Kim Potter trial...any predictions? No LL, not after the verdict.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

But how do you REALLY feel about people of color Jackie?

No need to answer. We all know.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHS

Wrong. You are confusing people of color with sorry ass piece of shit criminals.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Wrong. You are confusing people of color with sorry ass piece of shit criminals.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

But how do you REALLY feel about people of color Jackie?

No need to answer. We all know.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHS

But how do you REALLY feel about people of color ILLEGALLY flooding the border, YR?

how are you going to explain to the younger members of the YR clan why they can't have nice things?

YR jr .- Dad, why can't we have nice things?

YR - because we needed to ruin America with massive illegal immigration, son

YR jr - if you say so


BAHHAHHAAAHHHHAAAAAA

[NoirMan]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

There is the possibility that if she had intentionally drawn her firearm and shot the person trying to flee that she would have been justified.

The instant she screamed “tazar” but instead pulled the trigger on a pistol changed everything.

Did her partner, who was half way in the car when Dante Wright tried to flee testify? It would be interesting to hear his take on what happened.

Appears that Sgt Johnson testified and did not say he felt he was in danger.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by NoirMan

Appears that Sgt Johnson testified and did not say he felt he was in danger.

It "appears", that you just got another one wrong! I thought to myself, why wouldn't NM in making that statement, back it up with an article "if it were true". Maybe if it wasn't true though, you get get people to believe you anyway. Tiny apparently thinks you are brilliant.

So when I Googled "Sgt. Johnson's testimony", I got this headline from CNN, no right wing media to be so easily dismissed and court video of Johnson testifying. I never heard the words that you posted. As a matter of fact, he testified that "he could have been dragged and injured and that Potter was justified under the law". How did you get this so wrong?

Funny how you got all that wrong.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/us/ki...day/index.html

Kim Potter's former supervisor says she had the right to use deadly force against Daunte Wright


A former supervisor testified Friday in Kim Potter's manslaughter trial that the then-officer had the right to use deadly force to prevent Daunte Wright from driving away and harming him in the process.

Mychal Johnson, a former Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, police sergeant, testified that he arrived at the scene as reinforcement after officer Anthony Luckey, a trainee working with Potter at the time, had stopped Wright.


During the traffic stop in April, officers learned he had an outstanding warrant and tried to arrest Wright, at which point, Wright got back into the car.
Johnson testified that when he saw Luckey struggling with Wright, he opened the door on the passenger's side of Wright's car to make sure he couldn't drive off. He testified that he was leaning into the car, holding onto Wright's arm believing that Luckey or Potter would grab the other arm to handcuff him.


Instead, Johnson testified that he heard Potter, 49, say "Taser, Taser," and that he then let go of Wright's arm because he didn't want to be caught between the probes of the Taser.
As the 20-year-old started to drive off, and as Johnson backed out of the car, Potter fired her gun. Potter claims she mistook her gun for a Taser when she killed Wright.
Jurors watched a composite video from Luckey's dashcam and Johnson's bodycam and heard the sound of Wright's car crashing as it crossed into oncoming traffic
.
In cross-examination, Johnson agreed that Potter had a right to use deadly force to prevent death or bodily harm, which he could have suffered if Wright had taken off with Johnson still inside the vehicle.



"So basically, based on these videos and the conduct of Daunte Wright, as far as you're concerned -- and you were there -- Kimberly Potter would have had a right to use a firearm, right?" defense attorney Earl Gray asked.


"Yes," Johnson answered.



Gray asked Johnson what would have happened to him if Wright had taken off with him still in the car.


"Probably dragged," Johnson answered.


"Dragged and what," Gray asked.


"Injured."


"Seriously injured, maybe even dead, right?" Gray said.



Johnson agreed.


"And if that were the case, when an officer in your position with Officer Potter trying to stop him from resisting with you and resisting Luckey, would it be fair for that officer to use a firearm to stop him?" Gray asked.


"By state statute, yes," Johnson replied.

If I've gotten this wrong, please explain and I'll admit I made a mistake. If you made a mistake, I would expect an apology for misleading ( if that was a mistake on your part ) information.
What was it you said about me being the only one that would believe that and yet you just volunteered, although wrongly that someone asked the Sgt. indicating that somebody, as a matter of fact "everybody" worth their salt, understood from the get go that the prosecution would have to bring up and possibly shoot down a possible "justifiable shooting", defense. Any good attorney would.

[NoirMan]

Yes. You are wrong. Given a hypothetical (which Johndon was given on cross), he agreed that force could be used in those hypothetical situations (which was a hypothetical because it wasn’t the same situation they were in at the time of the use of force). You see that’s how hypotheticals work. You provide additional or nonestablished scenarios to shape the facts to get a specific response which differs from the actual or proven facts.

