When she announced Taser, it showed no mens re (criminal intent) on her part.
It appears to be a training failure, officers must carry the taser in location where the muscle memory is developed with enough repetitions that cannot be confused with the draw for the duty fire.
Like you, I could argue this several different ways. One thing on which we agree 100% is that I was very sorry to see an otherwise distinguished and successful career end in this fashion. I remember arguing that had her partner been standing in front of the vehicle rather than on the side of it, she likely would/could have been justified in her use of deadly force. Even if she had somehow argued justification of deadly force, the bodycam recording of her admitting her mistake and responding emotionally to it would have destroyed that argument as she knew in the moment she had acted wrongly. I try to see it from the civilian standpoint and say to myself, “The police are the state/county/city government and the government has no right to make a mistake which costs my/my loved ones life.” To see her as an individual invokes one reaction but to see her as a gov representative invokes a separate reaction. The state provided her training specifically to avoid that mistake, even under pressure, and yet she still made the mistake and cost someone his life when his actions did not warrant that. His actions DID warrant less lethal force, but did not warrant lethal force and her negligence thusly directly cost a life. And then we factor in degrees of negligence. Was this as negligent as the Texas officer who went home to the wrong apartment and killed Botham Jean in his own apartment? Not even close!! THAT was sheer stupidity. But this was still negligence which had been addressed in training and should have been avoided and which ultimately cost a life. Just another lens through which to view the incident. As I stated, I could argue it many different ways just like you. Great analysis as usual!! Fascinating read.
Very good and timely article. If I remember correctly, a police use of force expert testified during the trial that the event had escalated to a deadly force scenario, according to Brooklyn Center department policy. Based on the jeopardy to the passenger and Potter's recruit, Potter would have been justified in using her firearm anyway. There was just so much noise about air fresheners and the Chauvin trial that she didn't stand a chance in Ellison's machine.
When she announced Taser, it showed no mens re (criminal intent) on her part.
It appears to be a training failure, officers must carry the taser in location where the muscle memory is developed with enough repetitions that cannot be confused with the draw for the duty fire.
Like you, I could argue this several different ways. One thing on which we agree 100% is that I was very sorry to see an otherwise distinguished and successful career end in this fashion. I remember arguing that had her partner been standing in front of the vehicle rather than on the side of it, she likely would/could have been justified in her use of deadly force. Even if she had somehow argued justification of deadly force, the bodycam recording of her admitting her mistake and responding emotionally to it would have destroyed that argument as she knew in the moment she had acted wrongly. I try to see it from the civilian standpoint and say to myself, “The police are the state/county/city government and the government has no right to make a mistake which costs my/my loved ones life.” To see her as an individual invokes one reaction but to see her as a gov representative invokes a separate reaction. The state provided her training specifically to avoid that mistake, even under pressure, and yet she still made the mistake and cost someone his life when his actions did not warrant that. His actions DID warrant less lethal force, but did not warrant lethal force and her negligence thusly directly cost a life. And then we factor in degrees of negligence. Was this as negligent as the Texas officer who went home to the wrong apartment and killed Botham Jean in his own apartment? Not even close!! THAT was sheer stupidity. But this was still negligence which had been addressed in training and should have been avoided and which ultimately cost a life. Just another lens through which to view the incident. As I stated, I could argue it many different ways just like you. Great analysis as usual!! Fascinating read.
Very good and timely article. If I remember correctly, a police use of force expert testified during the trial that the event had escalated to a deadly force scenario, according to Brooklyn Center department policy. Based on the jeopardy to the passenger and Potter's recruit, Potter would have been justified in using her firearm anyway. There was just so much noise about air fresheners and the Chauvin trial that she didn't stand a chance in Ellison's machine.