Manslaughter - wow

[JoePa]

What a difference a day makes - 24 little hours - https://www.foxnews.com/us/daunte-wr...-potter-charge

[werner.reiche]

What a difference a day makes - 24 little hours - https://www.foxnews.com/us/daunte-wr...-potter-charge

Hi Joe - do you think that is too severe or not severe enough?

My thoughts are that it was not intentional so not murder. But it was negligence and a man died because of it - so manslaughter would make sense to me.

[JoePa]

Then compare what happened to this - https://www.foxnews.com/us/capitol-r...-ashli-babbitt

[JoePa]

Hi Joe - do you think that is too severe or not severe enough?

My thoughts are that it was not intentional so not murder. But it was negligence and a man died because of it - so manslaughter would make sense to me.

I don't know - was she negligent or reckless - or was it just a plain simple accident - if I was on the jury and knowing that the guy that got killed was partly responsible for what happened I'd give her a break - not guilty

[werner.reiche]

Then compare what happened to this - https://www.foxnews.com/us/capitol-r...-ashli-babbitt

Okay - I see the inconsistency. I still think the charges in Minneapolis were appropriate based the the US legal definition of manslaughter.

The shooting on capitol hill - that's different - it was intentional and it's hard to understand why a murder charge wasn't laid. Possibly because the victim was white, but more likely because she was a Trump supporter.

[werner.reiche]

I don't know - was she negligent or reckless - or was it just a plain simple accident - if I was on the jury and knowing that the guy that got killed was partly responsible for what happened I'd give her a break - not guilty

When it comes to cars and firearms, there aren't "accidents".
In Canada, we don't factor the victims actions in too much. I thought the US was much the same.
How we feel and the legal reality of the situation are often different.

[sawbill]

This news item wouldn't be a blip in a newspaper if the guy was white. Now they have to make an example of this officer just to keep the rioting at a minimal.

[JoePa]

Down here the actions of the victim has a big bearing on what happens - if the victim breaks into a house and is shot or if some drunk runs out into a major highway and gets run over most likely no charges will be made - you can see how things are heading down here across the border - as long as the rioters and looters stick to their own neighborhoods not much will change - but if they start going out into the suburbs and country side they will be met with gun fire big time - I use to say that all is quiet on the southern front - can't say that anymore -

[Gun Nut]

From his earlier encounter with law enforcement, you don't suppose this kid was profiled as trouble waiting to happen, and this instant was simply an effort to nip things in the bud. I check out the Tasers they use they're yellow, she was pointing her black service pistol, if she yelling 'Taser, Taser,' I suspect it was for any recording device that might have been recording. She knew full well what she was aiming at the kid and it wasn't a Taser. If this was a profiling thing the chief might have some tricky questions to handle, which he maybe trying to avoid by tendering his resignations.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

[sawbill]

You make a lot of assumptions for someone who wasn't there. Join the crowd of naysayers. Yelling taser prior to deploying the unit seems to be protocol in most police agencies and its not for the benefit of a camera as you assume. You say she knew full well she was aiming her service weapon and not a taser? And you know this how??? I figure in the heat of the moment she ended up with tunnel vision and that would account for not recognizing she had a pistol and not a taser in her hand. But I wasn't there either.