Kim Potter Trial

Political discussions
clenz
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 21156
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:30 pm

Kim Potter Trial

Post by clenz »

They were under orders from the state of Minnesota not to stop for expired tags, which was cited as the primary reason for the stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Kim Potter Trial

Post by AZGrizFan »

clenz wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:09 am They were under orders from the state of Minnesota not to stop for expired tags, which was cited as the primary reason for the stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
thanks. Not sure that makes it "illegal", per se....maybe unadvised? Does an order from the state government to ignore a law that's codified into the system have merit? I really don't know, but I can't see how they can just order cops to selectively stop following this law or that law...

And my guess is that order came down because of a shortage of manpower (just guessing there), not because they wanted everyone to have the ability to run around without renewing their tags.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
clenz
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 21156
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:30 pm

Kim Potter Trial

Post by clenz »

Due to the backup in DMV getting tags out, not because of a shortage within the LEO world. It was/is a known issue where a car could go months without updated tags being sent or updated in the database. Using that as the reason for the stop, when directed not too, is a problem.

What do you call a citizen doing something that the government has orders them not to do? Is there a legal difference in unlawful and illegal? I guess maybe there is.

If a citizen can be charged with resisting arrest (which is illegal) simple because their arm muscles were slightly too tight for the arresting officer to easily handcuff them, then I see no reason why making a traffic stop going against orders from the state and PD protocol isn’t also considered illegal.

Cops selectively pick and chose what to stop people for, and enforce, all the time. Why do the phrases 8 your clear, 9 your mine” exist? Selectively picking a random number over the already posted speed limit to enforce? Why do speed cameras give a 12 mph leeway (we have them in my metro on a 4 lane that is 55 mph but they won’t give a ticket until you are over 67mph. Yet a cop can give me a ticket for 62 if they wanted too for some reason. Why is it okay for them to do such things, but it’s then used as a way to go “yeah, but you can’t tell them what they can and can’t enforce”. You actually can. It happens all the damn time across the country. A cop choosing to ignore direct orders from those above them is a pretty serious issue, is it not?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Kim Potter Trial

Post by AZGrizFan »

clenz wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:23 am Due to the backup in DMV getting tags out, not because of a shortage within the LEO world. It was/is a known issue where a car could go months without updated tags being sent or updated in the database. Using that as the reason for the stop, when directed not too, is a problem.

What do you call a citizen doing something that the government has orders them not to do? Is there a legal difference in unlawful and illegal? I guess maybe there is.

If a citizen can be charged with resisting arrest (which is illegal) simple because their arm muscles were slightly too tight for the arresting officer to easily handcuff them, then I see no reason why making a traffic stop going against orders from the state and PD protocol isn’t also considered illegal.

Cops selectively pick and chose what to stop people for, and enforce, all the time. Why do the phrases 8 your clear, 9 your mine” exist? Selectively picking a random number over the already posted speed limit to enforce? Why do speed cameras give a 12 mph leeway (we have them in my metro on a 4 lane that is 55 mph but they won’t give a ticket until you are over 67mph. Yet a cop can give me a ticket for 62 if they wanted too for some reason. Why is it okay for them to do such things, but it’s then used as a way to go “yeah, but you can’t tell them what they can and can’t enforce”. You actually can. It happens all the damn time across the country. A cop choosing to ignore direct orders from those above them is a pretty serious issue, is it not?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've never heard that phrase.

We don't get 12 mph in Texas. Hell, we barely get 5 mph.

Had a cop buddy tell me the following many years ago: "in the questionable part of town, ANY stop after 10:00 for either headlight out, taillight out, no turn signal, California stop, expired tags, broken windshield, etc., etc. he could count on 70% of them having an outstanding warrant."

Didn't this guy have an outstanding warrant?
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
clenz
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 21156
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:30 pm

Re: Kim Potter Trial

Post by clenz »

AZGrizFan wrote:
clenz wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:23 am Due to the backup in DMV getting tags out, not because of a shortage within the LEO world. It was/is a known issue where a car could go months without updated tags being sent or updated in the database. Using that as the reason for the stop, when directed not too, is a problem.

What do you call a citizen doing something that the government has orders them not to do? Is there a legal difference in unlawful and illegal? I guess maybe there is.