Johnson did not testify that he (or the other officer at the scene) was in danger at the time that Potter used deadly force, which is EXACTLY what I typed.

I hope now you can see that they are 2 totally different things. Generally when a question starts with “if X had been the case, then “ it’s a hypothetical. Not a recitation of a fact that’s occurred. Interestingly what Johnson did testify to was he moved because he might have been injured by Potters taser. So it’s pretty clear that was something he recognized as a danger to him but being somehow dragged by the car didn’t appear to be his concern.

I will, however, give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren’t intentionally trying to mislead and that you simply misunderstood the use of hypothetical examples to elicit testimony favorable to the defendant on cross-examination.

Were Johnson or the other officer in danger, the attorney could have easily asked “isn’t it true that you were in danger of great bodily injury when Potter fired?” A yes response would have provided ample proof of justification. But that’s not what happened. Instead some examples were thrown out there hypothetically of times Potter might have been justified which differed from the actual situation.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by NoirMan

Yes. You are wrong.

Did you hear all of the testimony?

You and WTFDoesHeKnow can share this one!



One does not have to believe another is in danger unless that person who doesn't believe is the one who uses deadly force. The person using deadly force is the one who is required to perceive the threat to themselves or a third-person the person is attempting to protect from the danger. And BTW it's a subjective standard relying on the reasonable belief of the person using deadly force. It is not an objective standard of a third-party and clearly not from the point of view of an anonymous loudmouth posting on Eccie.

Check Sports Illustrated!

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Wrong. You are confusing people of color with sorry ass piece of shit criminals.

Wrong. You are confusing “people of color” with PEOPLE.

You and your pals seem to think there’s a difference, and manage to work it into the conversation every way you can.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by NoirMan

Yes. You are wrong. Given a hypothetical (which Johndon was given on cross), he agreed that force could be used in those hypothetical situations (which was a hypothetical because it wasn’t the same situation they were in at the time of the use of force). You see that’s how hypotheticals work. You provide additional or nonestablished scenarios to shape the facts to get a specific response which differs from the actual or proven facts.

Johnson did not testify that he (or the other officer at the scene) was in danger at the time that Potter used deadly force, which is EXACTLY what I typed.

I hope now you can see that they are 2 totally different things. Generally when a question starts with “if X had been the case, then “ it’s a hypothetical. Not a recitation of a fact that’s occurred. Interestingly what Johnson did testify to was he moved because he might have been injured by Potters taser. So it’s pretty clear that was something he recognized as a danger to him but being somehow dragged by the car didn’t appear to be his concern.

I will, however, give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren’t intentionally trying to mislead and that you simply misunderstood the use of hypothetical examples to elicit testimony favorable to the defendant on cross-examination.

Were Johnson or the other officer in danger, the attorney could have easily asked “isn’t it true that you were in danger of great bodily injury when Potter fired?” A yes response would have provided ample proof of justification. But that’s not what happened. Instead some examples were thrown out there hypothetically of times Potter might have been justified which differed from the actual situation.

To bad you didn't understand that when I first brought up "justification", it was a hypothetical.


So you are admitting that if no taser had been used and Potter merely shot the guy because she feared for the life of her partner, she could be acquitted under current law.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Did you hear all of the testimony?


One does not have to believe another is in danger unless that person who doesn't believe is the one who uses deadly force. The person using deadly force is the one who is required to perceive the threat to themselves or a third-person the person is attempting to protect from the danger. And BTW it's a subjective standard relying on the reasonable belief of the person using deadly force. It is not an objective standard of a third-party and clearly not from the point of view of an anonymous loudmouth posting on Eccie.

You would think NoirMan would know that!

[NoirMan]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

You would think NoirMan would know that!

You think that repeating or basing anything on the idiocy that comes from LL is folly. Just because he agrees with you does not make his statements any less idiotic and you might want to take that into consideration when agreeing with him.

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

To bad you didn't understand that when I first brought up "justification", it was a hypothetical.


So you are admitting that if no taser had been used and Potter merely shot the guy because she feared for the life of her partner, she could be acquitted under current law.

No, not all, since that is not even what was said by Johnson. Read again what was asked and what he said in response. "If Wright had taken off in the car" and "If that were the case . . would it be fair for the officer to use a firearm". See, that is how IF works, you create new sets of facts, and in these the car would have had to have been moving.

So, here we go, just for you, If the car had been moving and Johnson was being dragged or was about to be dragged, she could have fired. Whether he turned out to be injured or not. Your initial statement was a diatribe on what i wrote in response to the question of whether Johnson testified and whether it would be interesting to hear his take, which I responded, he did testify and said he did not express he was in danger.

