officers so that use of deadly force was not required.

Just a thought.
 

[QUOTE=hypart;2042535]
Should police officers lose qualified immunity in exchange for criminal immunity?

I feel for police. They are shackled by rules of conduct that criminals are not. They are expected to deal with persons who, given the opportunity, would kill them rather than look at them. If the criminal becomes violent the police are expected to be ladies and gentlemen and treat the criminal with kid gloves. I believe that, in most cases, escalation into violence is a result of the criminal not following police orders.
Even with all their training, police officers are still human, subject to adrenaline and emotion that comes with tense and potentially deadly situations. Most of us could not handle the jobs they do. Trying to revisit a violent situation after the fact is like armchair quarterbacking a game that you never participated in.
As for criminal immunity for police, no. But I do believe that taking the difficulty of their job into consideration along with extenuating circumstances when trying an incident is essential.

.
.
Extremely well said, and I totally agree. When I was a kid, I wanted to be a policeman.
That never happened. I would hate for a relative be one nowadays. So often put in a no-win situation. Horrible.
.
.

[QUOTE=fdpaq0580;2042604]

Glad I'm not in law enforcement with criminals total disregard for the law.

Kim Potter should never have been a police officer. She had sixteen years "experience" and was an instructor for new recruits on the use of a taser and service revolver. She testified that the police should never have stop the car to begin with for a minor traffic offense because of covid exposure. I am sure there are some doctors who have gone to jail for malpractice.