If a citizen can be charged with resisting arrest (which is illegal) simple because their arm muscles were slightly too tight for the arresting officer to easily handcuff them, then I see no reason why making a traffic stop going against orders from the state and PD protocol isn’t also considered illegal.

Cops selectively pick and chose what to stop people for, and enforce, all the time. Why do the phrases 8 your clear, 9 your mine” exist? Selectively picking a random number over the already posted speed limit to enforce? Why do speed cameras give a 12 mph leeway (we have them in my metro on a 4 lane that is 55 mph but they won’t give a ticket until you are over 67mph. Yet a cop can give me a ticket for 62 if they wanted too for some reason. Why is it okay for them to do such things, but it’s then used as a way to go “yeah, but you can’t tell them what they can and can’t enforce”. You actually can. It happens all the damn time across the country. A cop choosing to ignore direct orders from those above them is a pretty serious issue, is it not?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've never heard that phrase.

We don't get 12 mph in Texas. Hell, we barely get 5 mph.

Had a cop buddy tell me the following many years ago: "in the questionable part of town, ANY stop after 10:00 for either headlight out, taillight out, no turn signal, California stop, expired tags, broken windshield, etc., etc. he could count on 70% of them having an outstanding warrant."

Didn't this guy have an outstanding warrant?
It’s like you haven’t read anything


He did, but they hadn’t verified it was him. They didn’t stop him because of the warrant. They didn’t get a valid ID and only ran his name and went with “this one has a warrant so it’s him”.

The fact they guessed correctly is immaterial to the fact the stop was one that was one that should not have been made. The fact they guessed correctly is immaterial as they had no idea who he actually was. They profiled him based on all evidence.

Again, Potter admitted, under oath, that the stop shouldn’t have been made. She admitted the officer conducting the stop made significant mistakes at multiple points that led to the situation becoming what it was. She admits she would not have made the stop. She admits to taking steps, that break protocol, in her own movements.


Again, you can’t claim “you can’t tell cops what they can or can’t enforce” and then cite a cop selectively picking and choosing when to enforce what based in where and time of day and make it as an excuse for why stopping people for stupid billshit in select areas while ignoring the same shit in other areas. That’s literally the definition of profiling.

Either they have to enforce everything all the time against everyone, or they can be told what they can can’t enforce.

It’s the same reason there are dozens of videos of white people absolutely unloading in officers. Screaming at them. Cussing at them. Threatening them. Demanding to be let go. Then having fuck all happen to them. Then we have videos of officers killing a man who is already in custody and no resisting and have millions of people going “he’s a criminal he deserves it” or videos of officers shooting an unarmed individual in the back while he is walking away from them. Videos of them getting gas and having swat teams roll up on them, breaking every window in the car, tear gassing and pepper spraying him only to find out that he isn’t even who they think he is and didn’t do anything wrong and was trying to identify himself as a member of the military.

It’s okay to admit Potter is a piece of shit and she directly caused the death, even beyond pulling the trigger, of Daunte Wright because of how she handled the stop and allowed it to go the way it did. It doesn’t make you less of a Trumplican level Republican.

It’s okay to admit that even though he had a bench warrant he didn’t have the death penalty. Even if he somehow magically had the judge sign a document going “he will be put to death” it is not the duty of the patrol officers to execute that stop

It’s okay to admit that police officers selectively enforce laws all the time, and them being told not to enforce certain laws for a time period is actually acceptable. It is also okay to admit they selectively enforce laws specifically to target certain neighborhoods based almost exclusively in demographics.

It’s okay to admit you want Baldwin to go down because he’s a flaming ljbtard and if it was a good old Republican actor that did the same thing you’d be defending them non stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19955
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: Kim Potter Trial

Post by UNI88 »

clenz wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:23 am Due to the backup in DMV getting tags out, not because of a shortage within the LEO world. It was/is a known issue where a car could go months without updated tags being sent or updated in the database. Using that as the reason for the stop, when directed not too, is a problem.

What do you call a citizen doing something that the government has orders them not to do? Is there a legal difference in unlawful and illegal? I guess maybe there is.

If a citizen can be charged with resisting arrest (which is illegal) simple because their arm muscles were slightly too tight for the arresting officer to easily handcuff them, then I see no reason why making a traffic stop going against orders from the state and PD protocol isn’t also considered illegal.

