Kim Potter/Daunte Wright trial - Potter found guilty on manslaughter counts
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 10550

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2021 7:46 pm    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Asking police officers to apprehend men who have already used weapons to rob people/carries the gun illegally.. runs from cops while having a gun... really puts high expectations on their ability to not feel fear and make a mistake...

Out of all the cases I have seen.. I would probably feel the need to acquit her.


They pulled him over for expired registration. They found out he had a warrant.

She meant to pull out her taser gun but instead pulled out a real gun. The question then is, is that type of mistake common?

Do other cops often mistaken their taser guns for real guns? Are they both kept in the same spot?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 10550

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2021 7:52 pm    Post subject:

non-player zealot wrote:
I think she was negligent because when you train for taser vs gun, you'd best not be dozing off because one is deadly, of course. I don't know how it'd be possible to switch arms and draw your gun and not check for a millisecond if you've got the florescent yellow one in yer hand, but it happened in the Fruitvale shooting (which gives all other accident claims of this nature bad optics). You can't be a ditz and join a job that plays for keeps, men/women both.


Yeah, it's similar to the Alec Baldwin case. You have a responsibility to properly distinguish a taser gun from a real gun. That's your job. People's lives are at stake. It's a very important task.

There are no "oopsies" when it comes to this task.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 10550

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2021 7:58 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
Honestly, and like you not being privy to testimony but knowing something about the baseline psychology that goes into these things, I don't see either of those descriptions fitting what she did.


What do you mean?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11159

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2021 10:54 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
Honestly, and like you not being privy to testimony but knowing something about the baseline psychology that goes into these things, I don't see either of those descriptions fitting what she did.


What do you mean?


It's easy to think people's brains are functioning normally and rationally in such abnormal situations, but they're not. At least in many cases -- some people can keep a clear head in situations like that, but others can't. And as I understand it, this was the first time she had been in that kind of situation. She probably didn't have the right psychological makeup for that situation, but no one knew that until she was IN that type of situation. But anyone who applies normal conditions to what she should have thought or should have noticed in an abnormal condition (like that she should have noticed that she had her gun in her hand and not her taser) is missing the psychological factors at play.

As I understand it, the first degree charge requires intent, and due to the above, I can't conclude intent to the judicial standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

For the second degree charge, I think an officer drawing a weapon is a reasonable action for a police officer in a situation where another officer was in a struggle with a suspect. To me a situation to which this would apply would be New Years celebrations where people shoot their guns into the air, and the bullet comes down somewhere and hits someone.

But again, I don't know the details of the case, I wasn't privy to all the testimony, I didn't see the jury instructions.......and the jury, who did know the details, did see the testimony and did hear the instructions clearly disagreed with me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 10550

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2021 11:10 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
As I understand it, the first degree charge requires intent, and due to the above, I can't conclude intent to the judicial standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.


Quote:
Judge Regina Chu told jurors that intent is not part of the charges and that the state doesn’t have to prove she tried to kill Wright.


Don't need to prove intent to kill

Quote:
The judge said for first-degree manslaughter, prosecutors must prove that Potter caused Wright’s death while committing the crime of reckless handling of a firearm. This means they must prove that she committed a conscious or intentional act while handling or using a firearm that creates a substantial or unjustifiable risk that she was aware of and disregarded, and that she endangered safety.


The intent here is being reckless with a gun.

------------------------------------------

LarryCoon wrote:
For the second degree charge, I think an officer drawing a weapon is a reasonable action for a police officer in a situation where another officer was in a struggle with a suspect. To me a situation to which this would apply would be New Years celebrations where people shoot their guns into the air, and the bullet comes down somewhere and hits someone.


Drawing a weapon is not the problem. Drawing the wrong weapon was the problem. She meant to draw a taser gun. She ended up drawing a real gun. That's the problem and that's by definition being negligent.

Your duty as a police officer is to not mix up a taser gun for a real gun. That's your duty. Somehow, you've got to get that right. Either you put one on the left side and the other on the right side and remember which is which, or you paint one neon pink, or whatever. But, you can't mix them up.

This would be analogous to a cook putting rat poison right next to the sugar, and the intent is to reach for the sugar but somehow, he got it mixed up with rat poison and people get sick and die as a result.

Obviously, there was no intent to kill. But, we can analyze if the actions were reckless or negligent. Same here with Potter.