That said, you went on to explain that there was a possible justification for the shooting, which i explain was in response to a hypothetical. Both of which are not the facts of this case and hence, she was not justified in using her sidearm. This isn't that complicated. And I wont retype my full explanation from above. but the facts of this case did not make justification a valid defense. Even the persons that she might have thought were in danger did not express they were in danger.

So, where is that apology, I am sure I will be waiting.

[NoirMan]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

If I've gotten this wrong, please explain and I'll admit I made a mistake. If you made a mistake, I would expect an apology for misleading ( if that was a mistake on your part ) information.

I proved you wrong yet you are now trying say you were not in fact saying what you meant. It’s fine though. I’ve come to expect this from you.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by NoirMan

You think that repeating or basing anything on the idiocy that comes from LL is folly. Just because he agrees with you does not make his statements any less idiotic and you might want to take that into consideration when agreeing with him.



No, not all, since that is not even what was said by Johnson. Read again what was asked and what he said in response. "If Wright had taken off in the car" and "If that were the case . . would it be fair for the officer to use a firearm". See, that is how IF works, you create new sets of facts, and in these the car would have had to have been moving.

So, here we go, just for you, If the car had been moving and Johnson was being dragged or was about to be dragged, she could have fired. Whether he turned out to be injured or not. Your initial statement was a diatribe on what i wrote in response to the question of whether Johnson testified and whether it would be interesting to hear his take, which I responded, he did testify and said he did not express he was in danger.

That said, you went on to explain that there was a possible justification for the shooting, which i explain was in response to a hypothetical. Both of which are not the facts of this case and hence, she was not justified in using her sidearm. This isn't that complicated. And I wont retype my full explanation from above. but the facts of this case did not make justification a valid defense. Even the persons that she might have thought were in danger did not express they were in danger.

So, where is that apology, I am sure I will be waiting.

You can stop waiting, it ain't coming.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by NoirMan

You think that repeating or basing anything on the idiocy that comes from LL is folly. Just because he agrees with you does not make his statements any less idiotic and you might want to take that into consideration when agreeing with him.



No, not all, since that is not even what was said by Johnson. Read again what was asked and what he said in response. "If Wright had taken off in the car" and "If that were the case . . would it be fair for the officer to use a firearm". See, that is how IF works, you create new sets of facts, and in these the car would have had to have been moving.



Oh, so he would have to have been injured for it to be a defense. Is that the same as waiting till a perp shots your partner before you can take out the perp? You shoot to prevent the perp from dragging your partner not wait to see if he successfully pulls away with your partner being dragged. And YES, Johnson did indicate from the video I showed and that you offered no video evidence of what you said, that IF the perp had pulled away, he most likely would have been injured.


So, here we go, just for you, If the car had been moving and Johnson was being dragged or was about to be dragged, she could have fired. Whether he turned out to be injured or not. Your initial statement was a diatribe on what i wrote in response to the question of whether Johnson testified and whether it would be interesting to hear his take, which I responded, he did testify and said he did not express he was in danger.

That said, you went on to explain that there was a possible justification for the shooting, which i explain was in response to a hypothetical. Both of which are not the facts of this case and hence, she was not justified in using her sidearm. This isn't that complicated. And I wont retype my full explanation from above. but the facts of this case did not make justification a valid defense. Even the persons that she might have thought were in danger did not express they were in danger.

So, where is that apology, I am sure I will be waiting.

Which I acknowledged when I said "if" the whole taser incident wasn't the case but it was.


You said "nobody" but HF was interested in the "defense of others" defense and yet the prosecutor felt the need to bring it up and every lawyer in the country brought it up if only to say that it would not "over-ride" the taser incident which I agreed with from the beginning.



All I ever said, was that any defense attorney worth their salt ( we can scratch you from the list apparently ) would put this in the minds of the jury. At no time did I ever say or think, that "this defense" would over ride the fact that the officer made an egregious mistake that simply could not be over looked.


Oh! and yeah, I said from the very first post and in each continuing post, that she should get some time but that being "inconvenient" for your argument, you simply ignored the facts.


You made an argument using words I never said and failed to acknowledge what I did say which makes you a coward in my book. You are very much like 1BM1 and every day you post on this board, you lie to us about who you are. Every time you post, you lie.


Deny that!

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by NoirMan

I proved you wrong yet you are now trying say you were not in fact saying what you meant. It’s fine though. I’ve come to expect this from you.

I'm saying exactly what I meant and you do not get the last word on what I "meant", I do.


Thankfully, your expectations of me mean absolutely nothing to me but of course you are allowed to lie, like you do every time you post. This is America after all..... if we can keep it with people like you fighting to tear it down.