Cops selectively pick and chose what to stop people for, and enforce, all the time. Why do the phrases 8 your clear, 9 your mine” exist? Selectively picking a random number over the already posted speed limit to enforce? Why do speed cameras give a 12 mph leeway (we have them in my metro on a 4 lane that is 55 mph but they won’t give a ticket until you are over 67mph. Yet a cop can give me a ticket for 62 if they wanted too for some reason. Why is it okay for them to do such things, but it’s then used as a way to go “yeah, but you can’t tell them what they can and can’t enforce”. You actually can. It happens all the damn time across the country. A cop choosing to ignore direct orders from those above them is a pretty serious issue, is it not?
There was no law against Potter pulling Wright over. There is a law against resisting arrest. She didn't follow protocol, what she did was better characterized as unauthorized. She shouldn't have pulled Wright over, she shouldn't have pulled her gun, she shouldn't have fired it. It was an accident but a man is dead that shouldn't be and she should face the consequences of her actions.

Baldwin also didn't break any laws but he did break basic safety protocol for handling a weapon. He's a producer and bears some responsibility for what happens on the set in that role as well. He shouldn't have pointed the gun at someone without knowing that it wasn't loaded much less fired it. It was an accident but a woman is dead that shouldn't be and he should face the consequences of his actions.

If it's ok to admit that Potter is a piece of shit then it's also ok to admit that Baldwin is a piece of shit not because he's a flaming libtard but because he directly caused a death.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Kim Potter Trial

Post by AZGrizFan »

clenz wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:19 am
AZGrizFan wrote:
I've never heard that phrase.

We don't get 12 mph in Texas. Hell, we barely get 5 mph.

Had a cop buddy tell me the following many years ago: "in the questionable part of town, ANY stop after 10:00 for either headlight out, taillight out, no turn signal, California stop, expired tags, broken windshield, etc., etc. he could count on 70% of them having an outstanding warrant."

Didn't this guy have an outstanding warrant?
It’s like you haven’t read anything


He did, but they hadn’t verified it was him. They didn’t stop him because of the warrant. They didn’t get a valid ID and only ran his name and went with “this one has a warrant so it’s him”.

The fact they guessed correctly is immaterial to the fact the stop was one that was one that should not have been made. The fact they guessed correctly is immaterial as they had no idea who he actually was. They profiled him based on all evidence.

Again, Potter admitted, under oath, that the stop shouldn’t have been made. She admitted the officer conducting the stop made significant mistakes at multiple points that led to the situation becoming what it was. She admits she would not have made the stop. She admits to taking steps, that break protocol, in her own movements.


Again, you can’t claim “you can’t tell cops what they can or can’t enforce” and then cite a cop selectively picking and choosing when to enforce what based in where and time of day and make it as an excuse for why stopping people for stupid billshit in select areas while ignoring the same shit in other areas. That’s literally the definition of profiling.

Either they have to enforce everything all the time against everyone, or they can be told what they can can’t enforce.

It’s the same reason there are dozens of videos of white people absolutely unloading in officers. Screaming at them. Cussing at them. Threatening them. Demanding to be let go. Then having fuck all happen to them. Then we have videos of officers killing a man who is already in custody and no resisting and have millions of people going “he’s a criminal he deserves it” or videos of officers shooting an unarmed individual in the back while he is walking away from them. Videos of them getting gas and having swat teams roll up on them, breaking every window in the car, tear gassing and pepper spraying him only to find out that he isn’t even who they think he is and didn’t do anything wrong and was trying to identify himself as a member of the military.

It’s okay to admit Potter is a piece of shit and she directly caused the death, even beyond pulling the trigger, of Daunte Wright because of how she handled the stop and allowed it to go the way it did. It doesn’t make you less of a Trumplican level Republican.

It’s okay to admit that even though he had a bench warrant he didn’t have the death penalty. Even if he somehow magically had the judge sign a document going “he will be put to death” it is not the duty of the patrol officers to execute that stop

It’s okay to admit that police officers selectively enforce laws all the time, and them being told not to enforce certain laws for a time period is actually acceptable. It is also okay to admit they selectively enforce laws specifically to target certain neighborhoods based almost exclusively in demographics.