As for the reckless part, I think it boils down to how easily it is to distinguish or confuse a taser gun from an actual gun. How many officers carry both a taser gun and a handgun? How many mix them up?

Quote:
Experts agree that such incidents are rare and probably happen fewer than once per year throughout the U.S. A 2012 article published in the monthly law journal Americans for Effective Law Enforcement documented nine cases dating back to 2001 in which officers shot suspects with handguns when they said they meant to fire stun guns.


Quote:
To avoid confusion, officers typically carry their stun guns on their weak sides, away from handguns holstered on their dominant hand’s side. That’s how Potter carried hers.


Quote:
Sam McGinnis testified that the holsters on Potter’s duty belt require an officer to take deliberate actions to release the weapons. The gun holster has a snap, while the Taser holster has a lever. The black handgun weighs just over 2 pounds (0.9 kilograms), while the mostly yellow Taser weighs just under a pound (0.45 kilograms), he said.

The Taser and gun also have different triggers, grips and safety mechanisms that must be engaged before firing, McGinnis testified. The Taser has a laser and LED lights that display before it is fired, which he demonstrated for the jury, while the handgun does not.


So basically, the case boils down to how could Potter have made such a huge mistake? It's at least a negligent mistake. Was it a reckless mistake? There's so many safety features to ensure that officers don't mix up the guns. I really don't know how she mixed up the guns. It's just so hard to do.

She'd have to reach for the wrong gun, which is on the wrong side. Take the gun out of the holster, which has a different way of being taken out. Have a feel for the gun, which is a different feel and weight. Visually see that the gun is different. And pull the trigger multiple times while yelling "Taser, Taser, Taser" and all of this while it never sinks in that she's using a real gun instead of a taser gun.

There's just something reckless about that.


Last edited by LongBeachPoly on Thu Dec 23, 2021 11:28 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 25724
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2021 11:12 pm    Post subject:

I'm glad the right verdict was reached in this case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
C M B
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 19306
Location: Prarie & Manchester, high above the western sideline

PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2021 4:07 am    Post subject:

Police department to avoid future errors by replacing all equipment officers carry with guns
_________________
http://chickhearn.ytmnd.com/

Sister Golden Hair wrote:
LAMAR ODOM is an anagram for ... DOOM ALARM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 89516
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2021 10:08 am    Post subject:

ChickenStu wrote:
I'm glad the right verdict was reached in this case.


Yeah, you can’t shoot someone with a gun by accident, even if you think it is a taser, and that be ok. Frankly, I think they should tack automatic extra penalties on for police. The idea that you can be out in the street armed up and with license to make life and death calls requires that you are properly trained and accountable for that authority.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11159

PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2021 10:13 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
So basically, the case boils down to how could Potter have made such a huge mistake? It's at least a negligent mistake. Was it a reckless mistake? There's so many safety features to ensure that officers don't mix up the guns. I really don't know how she mixed up the guns. It's just so hard to do.

She'd have to reach for the wrong gun, which is on the wrong side. Take the gun out of the holster, which has a different way of being taken out. Have a feel for the gun, which is a different feel and weight. Visually see that the gun is different. And pull the trigger multiple times while yelling "Taser, Taser, Taser" and all of this while it never sinks in that she's using a real gun instead of a taser gun.

There's just something reckless about that.


Your entire statement here is an example of what I was talking about in the previous post -- the part at the beginning you cut out. (Not saying you did so to avoid the issue, just saying you didn't include it -- i.e., I'm not implying intent ). Here it is again:

LarryCoon wrote:
It's easy to think people's brains are functioning normally and rationally in such abnormal situations, but they're not. At least in many cases -- some people can keep a clear head in situations like that, but others can't. And as I understand it, this was the first time she had been in that kind of situation. She probably didn't have the right psychological makeup for that situation, but no one knew that until she was IN that type of situation. But anyone who applies normal conditions to what she should have thought or should have noticed in an abnormal condition (like that she should have noticed that she had her gun in her hand and not her taser) is missing the psychological factors at play.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 50370
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2021 10:24 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
Honestly, and like you not being privy to testimony but knowing something about the baseline psychology that goes into these things, I don't see either of those descriptions fitting what she did.


What do you mean?


