DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Kim Potter found guilty in Daunte Wright shooting

What we're covering here

Judge Regina Chu denied a request by Kim Potter's defense attorney, Earl Gray, to let Potter go home before she is sentenced.

Gray told the judge that Potter is a devout Catholic, arguing:

“She has deep roots in the community, and her family’s here, and there’s no evidence that she would flee. So, we respectfully ask you to change your mind as to whether she needs to be incarcerated right now.”

Judge Chu denied the request.

"I am going to require that she be taken into custody and held without bail... I cannot treat this case any differently than any other case," she said.

Chu ordered Potter to be remanded without bail until her sentencing on Feb. 18.

Judge praises jury in Potter trial: "You did your duty"

After reading aloud the verdict in the Kim Potter trial, Hennepin County Fourth Circuit Judge Regina Chu reiterated that the 12 jury members served heroically in their duty.

The jury found Potter was guilty of first-degree manslaughter and second-degree manslaughter charges for fatally shooting Daunte Wright during a traffic-stop-turned-arrest on April 11.

"You said 'yes' even though we are in a pandemic with Omicron spreading in our community. You said 'yes' even though you had concerns about serving, given the nature of the case. You said 'yes' even though you knew you would be sequestered during deliberations and away from your loved ones. And you said 'yes' even though there was a chance that this case could have lasted past Christmas. You were willing to sacrifice much because you believed in our justice system," Chu said.

Chu said she was "proud" of the jury.

"And then you went into deliberations and each of you brought with you your common sense, individual perceptions, and life experiences, and you came to an agreement on the verdicts. You did your duty. I'm so proud of you. You should be proud of yourselves. Without civic-minded citizens like you, our system of justice could not function. Thank you for your service. Thank you for your sacrifices. I wish you all a wonderful holiday season and may the peace and beauty of the season be yours throughout the year," Chu continued.

Kim Potter found guilty on both charges

From CNN's Brad Parks

Kim Potter has been found guilty of first-degree manslaughter and second-degree manslaughter charges for fatally shooting Daunte Wright during a traffic-stop-turned-arrest on April 11, 2021.

Jurors deliberated for about 27 hours over the course of four days.

Potter, 49, had pleaded not guilty to the charges. She took the stand and testified before the jury, breaking down in tears as she recounted the shooting, eventually apologizing and insisting she "didn't want to hurt anybody." During her emotional testimony, Potter said she remembered "yelling 'Taser, Taser, Taser,' and nothing happened, and then he told me I shot him."

The maximum penalty for first-degree manslaughter predicated on reckless use/ handling of a firearm is 15 years in prison and/or a $30,000 fine. However, since Potter has no criminal history, Minnesota sentencing guidelines recommend a sentence roughly between 6 and 8.5 years in prison.

In October, prosecutors informed the court they intend to seek a more severe penalty than state guidelines call for when Potter is sentenced, claiming that she abused her position of authority and that her conduct caused "greater-than-normal danger to the safety of other people."

If Judge Chu agrees that aggravating factors were present, Potter could receive a lengthier prison sentence than the recommendations set out, but not more than the legal maximum. Under Minnesota law Potter will have to serve two-thirds of her sentence in prison. With good behavior, she will be eligible for supervised release for the other third.

Only 12 jurors were chosen to deliberate. Here's what we know about the full panel.

From CNN's Brad Parks

A "trial outcome" has been reached in the Kim Potter case.

There were 14 jurors on the panel, including two alternates, who listened to the testimony throughout the Kimberly Potter trial, but only 12 jurors deliberated.

While we wait to hear more about the outcome, here's what we know about them:

Initial questionnaire: Prospective jurors in the trial were sent a 15-page questionnaire, which asked about their knowledge of the case, media habits, impressions of Potter and Wright, Blue Lives Matter and Black Lives Matter, and if they participated in and demonstrations or marches relating to policing that took place in the Twin Cities area in the last two years.

The responses to the individual questionnaires have not been made public, but many of the jurors’ answers were discussed in open court during jury selection.

Jury selection pool: At least 453 prospective jurors were summoned for jury selection in the trial, according to Hennepin County District Court Communications Specialist Matt Lehman. Nearly 130 more prospective jurors were summoned for Potter's trial than were called earlier in the year for the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. During four days of jury selection, Hennepin County Judge Regina Chu and attorneys questioned over 30 prospective jurors.

The jurors: There are 14 jurors on the panel, including two alternates, seven men and seven women were selected. The jury is comprised of seven White men, four White women, two Asian women, and one Black woman. No Black men were selected for the jury.

Previous knowledge of the case: During jury selection, almost all of the jurors selected told the court they had heard about some aspects of Wright's death and most told the court that they had seen clips of body camera video showing the fatal shooting.

Officers' body camera and patrol car footage show what happened during the fatal traffic stop

From CNN's Carma Hassan, Amir Vera, Holly Yan and Brad Parks

Body camera and patrol car footage shown during the trial show what happened during the traffic stop where Daunte Wright was shot and killed.

In the footage, Potter can be heard saying, "I'll tase ya," before shooting Wright. "I just shot him. I grabbed the wrong f--king gun," Potter said. "I shot him. Oh my God."

"Oh my God," Potter added while crying. Potter continued to yell, "Oh my God," numerous times while lying face down on the grass, according to body camera footage.

What lead up to the shooting: Officer Anthony Luckey, the trainee officer working with Potter, testified that while they were on patrol he encountered Wright's vehicle and observed the white Buick had its right blinker on in the left turning lane. He then immediately ran the registration of the license plate, which had expired registration tabs on the plate.

Luckey also told prosecutors he saw "there was an air freshener hanging from the rearview mirror as well," which is a "common violation of the law."

When he pulled over Wright, Luckey said he noticed marijuana residue in the vehicle and smelled marijuana odor. He noted that his interaction with Wright was respectful, and he had no reason to believe he had a weapon.

When he returned to his squad car, Luckey ran Wright's information through the system, and it showed Wright had an outstanding warrant for a "gross misdemeanor weapons charge" and an "order of protection for a female."

At some point, another officer, Sgt. Mychal Johnson, arrived and Luckey told him his plan to take Wright out of the vehicle and arrest him. He then returned to Wright's vehicle and began placing him under arrest.

As Luckey struggled to put handcuffs on Wright, Potter was approaching and attempting to grab his arm. Wright was able to get away and back into the vehicle, Luckey said.

At that point, Potter pulled out her firearm and shot him – later saying she instead meant to use her Taser.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/kim-potter-trial-outcome-daunte-wright-shooting/index.html

Due Process given.
Justice served.

I feel terrible for her. It seemed pretty clear she messed up. But, she messed up and killed someone.

Guilty is guilty.

No doubt she was guilty.

I hope she gets the lighter end of things. I don't think there is any doubt she didn't intend to shoot the kid.

High stress situations sometimes produce accidents.

And she was an officer for over 25 years. Just imagine what allowing people with no experience or training in guns carrying them around could result in. Dangerous stuff.

This is yet another example of a traffic stop gone horribly wrong, resulting in another Black American's blood wetting our city streets. Ask most patrol officers which routine activity they consider most dangerous, and they'll tell you that traffic stops rank near the top of the list, right up there with domestic disturbance calls.

A busted tail light led to all this. Now one person is dead, and another person has forfeited a big chunk of her life in one of the worst ways imaginable. Which brings me to my point: in both cases (traffic stop/domestic disturbance), better options could be in place. Re: traffic stops- the issuing of vehicle violations could be handled in most cases by unarmed traffic monitors, clearly distinguishable from armed patrol officers. Clearly marked cars/uniquely-colored flashers would indicate to the driver exactly who was pulling them over and the general nature of the traffic stop.

Re: house calls- trained mental health crisis interventionists responding (with potential police support in the background) allow for the chance to defuse spousal spats, instead of armed officials with minimal training being first on the scene.

These two ideas were pitched last year after the summer of civic unrest. I can see the potential benefit of both. It's just a crying shame that this initiative was so stupidly named as 'defund the police.'

Classic case of lousy branding muddying the message.

.02

That would require a level of common sense. As a society that can not be allowed.

Weak try.

I think the fact you point out about her experience is a good point indicating that tragic accidents can happen. In law there is a term, Mens Rea. It basically means, intent or knowledge of wrongdoing.

It is pretty evident after the shooting there was no intent to shoot the man with her revolver. A elderly driver hits the gas and not the break and runs down some kid. Is that a crime or is that a tragic mistake?

I am not going to debate the facts of this case over and over. I only point this out that as people we need to remember that honest mistakes happen, and we don't need to be so eager to turn honest mistakes in to criminal actions with criminal intent.

As to Clems point, I think there could be some traction to something like that, but as he points out, traffic stops are one of the most dangerous things a officer does. That danger isn't just for the driver. It also applies to the officer.

Who here wants to volunteer for that job?

I suppose that a driver getting pulled over by the proverbial "meter maid" to get a ticket for a somewhat minor infraction might have helped to prevent this, giving the guy less incentive to try and run, as happened in this case.

I don't know.

I'm not arguing with anything you're saying, I feel like you're glossing over an important part of the story. She didn't just arbitrarily decide to use the taser. So along those lines, a solution of disarming traffic officers doesn't pass the smell test. Routine traffic stops are dangerous (for both parties).

I think your point of "this was all because of a tail light" is a good one, but speaks more towards the laws on the books vs enforcement.

I agree. Inoperative or faulty taillights has long been reason for the police to pull a car over. I think most people understand that and why operative lights are important.

In no way do I think this guy should have been shot, but his trying to get away had more to do with his death than his being pulled over in the first place.

She was training a rookie cop. Maybe she felt she had to make the pull over since she was training the person. Had the guy not had an active warrant, which she had to act on, maybe her next move in training the new cop was to simply issue a warning? I am not saying that would have happened, but it could have happened. We'll never know.

The biggest factor before this kid being shot was his trying to drive off.

Pointing out how even someone with decades of experience carrying a firearm can make a mistake is very relevant in pointing out how much easier it would be for someone inexperienced to make a mistake.


It's very interesting you should bring that up. Let me tell you something else that was very evident right after the shooting. A police officer with decades of experience lay crying on the ground saying "I'm going to prison". I'll let her statement speak in response to your question.

You were making that comment in response to a earlier comment you made. My feeling is in that situation, the one that prompted my comment, "weak attempt"...I doubt many go around with both a taser and handgun, so there would be no mistake to make.

I'd go far as to say that if someone did have both, the pulling of the taser would be the mistake.

God knows the untrained don't have a better chance of misfiring a gun or lacking the ability to aim properly which increases the odds of hitting innocent people. I really can't believe you're still trying to defend this position.

I haven't been following this story line at all.. So excuse me if i wonder how many on here think she's guilty but should be given a break on sentence?

I believe she lost focus in the heat of the moment, and the shooting was accidental. But that doesn't change the fact that she took a life. So, I wouldn't bury her under the jail, but she would still do a lot of time if I was the judge.

And it's not so much that she deserves a harsh sentence because I feel she made a mistake. And if you think about it rationally, I believe locking her up at all is harsh because it was an accident. But her badge cannot be held up as a license to kill with any sort of excuse, where she receives no reprimand or time whatsoever. She was trusted to serve and protect, she failed and took a life, that must come with time. I'd give her 10-12 years on manslaughter, and make sure she served about 7 as a minimum.

I would have give Rittenhouse 20 years. So my opinions won't matter to those that need to hear them most.

She's guilty of something. I think our legal system is wonky, though. The being guilty of different degrees of manslaughter seems weird to me. Some degree of manslaughter, reckless endangerment, criminal negligence, etc, sure, but first and second degree manslaughter seems odd. She didn't kill him twice or an additional person, unless I'm missing something. That is a possibility though, as I tend to avoid national media and am primarily going off the initial post.

I don't think she should be given a break, but she should be sentenced for what she actually did. I think 1st degree manslaughter was a reach. Was it intentional or wasn't it? It doesn't really make sense that it could be both, to me. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets knocked down on appeal. I'm not a legal scholar, though.

Thank you and OCD for something like an answer,..,.

I don't want to put words in your mouth.. But she was a trained professional with many years of experience handling guns in tense situations, yet she killed someone by accident. Not for nothing but I think this proves beyond a doubt that anything can happen when a gun is involved... Tells me that we shouldn't allow just anyone to have a gun

That's what it tells you?

What some of you don't factor is how many gun deaths at someone else's hand are accidental?

In all of the debates about gun control around here, all are talking about the murders, not suicide, and I doubt many are thinking about the accidental ones like a couple of people hunting in the woods or some 7 year old shooting his brother.

I think we have become way too Draconian in our views. Now we are punishing people for clear accidents. I am not saying this police offcer shouldn't be held accountable, but facing 12 years for a clear accident is criminal IMO. Same with the truck driver who just got 100 years or whatever for a accident.

Good God, what are we becoming?

Sometimes [censored] happens.

Accidental but negligent....



I've brought up the accident component in allowing CCW without a permit all along. The sad part in this case is that the law in this state will not allow the sentences to run concurrently. The law demands they run consecutively.

Even if they did run concurrently he would face more than 25 years for an "accident" in which he was found negligent.

I know a guy that, at 19 years of age, killed two people in a head on while drunk off his ass. He spent an initial 3 days in jail waiting for a Monday morning hearing. Then got 5 years non-reporting probation and lost his license until he was 21. He walked away without a scratch, but the judge thought living with the fact that he killed two people was punishment enough.

Maybe it was, though that seems a bit light. Drinking and driving might be a accident, but there is also a element of illegality involved.

In the case of the cop, I can't see the use of poor judgement, it was pretty clearly a accident. As you said, she is guilty of something...the charge should have been a low involuntary manslaughter, with maybe 18 months in jail...half off for behavior etc....maybe even home confinement.

I wasn't surprised by the verdict. I was surprised by the charges the DA filed. The DA got what they asked for but a part of me thinks that maybe the DA didn't want that...it that makes sense.

The problem is nobody wants to look like they are doing the police any favors in todays climate, but man, this wasn't the case to throw the book.

Three observations on this topic.

1. Those neighborhoods are safer places without the likes of Daunte Wright and George Floyd walking the streets. I say this because they both had extensive rap sheets and obviously had not been rehabilitated. For years, they kept tangling with law enforcement and eventually met their fate.

2. Those cities will have a very difficult time finding police officers who are willing to police those neighborhoods. - I think a good example is Chicago. Chicago cops don't intervene as much as they could out of self-preservation. - They've realized that criminals have been enabled by liberal politicians, so why try to help when your good intentions may lead to a jail sentence? - This is why crime, especially gang crime and murder has skyrocketed in Chicago over the last few years.

3. I can't imagine that Derrick Chauvin and Kimberly Potter are doing "hard time" in jail. I mean, I imagine their accommodations are probably hotel-like and wouldn't be surprised if they have "in/out" privileges.

Yet no other cop at the scene even brandished a weapon. Only her. And look at the consequences.

Yeah, that's a good excuse for killing someone. The jury obviously found your reasoning as willful ignorance.


Yet Chicago ranks 28th per capita in murder. Shooting an unarmed man seems to be "good intentions" in your eyes.


If that were true, which is a very far fetched theory at best, there is no justice.

Those are just my thoughts. I wonder what will happen with the civil lawsuit that has been brought against Daunte Wright's estate. He's been accused of shooting another teen in the head at a gas station. It'll be interesting to see how that turns out. He was wanted on a weapons charge and being arrested for it at the time of his killing. I wonder if this will lead to evidence. What do you think?

I have no idea. But hopefully justice will prevail as it did in the Potter case. It's you own thoughts that are so troubling in a normal society.

- Some people would say it's justice that Daunte met his fate after a lifetime of violent and noncompliant behavior. Some people would say that justice was delivered to Kim Potter for having to spend some time in jail for killing Daunte. Some people would say both maybe?

As for my take: After reviewing his criminal past, I think Daunte clearly was a dangerous individual with zero fear for the consequences of his actions. And zero respect for the laws in this country. I feel that people like him ruin it for the prisoners who would benefit from a second chance at rehabilitation and freedom. I think that because of Daunte's actions after his most recent release from prison you'll see more pressure and requests for our prosecutors and judges to keep people in prison for as long as possible and to tighten the standards for parole/probation etc. -You call this "Justice"?

And again, I think our well-intentioned police officers will be more hesitant to respond to situations that involve violent, aggressive, gun-toting criminals. - Innocent people will pay for this by becoming victims. -You call this "Justice"?

I won't get on a pedestal and determine what "Justice" looks like.

Justice would be a society and economy that would produce less of these situations.

That's about as succinct as I've ever read. I completely agree. And in my opinion, over the last 60 years in the USA, we've gotten further away from both of those components of civilization.

This is the challenge with law enforcement today.

I have to wonder about the necessity of all of these incidents. A simple traffic stop results in someone losing their life over something unrelated. I get that he had an outstanding warrant, but how many times have we heard that one before.

I feel bad for the officer, it was obviously not intentional. That will probably be considered when the sentence is determined.

I think there is something amiss with police training. There are more appropriate techniques that could be used when a person is non compliant, shoot the tires, shoot the extremity, but the center of mass shot is certainly the most lethal.

That doesn't mean anything that no other cop pulled since she was yelling out she was pulling..

After reflecting, that 19-year-old is in his early 50s now. So, this happened before the toughening of the DUI laws and the courts still treated 19-year-olds like kids. But he should have got more. My oldest grandson's Dad rolled a car in his twenties and killed the girl he was dating a week after spitting up with my daughter. I felt guilty for feeling lucky about her death, but I was happy it wasn't my daughter. He got 90 days that he served on weekends, three year suspension with work privileges, and 5 years probation yet only had to report for only two years. This was 17-18 years ago.

Not sure on the DA. But we only knew it was overcharged after hearing her and the evidence. So now, it is what it is.

Quoted because it's as true as anything I've read lately. From the Progressive POV. Not a right-wing view of society or economy, hell naw.
That's not directed at you rock, but those that like to twist words on here.

I agree with the statement as well. I also agree with "Peace, not War".

Some things sound good but are nearly impossible to achieve. Maybe even impossible when you take in to account the frailties of man.

LOL...heck, we (as in group) can't even agree on how to fix a football team. In the grand scheme, fixing a football team is pretty darn insignificant.

Yes, it tells me that even a trained professional can be involved in an accidental shooting.. As for what we are becoming? Simple,,, we are becoming a country that clearly doesn't value life.. We talk it, but we don't live it. Any country that would allow just anyone to own a gun isn't interested in safety...

So it doesn't mean anything that she was the only officer, all trained the same way, that pulled a weapon under the exact same circumstances? It doesn't mean anything that one of the main reasons given, she saw the "other officer in fear", yet even that officer didn't pull his weapon?

One officer out of the three was the only one who not only felt the need to pull a weapon, but then felt the need to use it because, well, "he might get away". Yeah, none of that mean anything. It only means Daunte Wright is dead and she had her life ruined as well.