It’s okay to admit you want Baldwin to go down because he’s a flaming ljbtard and if it was a good old Republican actor that did the same thing you’d be defending them non stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You are the consummate "read to respond" and not "read to understand" type. I read what you type. I just refuse to do a point by point "counter" post because I don't have the time nor the inclination. It's just not that important to me. But, to clarify: I never said they knew he had a warrant when they stopped him. But did they not DISCOVER he had an outstanding warrant as a result of the stop?

And you are literally the ONLY one putting politics into this. I merely brought up the Baldwin case because it's timely, it just happened and he, too, accidentally shot someone without intention and was curious as to how you viewed his case versus Potters. You have exactly ZERO notion of how I'd respond if it had been "Republican" actor (whatever that means). You've got TDS as bad as JSO. It literally colors every single post you make anymore.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
clenz
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 21156
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:30 pm

Re: Kim Potter Trial

Post by clenz »

And I’ve said, multiple times, they admitted to not knowing they had anyone with a warrant. No ID was presented. They testified they were guessing who was pulled over

Is resisting a now an offense that warrants the death penalty that doesn’t get a jury trial?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Kim Potter Trial

Post by AZGrizFan »

clenz wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:51 pm And I’ve said, multiple times, they admitted to not knowing they had anyone with a warrant. No ID was presented. They testified they were guessing who was pulled over

Is resisting a now an offense that warrants the death penalty that doesn’t get a jury trial?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought it was stated on this board earlier (by CID, I believe) that they HAD his ID and knew exactly where he lived, which was why he (CID) felt she went over the top in attempting to taze him and not just let him go and pick him up later at his known address? Is that not true?
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Kim Potter Trial

Post by Ibanez »

AZGrizFan wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:58 pm
clenz wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:51 pm And I’ve said, multiple times, they admitted to not knowing they had anyone with a warrant. No ID was presented. They testified they were guessing who was pulled over

Is resisting a now an offense that warrants the death penalty that doesn’t get a jury trial?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought it was stated on this board earlier (by CID, I believe) that they HAD his ID and knew exactly where he lived, which was why he (CID) felt she went over the top in attempting to taze him and not just let him go and pick him up later at his known address? Is that not true?
Correct. They had his name and address. They could've let him go and picked him up later. But I think the DV charge and there being a woman in the car, they wanted to make sure that wasn't the DV victim from the previous charge. That might've been a contributing factor.


Full disclosure - I didn't read or follow any news or testimony from this case aside from what I've read here and what my wife told me.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25460
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Kim Potter Trial

Post by CID1990 »

Clenz there was nothing legally wrong with the stop. I probably wouldn’t have made it, but when you get down to brass tacks the stop was legal. Had the driver not fled, and they had arrested him without incident for his warrant the stop itself would have been unchallengeable.

Everything that happened after the stop itself was avoidable and 99.999% of experienced police officers would have avoided it. This woman should not have been on the street, period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
clenz
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 21156
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:30 pm

Re: Kim Potter Trial

Post by clenz »

Ibanez wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:16 pm
AZGrizFan wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:58 pm

I thought it was stated on this board earlier (by CID, I believe) that they HAD his ID and knew exactly where he lived, which was why he (CID) felt she went over the top in attempting to taze him and not just let him go and pick him up later at his known address? Is that not true?
Correct. They had his name and address. They could've let him go and picked him up later. But I think the DV charge and there being a woman in the car, they wanted to make sure that wasn't the DV victim from the previous charge. That might've been a contributing factor.


Full disclosure - I didn't read or follow any news or testimony from this case aside from what I've read here and what my wife told me.
They did not have his ID. He did not give them his ID. They made an assumption on who it was based on the information he verbally gave them. That is literally straight from Potter's testimony

She also said she was training him on the department rules regarding pursuits and their policy was to not pursue.

So they had his name, his address, the make and model of the car he was driving, the license plate of the car he was driving, and yet made all of those efforts leading to him being shot and killed.

Yes, he had a restraining order, but again per Potter's own testimony, they made zero effort to confirm the identity of the woman he was with. They had ZERO idea if out of the roughly 4 billion women on the face of this planet that the woman in the car was the only one he wasn't allowed to be around, legally. They didn't ID her. They didn't speak to her. They did nothing to identify her. Again, escalating a situation without taking steps to properly identify and assess the situation.