It's easy to think people's brains are functioning normally and rationally in such abnormal situations, but they're not. At least in many cases -- some people can keep a clear head in situations like that, but others can't. And as I understand it, this was the first time she had been in that kind of situation. She probably didn't have the right psychological makeup for that situation, but no one knew that until she was IN that type of situation. But anyone who applies normal conditions to what she should have thought or should have noticed in an abnormal condition (like that she should have noticed that she had her gun in her hand and not her taser) is missing the psychological factors at play.

As I understand it, the first degree charge requires intent, and due to the above, I can't conclude intent to the judicial standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

For the second degree charge, I think an officer drawing a weapon is a reasonable action for a police officer in a situation where another officer was in a struggle with a suspect. To me a situation to which this would apply would be New Years celebrations where people shoot their guns into the air, and the bullet comes down somewhere and hits someone.

But again, I don't know the details of the case, I wasn't privy to all the testimony, I didn't see the jury instructions.......and the jury, who did know the details, did see the testimony and did hear the instructions clearly disagreed with me.


Sorry, but all of that psychology is irrelevant. Potter was a trained law enforcement officer. Part of that training involves how to properly deal with this type of situation and have the situational awareness to be able to discern what weapon you are deploying. The fact that it turns out she was psychologically incapable of functioning correctly doesn't erase her culpability in this death. In fact, it simply compounds the negligence, because the fact that her training had not revealed her lack of the proper mental capacity to appropriately carry out the duties she was entrusted with.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 60211
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is consider a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2021 11:18 am    Post subject:

What's being glossed over is she said "I'm going to jail." She knew what she did was criminal, though unintentional. I feel for Kim. I don't think she meant to kill but did.

To understand where LC's coming from her mental state was most likely altered. Unfortunately, that element wasn't a part of the jury instructions or verdict consideration.

Maybe, just maybe, her mental state will be taken into consideration when rendering sentencing.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.


Last edited by jodeke on Sat Dec 25, 2021 10:39 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11159

PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2021 11:19 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Sorry, but all of that psychology is irrelevant. Potter was a trained law enforcement officer. Part of that training involves how to properly deal with this type of situation and have the situational awareness to be able to discern what weapon you are deploying. The fact that it turns out she was psychologically incapable of functioning correctly doesn't erase her culpability in this death. In fact, it simply compounds the negligence, because the fact that her training had not revealed her lack of the proper mental capacity to appropriately carry out the duties she was entrusted with.


So then is it a training issue, a selectivity issue, a malpractice issue, or a criminal issue?

Did the force fail to train her properly?

Did the force fail to recognize that she didn't have the psychological makeup to handle pressure situations like these, and weed her out?

Did she commit malpractice? For example, doctors who make a mistake and commit malpractice aren't necessarily criminally charged. (Although there IS a threshold, and I think that threshold is an interesting avenue for discussion.)

Or was it a true criminal act?

(And I ask these questions irrespective of the actual verdict, which was already rendered.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 10550

PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2021 11:33 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
So basically, the case boils down to how could Potter have made such a huge mistake? It's at least a negligent mistake. Was it a reckless mistake? There's so many safety features to ensure that officers don't mix up the guns. I really don't know how she mixed up the guns. It's just so hard to do.

She'd have to reach for the wrong gun, which is on the wrong side. Take the gun out of the holster, which has a different way of being taken out. Have a feel for the gun, which is a different feel and weight. Visually see that the gun is different. And pull the trigger multiple times while yelling "Taser, Taser, Taser" and all of this while it never sinks in that she's using a real gun instead of a taser gun.

There's just something reckless about that.


Your entire statement here is an example of what I was talking about in the previous post -- the part at the beginning you cut out. (Not saying you did so to avoid the issue, just saying you didn't include it -- i.e., I'm not implying intent ). Here it is again:

LarryCoon wrote:
It's easy to think people's brains are functioning normally and rationally in such abnormal situations, but they're not. At least in many cases -- some people can keep a clear head in situations like that, but others can't. And as I understand it, this was the first time she had been in that kind of situation. She probably didn't have the right psychological makeup for that situation, but no one knew that until she was IN that type of situation. But anyone who applies normal conditions to what she should have thought or should have noticed in an abnormal condition (like that she should have noticed that she had her gun in her hand and not her taser) is missing the psychological factors at play.


Yeah I don’t always quote people’s entire statements because it’s already there for people to read. I highlight the part that I want to respond to. You can continue to provide your full statement if you want in every response, but I assure you that the full text is already there for people to read if they are following the conversation.

