Welcome to our coverage of the Kim Potter manslaughter trial over the April 11, 2021, shooting death of Daunte Wright in a suburb of Minneapolis, when then-police officer Potter accidentally used her Glock 17 pistol in place of her intended Taser.
I expect that today we will see the State rest its case in chief, and the defense will finally get its turn to start calling witnesses.
In this LIVE post, we’ll provide real-time live streaming and commenting on the trial proceedings throughout the day, as the State continues to present its case in chief, and the defense continues to cross-examine the State’s witnesses.
Live Stream
Live Commenting
For some more detailed background on this event and court proceedings to date, see these earlier posts:
Daunte Wright Shooting Trial Day 6: State’s Expert Say No Force Should Have Been Used
Daunte Wright Shooting Trial Day 3: Still No Apparent Evidence Of Manslaughter
Daunte Wright Shooting Trial Day 2: Prosecution Spends Entire Day On Irrelevant Sympathy Evidence
Daunte Wright Shooting Trial Day 1: Defense Scores on State Witness
Kim Potter Trial: Manslaughter Charged in “Taser! Taser! Taser!” Shooting Death of Duante Wright
Until next time:
Remember
You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill.
Know the law so you’re hard to convict.
Stay safe!
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
More bullshit from the corrupted or compromised Chu Chu train.
This expert witness actually appears to be an expert with real world expertise. Let’s see how this testimony goes.
Infinitely more credible than the last ‘expert’
Given Wright’s extensive criminal record, how can the prosecutor put all those character witnesses on the stand testifying what a great person he was and not be subborning perjury?
LOL notice Engh isn’t mixing words gun/taser today? Love it.
If you look at this trial as a “battle of experts”, the defense just showed up at the Millard Fillmore High School talent show arm in arm with Eddie Van Halen. No wonder the defense’s last cross was isomewhat indifferent, they knew the state’s expert was strapped to an ACME rocket while wearing roller skates.
Well yeah in contrast to yesterday. Once the prosecution expert went off the rails with ‘they could have let him go’ I think they lost the jury. Most people understand that LEO can’t be everywhere to make an arrest but they expect LEO to arrest a subject they encounter. As for the ‘unsafe’ to arrest now, just let him go and arrest later arguments; who says the next encounter won’t be similarly ‘unsafe’ and next one ad infinitum?
My first thought would have been of Darrel Brooks when the anti-police ‘expert’ said that. Or, in Seattle, the guy with literally dozens of arrests who tried to throw a woman off a bridge.
Good point. And the state’s expert ass-clown would have probably been the first in line to sue the department if they followed his advice to let Wright go, and he then went on to hurt a member of the expert’s family.
The use of force expert made a mistake when he testified that Wright did not assault the officers before he was shot. I guess that was because he is a use of force expert and whether or not Wright committed an assault before he was shot was outside his area of expertise.
I am not a legal expert, but I see as a minimum the crime of assault, the crime of attempt to commit a felony assault, and the crime of attempt to commit a felony kidnapping, all occurring before he was shot.
In this context, assault means striking an officer or attempting to strike an officer. It’s a distinction in what’s considered active resistance. Struggling to get free from restraint without striking an officer is considered a lesser level of active resistance.
Under the common law and the law in Missouri (where the expert witness is from) assault means:
1. A person commits the offense of assault in the fourth degree if:
(1) The person attempts to cause or recklessly causes physical injury, physical pain, or illness to another person;
(2) With criminal negligence the person causes physical injury to another person by means of a firearm;
(3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury;
(4) The person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person;
No reason for Minnesota law to be any different than the common law or the law of Missouri and clearly an assault under 1, 3, and 4.
Okay. That’s nice, but it doesn’t change the fact that in a use of force context assault, or rather assaultive, has a different meaning than the traditional legal definition. There is a difference between attempting to break free from police control and actively fighting the police, i.e., punching and kicking. This difference is accounted for in use of force models. This isn’t a hard concept to grasp. Trying to escape someone grabbing you does not constitute an assault on the person grabbing you. Hence why police are not privileged to beat the shit out of someone just for resisting handcuffs or running away.
The judge said the issue in this case is the defendant’s state of mind when she approached Wright’s vehicle. I thought that the issue was whether or not the actus reus of the alleged crimes was unlawful (unjustified) and if the acts was unlawful, then what the defendant’s state of mind when she did the unlawful act that constitutes the actus reus of count 1 or count 2.