The driver only "fled" after he was shot and the officers took their hands off of him.

To compare Potter and Baldwin at all was entirely baiting politics on the part of Z. It's why his first post in this thread was based around a black man driving through a parade and then a Latin truck driver.

Even after her conviction Z went with
AZGrizFan wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:23 am
So he makes all those mistakes over an extended period, acting willfully, and kills four people. She makes a mistake in a heated moment, kills ONE person, and is going to jail longer than the truck driver.

Makes perfect sense.
Comparing the sentences of two unrelated crimes and the actions of a third is pretty silly.

Comparing Baldwin to Potter is pretty silly as well.

There are plenty of people in prison for longer than Potter will be in jail for far lesser crimes - largely drug (specifically weed) offenses. Does Z think someone selling weed belongs in prison longer than Potter?

He no longer lives in Arizona but I'd be interested in his opinion of Arizona turning prisons over to privatized rather than state run. Not only that they were turned over to be privatized under the condition they must be at least 90% full at all times

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion ... 159890002/
CoreCivic will get more cash per inmate
Not only will the state pay CoreCivic $85.12 per inmate per day over the next five years — an increase from the average $78.18 to house an inmate in a state-run prison, according to the Department of Corrections — it’ll also guarantee the company's private prison in Eloy will have a minimum 90% occupancy rate, according to the contract.

Company has not been shy with donations
This, after (because?) the industry spent the previous few years doling out a record amount of campaign cash and plenty of free food and drinks to Republican legislators.

According to an Arizona Republic/KJZZ investigation last summer, CoreCivic and GEO Group, the state’s two biggest private prison contractors, spent $23,910 feeding and watering legislators since 2016. They, along with select employees, spread around another $60,918 in campaign contributions, much of it in 2019 and 2020.

And in 2021: that completely coincidental $43 million boost in spending on private prisons.
Turns out prison sentences have little to do with the crime committed and are more about making sure we incarcerate enough American citizens
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Kim Potter Trial

Post by AZGrizFan »

Damn. You’ve become the new JSO.

I’ve never seen anyone (including JSO) be able to read more into simple questions than you. You are about as agenda-driven as they come, bro.
Last edited by AZGrizFan on Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23236
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: Kim Potter Trial

Post by houndawg »

clenz wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:16 pm
AZGrizFan wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 9:15 pm

Well, let’s see….that one went through our court system and was determined to be self defense.

Is that what Alec Baldwin is going to claim?

Back to you, dipshit.
Potter went through trial and you still claimed she shouldn't bein jail

Which one is it?

I don't know if Baldwin should be in jail. I've said I'm willing to see the evidence and make a decision. I'm not tied to a "should or shouldn't be" based on the position the person holds (LEO or not) or political beliefs.

Potter went, by her own admission and every other form of testimony in the trial, against every single piece of training she has received in 26 years of patroling. She was unable to handle a "crisis" situation, having spent over 12 years on crisis response and hostage negotiation team. There was a stop made, that by her own admission, should not have been made. Zero evidence, and zero action on her part, point to her not being the prime candidate for a prison sentence for killing someone.

As I've said, if evidence comes out that Baldwin actively took steps to avoid every single piece of safety training he has ever received. If he actively took steps to endanger lives that would not have otherwise been taken in that situation. If any of that kind of evidence comes out, I'll be one of the first to say he belongs in jail.

The reason I bring up the fact you keep going "he pointed it at the camera and people" is because you are doing so to try to make some sort of point, without saying it. You are trying to make it seem like he was just fucking around and going all 8-year-old playing cowboy and point the gun at random points and going "BANG BANG BANG YOU'RE DEAD" and then finally pulled the trigger. I said it is important to know the reason he was pointed at the camera. camera operator, and director, is to know if he was truly being reckless in his actions or they were all taking steps to rehearse the scene, moves through the scene, lighting, camera movements, to see if what would actually be recorded is what the vision/shot was supposed to be. That is also important to know because it will help show potential motive, potential reckless behavior, potential criminal liability.

Because of who it is, because of what his political beliefs are, and because of shots he has taken in media at Trump you, and thousands of others, LOVE that it happened to him, that much is clear. You don't get a single fuck what actually happened. You just want to see him go down in flames because it would be a kind of poetic justice in your mind.

I wasn't on set. I don't know how/why that gun ended up being loaded with a live round. We can sit here and go "every gun is always loaded until you know it isn't". Fine. You aren't wrong. I remember my hunting safety class in 7th grade too. Should he have still verified? Sure. Yes. Would he know the difference in a blank round and a live round if he looked at it? I have no idea. I don't know the difference between that type of gun, that kind of ammo, etc. if there is a difference that would be instantly noticeable. I would believe it would be noticeable, but a quick Google shows there is a fuck ton of blanks that looks insanely similar to live rounds. Do we know that he didn't take steps, as outlined in production safety regulations, to check? I'll be honest, if I'm an actor and I'm on a set and I'm handed a gun from the team whose only job is to keep the guns from being loaded with live rounds, and to your knowledge, there were no live rounds on set, then I am willing to trust there isn't a live round. Maybe I should go to jail for that as well. I also don't handle guns enough to be willing to be that comfortable with it. I guess the difference could come in that Baldwin has been on set filing for a not-insignificant amount of time, again with zero reasons to believe that he would be handed a gun with live rounds.

Now, show me evidence that he was actively involved with live rounds being on set, live rounds being in that gun, and intentionally firing live rounds at Hutchins and Souza and I'll 100% back the calls for jail time for Baldwin.
My understanding is that he was the producer so that places him at the top of the chain of command - e.g., whoever fucked up was hired by him
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23236
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: Kim Potter Trial

Post by houndawg »

AZGrizFan wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:05 pm Damn. You’ve become the new JSO.

I’ve never seen anyone (including JSO) be able to read more into simple questions than you. You are about as agenda-driven as they come, bro.
Looks like you'll be getting owned in stereo now. :coffee:
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Kim Potter Trial

Post by AZGrizFan »

houndawg wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:13 pm
AZGrizFan wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:05 pm Damn. You’ve become the new JSO.

I’ve never seen anyone (including JSO) be able to read more into simple questions than you. You are about as agenda-driven as they come, bro.
Looks like you'll be getting owned in stereo now. :coffee:
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Hardly. You keep using the word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Kim Potter Trial

Post by Ibanez »

clenz wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:33 pm
Ibanez wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:16 pm
Correct. They had his name and address. They could've let him go and picked him up later. But I think the DV charge and there being a woman in the car, they wanted to make sure that wasn't the DV victim from the previous charge. That might've been a contributing factor.


Full disclosure - I didn't read or follow any news or testimony from this case aside from what I've read here and what my wife told me.
They did not have his ID. He did not give them his ID. They made an assumption on who it was based on the information he verbally gave them. That is literally straight from Potter's testimony

She also said she was training him on the department rules regarding pursuits and their policy was to not pursue.

So they had his name, his address, the make and model of the car he was driving, the license plate of the car he was driving, and yet made all of those efforts leading to him being shot and killed.

Yes, he had a restraining order, but again per Potter's own testimony, they made zero effort to confirm the identity of the woman he was with. They had ZERO idea if out of the roughly 4 billion women on the face of this planet that the woman in the car was the only one he wasn't allowed to be around, legally. They didn't ID her. They didn't speak to her. They did nothing to identify her. Again, escalating a situation without taking steps to properly identify and assess the situation.

The driver only "fled" after he was shot and the officers took their hands off of him.

To compare Potter and Baldwin at all was entirely baiting politics on the part of Z. It's why his first post in this thread was based around a black man driving through a parade and then a Latin truck driver.

Even after her conviction Z went with
AZGrizFan wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:23 am
So he makes all those mistakes over an extended period, acting willfully, and kills four people. She makes a mistake in a heated moment, kills ONE person, and is going to jail longer than the truck driver.

Makes perfect sense.
Comparing the sentences of two unrelated crimes and the actions of a third is pretty silly.

Comparing Baldwin to Potter is pretty silly as well.

There are plenty of people in prison for longer than Potter will be in jail for far lesser crimes - largely drug (specifically weed) offenses. Does Z think someone selling weed belongs in prison longer than Potter?