Now, what is the conversation that we’re having? Is it a legal conversation or just your opinion on what it “ought to be”?

Because legally, your emotional/psychological state of mind doesn’t matter. And this goes with ANY job.

You can take ANY stressful job and being weak emotionally/psychologically can lead you to make grave mistakes.

And EVERY emotionally/psychologically weak person who makes a grave mistake at their job will have to pay the consequences.

This is a standard for EVERY job, not just cops. It applies to firemen, military, everyone.

So, again I don’t know what the conversation is about. This is a standard that applies to every job and Potter failed that standard. Bringing in her emotional/psychological state of mind doesn’t change the fact since it isn’t taken into consideration.

Everyone must perform their jobs under a level headed emotional/psychological state of mind. This applies to Potter, to you, to me and to everyone else.

It sounds like you want the legal standard to include people’s emotional/psychological state.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 10550

PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2021 11:50 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
Did the force fail to train her properly?

Did the force fail to recognize that she didn't have the psychological makeup to handle pressure situations like these, and weed her out?


Could be, but since they average less than 1 incident per year, seems like the force has a 99.99% success rate.


LarryCoon wrote:
Did she commit malpractice? For example, doctors who make a mistake and commit malpractice aren't necessarily criminally charged. (Although there IS a threshold, and I think that threshold is an interesting avenue for discussion.)]


Every malpractice = negligence. You can’t prove malpractice w/o proving negligence.

Whether the negligent act is criminal or not depends on how significant the injury was.

Every malpractice that leads to serious bodily harm or death = criminal negligence.

You can’t come up with a scenario where a doctor committed malpractice that lead to death and isn’t charged criminally for it. They might get off due to lack of evidence, but they will get charged.

Like I said in my post above, the standard applies to EVERY profession.

The legal standard for criminal negligence doesn’t take into account your emotional/psychological weaknesses. All that matters is whether or not you were aware of what you were doing (this is when people plead insanity, sleepwalking, being drugged, having multiple personalities, etc).

The only way Potter gets off is to say she was not aware of what she was doing. But once they established that she was aware, then it doesn’t matter how weak she was emotionally/psychologically at that point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 10550

PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2021 12:15 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
What's being glossed over is she said "I'm going to jail." She knew what she did was criminal, though unintentional. I feel for Kim. I don't think she meant to kill but did.

To understand where LC's coming from her mental state was most likely altered. Unfortunately, that element wasn't a part of the jury instructions or verdict consideration.

Maybe, just maybe, her mental state may be taken into consideration when rendering sentences.


Bingo. It’ll be taken into consideration at sentencing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 89516
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2021 1:41 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
jodeke wrote:
What's being glossed over is she said "I'm going to jail." She knew what she did was criminal, though unintentional. I feel for Kim. I don't think she meant to kill but did.

To understand where LC's coming from her mental state was most likely altered. Unfortunately, that element wasn't a part of the jury instructions or verdict consideration.

Maybe, just maybe, her mental state may be taken into consideration when rendering sentences.


Bingo. It’ll be taken into consideration at sentencing.


How about the mental state of the guy she killed? I don’t know why we get all mushy for the person who had control of the situation, overreacted in the first place, then made a fatal second mistake. If I was the judge I’d give her the maximum.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 50370
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2021 3:28 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Sorry, but all of that psychology is irrelevant. Potter was a trained law enforcement officer. Part of that training involves how to properly deal with this type of situation and have the situational awareness to be able to discern what weapon you are deploying. The fact that it turns out she was psychologically incapable of functioning correctly doesn't erase her culpability in this death. In fact, it simply compounds the negligence, because the fact that her training had not revealed her lack of the proper mental capacity to appropriately carry out the duties she was entrusted with.


So then is it a training issue, a selectivity issue, a malpractice issue, or a criminal issue?

Did the force fail to train her properly?

Did the force fail to recognize that she didn't have the psychological makeup to handle pressure situations like these, and weed her out?

Did she commit malpractice? For example, doctors who make a mistake and commit malpractice aren't necessarily criminally charged. (Although there IS a threshold, and I think that threshold is an interesting avenue for discussion.)

Or was it a true criminal act?

(And I ask these questions irrespective of the actual verdict, which was already rendered.)


None of those is mutually exclusive. They are all factors in an act of criminal negligence.