He no longer lives in Arizona but I'd be interested in his opinion of Arizona turning prisons over to privatized rather than state run. Not only that they were turned over to be privatized under the condition they must be at least 90% full at all times

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion ... 159890002/
CoreCivic will get more cash per inmate
Not only will the state pay CoreCivic $85.12 per inmate per day over the next five years — an increase from the average $78.18 to house an inmate in a state-run prison, according to the Department of Corrections — it’ll also guarantee the company's private prison in Eloy will have a minimum 90% occupancy rate, according to the contract.

Company has not been shy with donations
This, after (because?) the industry spent the previous few years doling out a record amount of campaign cash and plenty of free food and drinks to Republican legislators.

According to an Arizona Republic/KJZZ investigation last summer, CoreCivic and GEO Group, the state’s two biggest private prison contractors, spent $23,910 feeding and watering legislators since 2016. They, along with select employees, spread around another $60,918 in campaign contributions, much of it in 2019 and 2020.

And in 2021: that completely coincidental $43 million boost in spending on private prisons.
Turns out prison sentences have little to do with the crime committed and are more about making sure we incarcerate enough American citizens
Forgive me, lord. He was pulled over and they learned his name (and knew the car belonged to his brother). You're splitting hairs and it all amounts to the same thing - the Police knew who he was.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
clenz
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 21156
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:30 pm

Re: Kim Potter Trial

Post by clenz »

Ibanez wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 6:28 am Forgive me, lord. He was pulled over and they learned his name (and knew the car belonged to his brother). You're splitting hairs and it all amounts to the same thing - the Police knew who he was.
Sure.

They didn't check the ID of the female to see if he was violating the restraining order.

Potter also said they were going over pursuit policies just before the stop and had gone over the fact that they do not pursue, especially if a known subject because they can track down later. If that is the case and you feel endangered, why not use those policies and make sure no one is in a situation to be harmed?
clenz
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 21156
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:30 pm

Re: Kim Potter Trial

Post by clenz »

houndawg wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:07 pm
My understanding is that he was the producer so that places him at the top of the chain of command - e.g., whoever fucked up was hired by him
Sure, I've said that could put something back on him in this very thread.

I don't know how the chain of command flows for that on movie sets, nor am I going to pretend too.

I believe that would still be move of a civil court issue than criminal based on what we know as of now.
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Kim Potter Trial

Post by AZGrizFan »

clenz wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:23 pm
houndawg wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:07 pm
My understanding is that he was the producer so that places him at the top of the chain of command - e.g., whoever fucked up was hired by him
Sure, I've said that could put something back on him in this very thread.

I don't know how the chain of command flows for that on movie sets, nor am I going to pretend too.

I believe that would still be move of a civil court issue than criminal based on what we know as of now.
Why stop now? You’ve been pretending to be a trial lawyer ever since this Potter trial started…. :kisswink:
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
clenz
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 21156
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:30 pm

Re: Kim Potter Trial

Post by clenz »

No one was charged following the Brandon Lee incident.

Based on what we know about that situation, and Baldwin, what is the factors that would lead you to believe he should be locked away?
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Kim Potter Trial

Post by Ibanez »

clenz wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:21 pm
Ibanez wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 6:28 am Forgive me, lord. He was pulled over and they learned his name (and knew the car belonged to his brother). You're splitting hairs and it all amounts to the same thing - the Police knew who he was.
Sure.

They didn't check the ID of the female to see if he was violating the restraining order.

Potter also said they were going over pursuit policies just before the stop and had gone over the fact that they do not pursue, especially if a known subject because they can track down later. If that is the case and you feel endangered, why not use those policies and make sure no one is in a situation to be harmed?
Again - I didn't watch the trial or get too deep into the story but if Potter was training someone, why wouldn't you pull over someone with expired tags, has their vision blocked and whatever the other reasons for? It's a learning exercise - what do you search, what do you ask for. It escalated b/c they actually find someone that needed to be brought in who then acted like a punk bitch and tried to flee. For all we know, Potter was going to let the guy off the hook and just use it as a training exercise.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Kim Potter Trial

Post by AZGrizFan »

16 months. That’s what Kim Potter got sentenced to today.

I have a bit of renewed faith in our legal system today.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
Post Reply