As for the malpractice comparison. The goal of the doctor's action is to heal. Potter's intent was commit harm and the mistake wasn't a failure to heal that went badly, but a mistake where the level of harm she inflicted was escalated by an improper decision.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 60211
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is consider a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2021 3:58 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
jodeke wrote:
What's being glossed over is she said "I'm going to jail." She knew what she did was criminal, though unintentional. I feel for Kim. I don't think she meant to kill but did.

To understand where LC's coming from her mental state was most likely altered. Unfortunately, that element wasn't a part of the jury instructions or verdict consideration.

Maybe, just maybe, her mental state may be taken into consideration when rendering sentences.


Bingo. It’ll be taken into consideration at sentencing.


How about the mental state of the guy she killed? I don’t know why we get all mushy for the person who had control of the situation, overreacted in the first place, then made a fatal second mistake. If I was the judge I’d give her the maximum.


I don't consider my feelings mushy. I'm viewing the entire canvas. Watching her on the stand gave me the impression she was honestly contrite. She made a mistake, a mistake that took a life, that's a fact.

Does the mistake deserve punishment, yes? Should the punishment fit the crime and circumstances be taken into consideration? IMO, yes. In that vein, I think her mental state should be considered. Does the law allow this? I don't know.

If I were the judge, believing what I know, I'd give her minimum.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.


Last edited by jodeke on Sat Dec 25, 2021 12:03 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11159

PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2021 10:19 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
Every malpractice that leads to serious bodily harm or death = criminal negligence.


This is simply not true, and in fact, in the case of medical malpractice it's rare for a criminal case to result rather than a civil case. I'll substantiate sometime other than late on Christmas Eve.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 10550

PostPosted: Sat Dec 25, 2021 7:14 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
Every malpractice that leads to serious bodily harm or death = criminal negligence.


This is simply not true, and in fact, in the case of medical malpractice it's rare for a criminal case to result rather than a civil case. I'll substantiate sometime other than late on Christmas Eve.


Yeah, I looked it up. You're right. It's rare for doctors to get charged with criminal negligence.

That's a good point you raised. I don't know why there's a difference between doctors and cops. The standard should be the same. If you're bad at your job and you cause someone serious bodily harm or death, you should be charged criminally.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11159

PostPosted: Sat Dec 25, 2021 10:12 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
Yeah, I looked it up. You're right. It's rare for doctors to get charged with criminal negligence.

That's a good point you raised. I don't know why there's a difference between doctors and cops. The standard should be the same. If you're bad at your job and you cause someone serious bodily harm or death, you should be charged criminally.


Just to stay on doctors for a minute (and I do think they're a reasonable analogy), I glanced at a couple online sources, which said it's mostly a civil matter, not criminal. They said criminal is reserved for special circumstances, like when it's intentional, a repeated pattern, or involves healthcare fraud.

While the line of demarcation is fuzzy, it seems the criminal cases are when there is some conscious effort to either commit a crime or disregard standard medical practice.

In fact, doctors are pretty much protected in most circumstances. Let's say it's an ER and an intern is forced into duty beyond his scope of knowledge because the ER is swamped. Let's say he screws up badly because he's in over his head, freaks out or freezes, and kills the patient. That's a civil matter, not criminal, and malpractice insurance covers what's likely to be a hefty payout. And while the doctor killed the patient, the hospital is on the hook for what happened in their ER.

So to apply that standard to cops, if the cop fails at their duties in an urgent situation and accidentally kills someone, it would be a civil matter with responsibility borne by the force for what's likely to be a hefty payout.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 89516
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Sat Dec 25, 2021 11:15 am    Post subject:

To be fair, doctors aren’t taking their surgical equipment out on the street and performing operations on unwilling suspects.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
FernieBee
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 17 Nov 2003
Posts: 5168
Location: 921SD

PostPosted: Sat Dec 25, 2021 11:23 am    Post subject:

Cops have the right to take someone's life and/or liberty while performing cop duties.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11159

PostPosted: Sat Dec 25, 2021 1:21 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
To be fair, doctors aren’t taking their surgical equipment out on the street and performing operations on unwilling suspects.


No but both are conducting their duties in their designated areas.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 50370
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 25, 2021 1:38 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
To be fair, doctors aren’t taking their surgical equipment out on the street and performing operations on unwilling suspects.


No but both are conducting their duties in their designated areas.


Sort of, but doctors aren’t given the power to summarily execute people at their own discretion. Which is why the malpractice analogy fails.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 2 of 6
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB