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

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


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 9471

PostPosted: Sat Dec 25, 2021 2:40 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
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.


Yeah, I don't know what's right. You advocate for cops to be treated more like doctors. I say doctors should be treated more like cops. I think others in here like it the way it is.

I don't know why the extra protection for the medical field. There's no justice for the victims other than monetary compensation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 49550
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 25, 2021 5:06 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
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.


Yeah, I don't know what's right. You advocate for cops to be treated more like doctors. I say doctors should be treated more like cops. I think others in here like it the way it is.

I don't know why the extra protection for the medical field. There's no justice for the victims other than monetary compensation.


I don’t think doctors should be treated like cops or cops treated like doctors. Their roles, responsibilities, motives, methods and tools are not even remotely similar. Thus, any comparisons/analogies in the ramifications of their conduct and errors is apples to oranges.
_________________
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
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 9471

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

DaMuleRules wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
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.


Yeah, I don't know what's right. You advocate for cops to be treated more like doctors. I say doctors should be treated more like cops. I think others in here like it the way it is.

I don't know why the extra protection for the medical field. There's no justice for the victims other than monetary compensation.


I don’t think doctors should be treated like cops or cops treated like doctors. Their roles, responsibilities, motives, methods and tools are not even remotely similar. Thus, any comparisons/analogies in the ramifications of their conduct and errors is apples to oranges.


But as a victim, would you be able to distinguish it?

Let’s say you lost your eyesight or lost a loved one due to:

1) doctor’s negligence in shooting you up with the wrong drug
2) cop’s negligence in shooting you up with the wrong gun (taser vs real gun)

Is it really apples to oranges from the victim’s perspective?

I can’t say I’d be less mad or more understanding if it was a doctor vs a cop.

I’d probably be more mad at an eye doctor’s negligence if it cost me losing my eyesight. And I’d get no justice from the criminal system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11099

PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2021 7:30 am    Post subject:

DMR -- the analogy extends to the point it extends, but just because an analogy becomes disanalogus at some point doesn't make the entire analogy useless. LBP just gave a comparison that's useful.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 58814
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is consider a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2021 2:50 pm    Post subject:

google IS MALPRACTICE CRIMINAL


While it's not impossible to charge or convict a physician when a medical error takes place, it is rare. Medical malpractice cases usually aren't criminal cases. Extreme circumstances are required for a wrongful death or medical malpractice case to become criminal, most often regarding the death of a patient.Aug 22, 2020
_________________
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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 49550
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2021 6:13 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
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.


Yeah, I don't know what's right. You advocate for cops to be treated more like doctors. I say doctors should be treated more like cops. I think others in here like it the way it is.

I don't know why the extra protection for the medical field. There's no justice for the victims other than monetary compensation.


I don’t think doctors should be treated like cops or cops treated like doctors. Their roles, responsibilities, motives, methods and tools are not even remotely similar. Thus, any comparisons/analogies in the ramifications of their conduct and errors is apples to oranges.


But as a victim, would you be able to distinguish it?

Let’s say you lost your eyesight or lost a loved one due to:

1) doctor’s negligence in shooting you up with the wrong drug
2) cop’s negligence in shooting you up with the wrong gun (taser vs real gun)

Is it really apples to oranges from the victim’s perspective?

I can’t say I’d be less mad or more understanding if it was a doctor vs a cop.

I’d probably be more mad at an eye doctor’s negligence if it cost me losing my eyesight. And I’d get no justice from the criminal system.


I had a second hand experience in this kind of scenario three years ago. One of my closest friend's wife died from an egregious case of malpractice. She was an otherwise healthy woman in her early 30's who had high cholesterol. The doctor she saw through her insurance prescribed her Lipitor. The problem was, in an effort to take an aggressive approach, he prescribed an amount that was at least 3 times the dose she should have been on and matched the highest dose designated by the manufacturer. Within a couple of weeks, the dosage was leaving her feeling very unwell, but the doctor said she should stay the course. A few days later she collapsed because her body was going into massive kidney failure. She was put into ICU at a major university hospital in the LA area where the doctor was a part of the network. Over the course of three days, she degenerated into massive organ failure so severe that there was no surgical option. All this time, the doctors involved all dismissed the Lipitor factor, saying it must be part of a preexisting condition, despite the fact that wasn't any remote evidence of such, much less an identifiable one. Subsequently it became evident that there was likely a coverup involved with the hospital in an attempt to hide the malpractice and the associated negligence to the hospital.

My friend was obviously devastated by his wife's death and the avoidable circumstances surrounding it. But his response was that the doctor should never be allowed to practice again. His focus was on the pharmacy system that allowed the prescriptions to be filled despite the obvious red signs in the dosage, the hospital network that erred in addressing the obvious cause of the organ failure and did so in an effort to cover for their doctor and their network. There is a lawsuit that has resulted. The doctor made an error, but if you really want to get into where the criminality came in, it's with the hospital who after the fact has engaged in the coverup to attempt to diminish the doctor's negligence and their culpability in it and hiding it.

The difference I have been emphasizing is that the difference between the doctor and the cop is that the cop is someone who has the greenlight to kill if they are justified in doing so. Thus the threshold for their responsibility/culpability in an accidental death is vastly different than a doctor's. A doctor is never in the position to intentionally kill a patient outside of an agreed upon case of euthanasia, palliative care etc. Potter was empowered to choose life or death of a citizen in the street without any previous oversight or consent. She did not follow her training, and as a result, a person was killed.
_________________
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
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 49550
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2021 6:34 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
DMR -- the analogy extends to the point it extends, but just because an analogy becomes disanalogus at some point doesn't make the entire analogy useless. LBP just gave a comparison that's useful.


With all due and sincere respect LC, to my mind, the starting point for the analogy is so divergent right out of the gate that there's no point where an apparent similarity connects, as I have explained. A doctor never has the deadly weapon at their side as an acknowledged option.

I'm not adverse to finding doctors criminally negligent for their egregious mistakes. But the argument that because doctors are NOT typically found criminally negligent for their mistakes we should therefore grant police officers a similar amount of leeway is inherently flawed.
_________________
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
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 9471

PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2021 6:56 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
I had a second hand experience in this kind of scenario three years ago. One of my closest friend's wife died from an egregious case of malpractice. She was an otherwise healthy woman in her early 30's who had high cholesterol. The doctor she saw through her insurance prescribed her Lipitor. The problem was, in an effort to take an aggressive approach, he prescribed an amount that was at least 3 times the dose she should have been on and matched the highest dose designated by the manufacturer. Within a couple of weeks, the dosage was leaving her feeling very unwell, but the doctor said she should stay the course. A few days later she collapsed because her body was going into massive kidney failure. She was put into ICU at a major university hospital in the LA area where the doctor was a part of the network. Over the course of three days, she degenerated into massive organ failure so severe that there was no surgical option. All this time, the doctors involved all dismissed the Lipitor factor, saying it must be part of a preexisting condition, despite the fact that wasn't any remote evidence of such, much less an identifiable one. Subsequently it became evident that there was likely a coverup involved with the hospital in an attempt to hide the malpractice and the associated negligence to the hospital.

My friend was obviously devastated by his wife's death and the avoidable circumstances surrounding it. But his response was that the doctor should never be allowed to practice again. His focus was on the pharmacy system that allowed the prescriptions to be filled despite the obvious red signs in the dosage, the hospital network that erred in addressing the obvious cause of the organ failure and did so in an effort to cover for their doctor and their network. There is a lawsuit that has resulted. The doctor made an error, but if you really want to get into where the criminality came in, it's with the hospital who after the fact has engaged in the coverup to attempt to diminish the doctor's negligence and their culpability in it and hiding it.

The difference I have been emphasizing is that the difference between the doctor and the cop is that the cop is someone who has the greenlight to kill if they are justified in doing so. Thus the threshold for their responsibility/culpability in an accidental death is vastly different than a doctor's. A doctor is never in the position to intentionally kill a patient outside of an agreed upon case of euthanasia, palliative care etc. Potter was empowered to choose life or death of a citizen in the street without any previous oversight or consent. She did not follow her training, and as a result, a person was killed.


Thank you for sharing that story.

That was a professional judgment that doctor made and I can understand not prosecuting professionals when they’re making judgment calls. Even cops have the same leeway if they’re making judgment calls on when is the right time to shoot (i.e. did they see them reaching for a gun?)

I’m talking something similar to what Potter did. She didn’t make a judgment error, she made an execution error.

It would be akin to the doctor prescribing Liptor to your friend’s wife but somehow mixed up and gave her rat poison and she died from the rat poison.

Now, how would your friend feel? Wouldn’t he feel the same as he would if his wife was the victim of Potter? I would.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 58814
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is consider a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:49 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
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.


Yeah, I don't know what's right. You advocate for cops to be treated more like doctors. I say doctors should be treated more like cops. I think others in here like it the way it is.

I don't know why the extra protection for the medical field. There's no justice for the victims other than monetary compensation.


I don’t think doctors should be treated like cops or cops treated like doctors. Their roles, responsibilities, motives, methods and tools are not even remotely similar. Thus, any comparisons/analogies in the ramifications of their conduct and errors is apples to oranges.


But as a victim, would you be able to distinguish it?

Let’s say you lost your eyesight or lost a loved one due to:

1) doctor’s negligence in shooting you up with the wrong drug
2) cop’s negligence in shooting you up with the wrong gun (taser vs real gun)

Is it really apples to oranges from the victim’s perspective?

I can’t say I’d be less mad or more understanding if it was a doctor vs a cop.

I’d probably be more mad at an eye doctor’s negligence if it cost me losing my eyesight. And I’d get no justice from the criminal system.


I had a second hand experience in this kind of scenario three years ago. One of my closest friend's wife died from an egregious case of malpractice. She was an otherwise healthy woman in her early 30's who had high cholesterol. The doctor she saw through her insurance prescribed her Lipitor. The problem was, in an effort to take an aggressive approach, he prescribed an amount that was at least 3 times the dose she should have been on and matched the highest dose designated by the manufacturer. Within a couple of weeks, the dosage was leaving her feeling very unwell, but the doctor said she should stay the course. A few days later she collapsed because her body was going into massive kidney failure. She was put into ICU at a major university hospital in the LA area where the doctor was a part of the network. Over the course of three days, she degenerated into massive organ failure so severe that there was no surgical option. All this time, the doctors involved all dismissed the Lipitor factor, saying it must be part of a preexisting condition, despite the fact that wasn't any remote evidence of such, much less an identifiable one. Subsequently it became evident that there was likely a coverup involved with the hospital in an attempt to hide the malpractice and the associated negligence to the hospital.

My friend was obviously devastated by his wife's death and the avoidable circumstances surrounding it. But his response was that the doctor should never be allowed to practice again. His focus was on the pharmacy system that allowed the prescriptions to be filled despite the obvious red signs in the dosage, the hospital network that erred in addressing the obvious cause of the organ failure and did so in an effort to cover for their doctor and their network. There is a lawsuit that has resulted. The doctor made an error, but if you really want to get into where the criminality came in, it's with the hospital who after the fact has engaged in the coverup to attempt to diminish the doctor's negligence and their culpability in it and hiding it.

The difference I have been emphasizing is that the difference between the doctor and the cop is that the cop is someone who has the greenlight to kill if they are justified in doing so. Thus the threshold for their responsibility/culpability in an accidental death is vastly different than a doctor's. A doctor is never in the position to intentionally kill a patient outside of an agreed upon case of euthanasia, palliative care etc. Potter was empowered to choose life or death of a citizen in the street without any previous oversight or consent. She did not follow her training, and as a result, a person was killed.


As I understand it the coveup would be criminal.

Bolded green and underlined.
_________________
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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11099

PostPosted: Mon Dec 27, 2021 2:24 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
With all due and sincere respect LC, to my mind, the starting point for the analogy is so divergent right out of the gate that there's no point where an apparent similarity connects, as I have explained. A doctor never has the deadly weapon at their side as an acknowledged option.

I'm not adverse to finding doctors criminally negligent for their egregious mistakes. But the argument that because doctors are NOT typically found criminally negligent for their mistakes we should therefore grant police officers a similar amount of leeway is inherently flawed.


I appreciate that we see it differently, and we both agree that there is a limit to the analogy -- we just see the limit at a different point. In both cases, an error can cause an unnecessary death, and that's the aspect I'm focusing on. The fact that the cop can intentionally, necessarily, and in the course of their duties take a life as well doesn't really factor into the comparison -- we're talking about the consequences and circumstances of errors, not of their normal duties.
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: 89196
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2021 4:03 pm    Post subject:

I think the choice of interaction is a huge difference. A doctor doesn’t wander the street grabbing people and performing procedures on them at the doctor’s discretion, there is explicit or implicit consent involved. If you are upset at negligent doctors, you can avoid doctors altogether. Cops must be held to a higher standard. We should expect and except some good faith mistakes, but grabbing the wrong tool because you don’t have the temperament to handle stressful situations (in which case why is this a training officer?) is not good faith in my book.

There’s a whole different subject of tasers and other less than lethal weapons, especially as a means of assisting people who do t have the physical capacity to do the job, but that is another long discussion.
_________________
“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
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 9471

PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2021 6:45 am    Post subject:

Let's see what happens in the case of the 14 year old being shot and killed in the Burlington Coat Factory.

This was a case of a judgment error (whether or not it was proper to fire an assault rifle in a department store) vs. an execution error (Potter mistaking a real gun for a taser).

Let's see if they're treated like doctors (malpractice) or like Potter (criminal negligence).

Quote:
Also among the key questions, experts who reviewed the video said, is why an officer would discharge an assault-style rifle in a store, and whether the decision to do so was improper.

.........

George Kirkham, a former police officer and professor emeritus at the Florida State University College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, said the officer should not have fired a military-grade rifle inside a store.

.........

Greg Meyer, a retired LAPD captain and nationally recognized use of force expert, disagreed with the notion that police should not have had a high-powered weapon in tow when they entered the Burlington store, given what they had been told about the circumstances they would face inside.

“You absolutely want to have the rifle up front in this situation. That’s normal for what you believe will be an active shooter situation,” he said.

It appears that police believed they were in such a high-danger scenario because at least one 911 caller erroneously told an emergency dispatcher that there had been a shooting at the store and that the man had a gun.

Though that assertion later turned out to be false, police have to operate based on the best information they have available, according to Seth Stoughton, a former Florida police officer and University of South Carolina law professor who studies shootings and has co-authored a book on police use of force.

“When officers get the information, ‘active shooter, shots fired,’ without strong evidence to the contrary, they’re going to respond as if it’s an active shooter, shots fired,” he said, adding that in modern policing, that means “going in hard and fast, basically.”

https://cnbc-business.com/california/story/2021-12-30/lapd-burlington-north-hollywood-shooting-questions


This quote here makes me think this case might get handled like a malpractice case:

Quote:
“Sometimes officers don’t make the ideal tactical choice, and that’s OK. It sucks, it’s not great, it’s not what we want,” he said. “But in terms of assessing an officer’s tactical decisions, the question isn’t did they use textbook-perfect tactics, the question is whether the tactics they used were reasonable at the time and under the circumstances.”


The family is looking for justice from the criminal system. They'll undoubtedly be compensated financially for this, but they want justice as well.

Quote:
The father of teenager accidentally shot dead by US police in a department store, demanded jail time Tuesday for the officers involved in her killing.

The death of 14-year-old Valentina Orellana-Peralta is the latest at the hands of law enforcement in a country where guns abound and police readily resort to deadly force.

"The only thing I want is justice for my daughter," Juan Pablo Orellana told reporters.

"I will not rest until the last day, until all these criminals are in jail."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 49550
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2021 4:43 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
I think the choice of interaction is a huge difference. A doctor doesn’t wander the street grabbing people and performing procedures on them at the doctor’s discretion, there is explicit or implicit consent involved. If you are upset at negligent doctors, you can avoid doctors altogether. Cops must be held to a higher standard. We should expect and except some good faith mistakes, but grabbing the wrong tool because you don’t have the temperament to handle stressful situations (in which case why is this a training officer?) is not good faith in my book.

There’s a whole different subject of tasers and other less than lethal weapons, especially as a means of assisting people who do t have the physical capacity to do the job, but that is another long discussion.


Absolutely. The starting point for culpability in a civilian's death is entirely different between a medical doctor and a law enforcement officer. When a cop makes an entirely avoidable, lethal "mistake" when employing what should be less than lethal force, that is undoubtedly criminal negligence—even Potter acknowledged that in the aftermath of the moment.
_________________
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
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 49550
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2021 4:48 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
Let's see what happens in the case of the 14 year old being shot and killed in the Burlington Coat Factory.

This was a case of a judgment error (whether or not it was proper to fire an assault rifle in a department store) vs. an execution error (Potter mistaking a real gun for a taser).

Let's see if they're treated like doctors (malpractice) or like Potter (criminal negligence).

Quote:
Also among the key questions, experts who reviewed the video said, is why an officer would discharge an assault-style rifle in a store, and whether the decision to do so was improper.

.........

George Kirkham, a former police officer and professor emeritus at the Florida State University College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, said the officer should not have fired a military-grade rifle inside a store.

.........

Greg Meyer, a retired LAPD captain and nationally recognized use of force expert, disagreed with the notion that police should not have had a high-powered weapon in tow when they entered the Burlington store, given what they had been told about the circumstances they would face inside.

“You absolutely want to have the rifle up front in this situation. That’s normal for what you believe will be an active shooter situation,” he said.

It appears that police believed they were in such a high-danger scenario because at least one 911 caller erroneously told an emergency dispatcher that there had been a shooting at the store and that the man had a gun.

Though that assertion later turned out to be false, police have to operate based on the best information they have available, according to Seth Stoughton, a former Florida police officer and University of South Carolina law professor who studies shootings and has co-authored a book on police use of force.

“When officers get the information, ‘active shooter, shots fired,’ without strong evidence to the contrary, they’re going to respond as if it’s an active shooter, shots fired,” he said, adding that in modern policing, that means “going in hard and fast, basically.”

https://cnbc-business.com/california/story/2021-12-30/lapd-burlington-north-hollywood-shooting-questions


This quote here makes me think this case might get handled like a malpractice case:

Quote:
“Sometimes officers don’t make the ideal tactical choice, and that’s OK. It sucks, it’s not great, it’s not what we want,” he said. “But in terms of assessing an officer’s tactical decisions, the question isn’t did they use textbook-perfect tactics, the question is whether the tactics they used were reasonable at the time and under the circumstances.”


The family is looking for justice from the criminal system. They'll undoubtedly be compensated financially for this, but they want justice as well.

Quote:
The father of teenager accidentally shot dead by US police in a department store, demanded jail time Tuesday for the officers involved in her killing.

The death of 14-year-old Valentina Orellana-Peralta is the latest at the hands of law enforcement in a country where guns abound and police readily resort to deadly force.

"The only thing I want is justice for my daughter," Juan Pablo Orellana told reporters.

"I will not rest until the last day, until all these criminals are in jail."


Even the fellow officers present were questioning the shooter's tactics right before the shooting. This wasn't simply an honest mistake, this was a cop going rouge. You don't get to kill an innocent bystander and simply have the system say "OOPS! . . . oh well . . ."
_________________
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
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11099

PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2021 6:21 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Absolutely. The starting point for culpability in a civilian's death is entirely different between a medical doctor and a law enforcement officer. When a cop makes an entirely avoidable, lethal "mistake" when employing what should be less than lethal force, that is undoubtedly criminal negligence—even Potter acknowledged that in the aftermath of the moment.


I dunno -- we're talking about different sides of this, but I don't see the discussion really advancing here. If you'll allow me to pick apart what you say here, I don't see you saying anything new. The "when employing what should be less than lethal force" is unnecessary, because less than lethal force is already implied by your "lethal 'mistake.'" So removing that part, I see three things you're saying:

1. Just reasserting that it's different between doctors and cops.
2. Just reasserting that when it's a cop, it's automatically (you said "undoubtedly") criminally negligent -- which is really just saying point 1 over again, because that's the difference you're asserting.
3. Potter corroborates what you said. But my point would be that the same mind that wasn't functioning normally to begin with is now in even worse shape, because it's the immediate aftermath of also shooting someone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 9471

PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2021 7:53 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
Cops must be held to a higher standard. We should expect and except some good faith mistakes, but grabbing the wrong tool because you don’t have the temperament to handle stressful situations (in which case why is this a training officer?) is not good faith in my book.


But if we’re only talking about grabbing the wrong tool which can lead to death, then wouldn’t we want EVERY profession to be held to this higher standard?

1) doctor grabs the wrong tool (wrong medicine) which causes patient to die

2) Cop grabs the wrong tool (gun) which causes suspect to die

3) Mechanic grabs the wrong tool (brakes) which causes car owner to die

4) Building engineer grabs the wrong tool (building construction) which causes building to collapse and tenants to die.

5) Pharmacists grabs the wrong tool (ingredients) when mixing medication causing patients to die

And we can go on and on. Wouldn’t you want ALL PROFESSIONS to be held to this higher standard of not grabbing the wrong tools that can cause death? Or only cops shouldn’t be grabbing wrong tools?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
slavavov
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 6719
Location: Santa Monica

PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2021 1:06 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Cops must be held to a higher standard. We should expect and except some good faith mistakes, but grabbing the wrong tool because you don’t have the temperament to handle stressful situations (in which case why is this a training officer?) is not good faith in my book.


But if we’re only talking about grabbing the wrong tool which can lead to death, then wouldn’t we want EVERY profession to be held to this higher standard?

1) doctor grabs the wrong tool (wrong medicine) which causes patient to die

2) Cop grabs the wrong tool (gun) which causes suspect to die

3) Mechanic grabs the wrong tool (brakes) which causes car owner to die

4) Building engineer grabs the wrong tool (building construction) which causes building to collapse and tenants to die.

5) Pharmacists grabs the wrong tool (ingredients) when mixing medication causing patients to die

And we can go on and on. Wouldn’t you want ALL PROFESSIONS to be held to this higher standard of not grabbing the wrong tools that can cause death? Or only cops shouldn’t be grabbing wrong tools?

I think when a doctor does something that causes a patient to die, become permanently ill or disabled, grow a second head or horns or beaks or whatever, that doctor should face criminal charges, even though, I'm guessing in most cases, it wasn't intentional.

I'm not talking about simple malpractice, where they might prescribe the wrong medicine or the wrong dosage, and it harms you, but it's reversible. To me that's grounds for civil but not criminal malpractice.

Maybe the threshold for doctors should be higher than with cops given the nature of the profession, but like being a cop, doctors (or at least some of them, depending on their speciality) hold people's lives in their hands.

I'm sure there have been cases where professionals like engineers or others who do physical labor have done something stupid that resulted in death or injury and then faced criminal charges, right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 9471

PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2021 4:45 am    Post subject:

slavavov wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Cops must be held to a higher standard. We should expect and except some good faith mistakes, but grabbing the wrong tool because you don’t have the temperament to handle stressful situations (in which case why is this a training officer?) is not good faith in my book.


But if we’re only talking about grabbing the wrong tool which can lead to death, then wouldn’t we want EVERY profession to be held to this higher standard?

1) doctor grabs the wrong tool (wrong medicine) which causes patient to die

2) Cop grabs the wrong tool (gun) which causes suspect to die

3) Mechanic grabs the wrong tool (brakes) which causes car owner to die

4) Building engineer grabs the wrong tool (building construction) which causes building to collapse and tenants to die.

5) Pharmacists grabs the wrong tool (ingredients) when mixing medication causing patients to die

And we can go on and on. Wouldn’t you want ALL PROFESSIONS to be held to this higher standard of not grabbing the wrong tools that can cause death? Or only cops shouldn’t be grabbing wrong tools?

I think when a doctor does something that causes a patient to die, become permanently ill or disabled, grow a second head or horns or beaks or whatever, that doctor should face criminal charges, even though, I'm guessing in most cases, it wasn't intentional.

I'm not talking about simple malpractice, where they might prescribe the wrong medicine or the wrong dosage, and it harms you, but it's reversible. To me that's grounds for civil but not criminal malpractice.

Maybe the threshold for doctors should be higher than with cops given the nature of the profession, but like being a cop, doctors (or at least some of them, depending on their speciality) hold people's lives in their hands.

I'm sure there have been cases where professionals like engineers or others who do physical labor have done something stupid that resulted in death or injury and then faced criminal charges, right?


Yeah I don’t get why we have different standards for different professionals based on the uniform that they wear.

If I told you that a professional freaked out, grabbed the wrong tool which caused an unnecessary death, what are the pertinent questions that you would ask?

The most pertinent question seems to be: what uniform was this professional wearing?

1) A cops uniform? —> criminal negligence = prison

2) A white lab coat? —> pay some money, but no prison.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 49550
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2021 5:11 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Absolutely. The starting point for culpability in a civilian's death is entirely different between a medical doctor and a law enforcement officer. When a cop makes an entirely avoidable, lethal "mistake" when employing what should be less than lethal force, that is undoubtedly criminal negligence—even Potter acknowledged that in the aftermath of the moment.


I dunno -- we're talking about different sides of this, but I don't see the discussion really advancing here. If you'll allow me to pick apart what you say here, I don't see you saying anything new.


There's no need to say anything "new". The concept is straightforward and concrete. Elaboration isn't necessary.

Quote:
The "when employing what should be less than lethal force" is unnecessary, because less than lethal force is already implied by your "lethal 'mistake.'"


Not sure why you think playing semantics games accomplishes anything here.

Quote:

So removing that part, I see three things you're saying:

1. Just reasserting that it's different between doctors and cops.


Again, very concrete, for the reasons I have previously laid out that you leave out here.

Quote:
2. Just reasserting that when it's a cop, it's automatically (you said "undoubtedly") criminally negligent -- which is really just saying point 1 over again, because that's the difference you're asserting.


No. I have explained the differences. And you (and I am sure knowingly, given how intelligent and detail oriented you are) reduced my position to an oversimplification, implying that every cop's mistake is criminally negligent. What you have eliminated from your "tearing apart" is that I was explicit that when an officer makes such an egregious mistake while employing a lethal weapon when they should be employing the less than lethal one is where the criminality comes in.


Quote:
3. Potter corroborates what you said. But my point would be that the same mind that wasn't functioning normally to begin with is now in even worse shape, because it's the immediate aftermath of also shooting someone.


So she is simultaneously not of a sound mind because she was overwhelmed by the situation leading to a mistake she shouldn't be held criminality accountable for. But she is of sound enough mind to know that she has made a mistake she should be held accountable for, but she is is unable to reason what kind of accountability she should face . . . sounds like pretty damn convenient rationale you're spinning there sir.

I gotta admit, I definitely feel "torn apart" . . . I mean positively shredded.
_________________
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
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11099

PostPosted: Sat Jan 01, 2022 10:19 am    Post subject:

Snipping for brevity.

DaMuleRules wrote:
Not sure why you think playing semantics games accomplishes anything here.


Wasn't intended to be a semantic game -- just trying to boil it down to the points you were making, and snipping what appeared to be a tautology. My reasoning was that since a "lethal mistake" when she intended to use lethal force would have been contradictory, saying a lethal mistake when she intended to use less than lethal force was a tautology.

Quote:
Again, very concrete, for the reasons I have previously laid out that you leave out here.


I left out here because it wasn't in your post that I responded to. And it's directly connected to the reason I said we weren't making progress. We were drilling down, and then backing out. To give an analogy, it's like setting up a study to determine whether some phenomenon exists, determining that it does exist, moving on to the next part to investigate the why & how, and then suddenly backing up to the "whether" question. You were just reasserting your baseline position (which I already get), without exploring the reasons we disagree (which you said I left out, but really you left out -- i.e., no progress, just back to the baseline assertion).

Quote:
No. I have explained the differences. And you (and I am sure knowingly, given how intelligent and detail oriented you are) reduced my position to an oversimplification, implying that every cop's mistake is criminally negligent. What you have eliminated from your "tearing apart" is that I was explicit that when an officer makes such an egregious mistake while employing a lethal weapon when they should be employing the less than lethal one is where the criminality comes in.


I'd ask that you grant me a baseline assumption that I'm not trying to oversimplify, misrepresent, or play semantic games.

But I'll take you back to what you said, to which I responded: "When a cop makes an entirely avoidable, lethal "mistake" when employing what should be less than lethal force, that is undoubtedly criminal negligence." I don't think I altered your meaning -- only shortened it.

Quote:
So she is simultaneously not of a sound mind because she was overwhelmed by the situation leading to a mistake she shouldn't be held criminality accountable for. But she is of sound enough mind to know that she has made a mistake she should be held accountable for, but she is is unable to reason what kind of accountability she should face . . . sounds like pretty damn convenient rationale you're spinning there sir.


Let me give another analogy to try to illustrate the point I was making: torture. If you write down everything someone says while undergoing torture, some of it may make sense, some of it may not, some of it may corroborate your opinion, some of it may not -- but all of it can be disregarded because it resulted from a mind that wasn't functioning under normal operating conditions.

It's like people who claim near death experiences and recount the bright light, etc. in vivid detail, where in reality it's entirely consistent with a brain that's hypoxic and in early stages of shutdown. You don't treat such a brain as a reliable recorder of events, no matter what they say.

I am not claiming "...but at the same time she was of sound enough mind that..." I'm saying it all is of very little probative value.
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: 49550
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 01, 2022 4:57 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
Snipping for brevity.

DaMuleRules wrote:
Not sure why you think playing semantics games accomplishes anything here.


Wasn't intended to be a semantic game -- just trying to boil it down to the points you were making, and snipping what appeared to be a tautology. My reasoning was that since a "lethal mistake" when she intended to use lethal force would have been contradictory, saying a lethal mistake when she intended to use less than lethal force was a tautology.

Quote:
Again, very concrete, for the reasons I have previously laid out that you leave out here.


I left out here because it wasn't in your post that I responded to. And it's directly connected to the reason I said we weren't making progress. We were drilling down, and then backing out. To give an analogy, it's like setting up a study to determine whether some phenomenon exists, determining that it does exist, moving on to the next part to investigate the why & how, and then suddenly backing up to the "whether" question. You were just reasserting your baseline position (which I already get), without exploring the reasons we disagree (which you said I left out, but really you left out -- i.e., no progress, just back to the baseline assertion).

Quote:
No. I have explained the differences. And you (and I am sure knowingly, given how intelligent and detail oriented you are) reduced my position to an oversimplification, implying that every cop's mistake is criminally negligent. What you have eliminated from your "tearing apart" is that I was explicit that when an officer makes such an egregious mistake while employing a lethal weapon when they should be employing the less than lethal one is where the criminality comes in.


I'd ask that you grant me a baseline assumption that I'm not trying to oversimplify, misrepresent, or play semantic games.

But I'll take you back to what you said, to which I responded: "When a cop makes an entirely avoidable, lethal "mistake" when employing what should be less than lethal force, that is undoubtedly criminal negligence." I don't think I altered your meaning -- only shortened it.


Fair enough. Agreed that there's no progress to be made here.

LarryCoon wrote:
Quote:
So she is simultaneously not of a sound mind because she was overwhelmed by the situation leading to a mistake she shouldn't be held criminality accountable for. But she is of sound enough mind to know that she has made a mistake she should be held accountable for, but she is is unable to reason what kind of accountability she should face . . . sounds like pretty damn convenient rationale you're spinning there sir.


Let me give another analogy to try to illustrate the point I was making: torture. If you write down everything someone says while undergoing torture, some of it may make sense, some of it may not, some of it may corroborate your opinion, some of it may not -- but all of it can be disregarded because it resulted from a mind that wasn't functioning under normal operating conditions.

It's like people who claim near death experiences and recount the bright light, etc. in vivid detail, where in reality it's entirely consistent with a brain that's hypoxic and in early stages of shutdown. You don't treat such a brain as a reliable recorder of events, no matter what they say.

I am not claiming "...but at the same time she was of sound enough mind that..." I'm saying it all is of very little probative value.


Sorry, but neither being tortured nor having a near death experience are even remotely analogous to what Potter experienced while simply doing the job she was trained to do, was a willing participant in, and was one of the controlling factors in its outcome. Her comment came from the standpoint of someone who knows their responsibilities and liabilities and knew she had violated them. She wasn't a victim of some hugely traumatic attack beyond her control. She said, "I'm going to jail" and she was 100% correct about that, as her trial verified—of course her sentencing remains to be seen, and I have little faith the system which is notorious for giving "get out of jail for free" cards to LEOs is going to commit her to anything meaningful.
_________________
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
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11099

PostPosted: Sun Jan 02, 2022 7:47 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Sorry, but neither being tortured nor having a near death experience are even remotely analogous to what Potter experienced while simply doing the job she was trained to do, was a willing participant in, and was one of the controlling factors in its outcome. Her comment came from the standpoint of someone who knows their responsibilities and liabilities and knew she had violated them. She wasn't a victim of some hugely traumatic attack beyond her control. She said, "I'm going to jail" and she was 100% correct about that, as her trial verified—of course her sentencing remains to be seen, and I have little faith the system which is notorious for giving "get out of jail for free" cards to LEOs is going to commit her to anything meaningful.


The analogy was perfectly appropriate for what I intended to illustrate -- when people are in altered states of consciousness, what they say isn't reliable. I used extreme examples to make the point clear that what I said is true at least in the extreme example. With that established, the next step is to find the line of demarcation (even if it's fuzzy) and figure out which side of the line she was on.

My entire line of reasoning in this topic has been: 1) Was she in an altered state of consciousness? 2) Can that altered state of consciousness help explain the events? 3) Does criminal negligence exist if she was in an altered state of consciousness?

My assessment of your responses to these questions is: 1) Either "not applicable" or "no"; 2) No; 3) Yes. But I'm not sure you ever really considered these alternatives.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 9471

PostPosted: Sun Jan 02, 2022 10:32 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
Does criminal negligence exist if she was in an altered state of consciousness?


LarryCoon, before you ask if an altered state of consciousness applies to Potter, you should establish that an altered state of consciousness defense actually exists.

Now, I give you that you've established that there's more leeway given to medical practitioners than to cops, but that's not an altered state of consciousness defense. That's a defense for all sorts of mistakes that medical practitioners make, altered state of consciousness or not.

The only altered state of consciousness defense that I'm aware of is a complete loss/lack of capacity/consciousness (i.e. insanity, mental retardation, sleep walking, etc) that's not by choice (like choosing to get so drunk or high).

But, I'm really not aware of any partial altered state of consciousness defense. Do you have any case law on this? Or any criminal negligence case where the defense of "altered state of consciousness" was used.

For example, I know they have a heat of passion defense in domestic violence cases. Husband murders wife after finding her in bed with another man. That defense just mitigates the charges down from murder to manslaughter, but doesn't completely remove the culpability.

So, I'm not aware of any altered state of consciousness defense. Does this even exist in criminal negligence? Because if it doesn't then is there a point in this examination with respect to Potter?

Quote:
Crime of Passion

In criminal law, a crime of passion is a crime committed in the "heat of passion" in response to provocation, as opposed to one that was premeditated or deliberated. Provocation serves as a partial defense to manslaughter because while it does not completely excuse the defendant of the killing, it can downgrade the degree of the crime, and therefore the associated punishment. The provocation defense serves to recognize that some reactions can be provoked spontaneously, without giving one the opportunity to reflect on his or her actions.

The provocation behind a crime of passion must be that which is calculated to inflame the passions of a reasonable person. For example, extreme assault on the defendant or sudden discovery of spousal adultery have traditionally been regarded as sufficient provocation, while mere words have not.

As an alternative to the heat of passion standard, some jurisdictions apply the standard of extreme emotional disturbance. The Model Penal Code (section 210.3) states that a murder is downgraded to manslaughter when it was "committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse." It is worth noting that while this standard is more flexible than the provocation standard, it still falls under a reasonable person standard.

In New York, the offense of murder can be downgraded to manslaughter if it was found that the defendant acted upon heat of passion, which negates the element of malice required for murder. "Heat of passion" requires an inquiry as to whether the defendant was "obscured or disturbed" by passion that would cause a reasonable person to act from passion rather than judgement. Furthermore, for a defendant to have acted in the heat of passion, he or she must have been succumbed to adequate provocation.


And here are some defenses to criminal negligence:

Quote:
Defense lawyers draw on several legal strategies to contest allegations of criminal negligence. These include showing that:

1) a defendant committed an act as the result of a mistake or accident,

2) the accused had no knowledge that his/her act created a risk of danger, and

3) the defendant acted with reasonable care.


Quote:
What are Some of the Defenses to Criminal Negligence?

The specific defenses which are available depend on the exact facts of your situation. Some major defenses which are available to defendants include:

1) No Legal Duty: In order to be convicted of criminal negligence, the defendant must have owed a duty to the victim to do something or refrain from doing something. If the defendant can prove that they owed no legal duty, they will not be held criminally negligent.

2) Mistake or Accident: If the defendant can prove that their conduct was not so outrageous or reckless but that their actions were the result of a mistake in judgment or an accident, they may not be considered criminally negligent.

3) Reasonable Care: If the defendant can prove that they exercised reasonable care to avoid harming the victim, they may not be considered criminally negligent.

4) Involuntary Intoxication: If the defendant can prove that they committed the crime while they were under the influence of alcohol or drugs either unknowingly or because of force, they can avoid criminal negligence. However, voluntary intoxication is not a complete defense and the defendant can still be found guilty of some other charge.


And I know her defense team was going for the mistake/accident defense. Both sides agreed that Potter made a mistake. However, they disagreed on the severity of the mistake.

An ordinary negligent mistake is not enough for criminal negligence. The mistake must be reckless.

Potter's defense team was trying to prove how her mistake was of the ordinary type while the prosecutor was trying to prove that her mistake was reckless.

But, I'm not sure that they were trying to prove altered state of consciousness (as a defense on its own).

They did bring in a psychologist to try to prove that the stressful situation caused her to make that mistake and thus, it was just an ordinary mistake and not a reckless one.

But is that the altered state of consciousness defense you were referring to?

Quote:
Dr. Laurence Miller, a psychologist, testified in Potter's trial how action errors may play a role in making mistakes in daily life. Like writing the wrong date down or putting in an old password into a computer, ingrained habits sometimes take over and people do what is routine rather than what they actually meant to do, Miller argued.


Yeah, basically the psychologist was comparing Potter mistaking a real gun for a taser gun to writing down the wrong date. (And this psychologist was also paid $30K for this testimony).

Quote:
She then brought up what Potter had previously told Laurence Miller, a psychologist and witness paid $30,000 by Potter's defense team as a consultant, who had interviewed Potter about the shooting.

Miller, whose expertise includes the psychological effects on officers of stressful on-duty encounters such as shootings, testified earlier Friday about circumstances that may lead to officers mistakenly reaching for a gun instead of a stun gun.


So, in summary, there wasn't an "altered state of consciousness" defense in this case. The case boiled down to whether the mistake was ordinary vs. reckless. Potter's defense team tried to explain that her mistake was ordinary by using a psychologist.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11099

PostPosted: Sun Jan 02, 2022 2:08 pm    Post subject:

Skipped most for brevity, because I can get everything in with a smaller quote.

LongBeachPoly wrote:
And I know her defense team was going for the mistake/accident defense. Both sides agreed that Potter made a mistake. However, they disagreed on the severity of the mistake.

An ordinary negligent mistake is not enough for criminal negligence. The mistake must be reckless.

Potter's defense team was trying to prove how her mistake was of the ordinary type while the prosecutor was trying to prove that her mistake was reckless.

But, I'm not sure that they were trying to prove altered state of consciousness (as a defense on its own).

They did bring in a psychologist to try to prove that the stressful situation caused her to make that mistake and thus, it was just an ordinary mistake and not a reckless one.

But is that the altered state of consciousness defense you were referring to?


Never said it was an allowable criminal defense, so your saying that I first need to establish that there is one is a non sequitur resulting from a strawman. I was trying to establish what was actually happening in her head, and the extent to which events resultingly unfolded as they did. The logic I was going for was that if the criminal definition requires recklessness, and these facts can rule out mere recklessness as a cause, then the definition doesn't apply -- or at least we apply a plausible alternative.

Ultimately I'm not trying to claim it's a viable defense as the definition is practically applied. Rather, I'd be concluding that this is one of myriad instances where the justice system hasn't yet caught up to the science. (Interrogation techniques and the reliability of eyewitness testimony are two other such areas.)

Quote:
Yeah, basically the psychologist was comparing Potter mistaking a real gun for a taser gun to writing down the wrong date. (And this psychologist was also paid $30K for this testimony).


Yeah, that guy sure didn't earn his fee with that approach to testimony.

Quote:
So, in summary, there wasn't an "altered state of consciousness" defense in this case. The case boiled down to whether the mistake was ordinary vs. reckless. Potter's defense team tried to explain that her mistake was ordinary by using a psychologist.


Yeah, the "ordinary vs. reckless" is closer to my point. But I still think that framing it as that sort of dichotomy misses the nuance.

And you made a good point with "crime of passion" -- that while they exist and are recognized as such, they are at best a mitigating factor and not an excuse that removes all criminal culpability.
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: 49550
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 02, 2022 2:09 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Sorry, but neither being tortured nor having a near death experience are even remotely analogous to what Potter experienced while simply doing the job she was trained to do, was a willing participant in, and was one of the controlling factors in its outcome. Her comment came from the standpoint of someone who knows their responsibilities and liabilities and knew she had violated them. She wasn't a victim of some hugely traumatic attack beyond her control. She said, "I'm going to jail" and she was 100% correct about that, as her trial verified—of course her sentencing remains to be seen, and I have little faith the system which is notorious for giving "get out of jail for free" cards to LEOs is going to commit her to anything meaningful.


The analogy was perfectly appropriate for what I intended to illustrate -- when people are in altered states of consciousness, what they say isn't reliable. I used extreme examples to make the point clear that what I said is true at least in the extreme example. With that established, the next step is to find the line of demarcation (even if it's fuzzy) and figure out which side of the line she was on.


Well, let's use your examples you used for comparison. In regards to torture, there comes a point where people will say anything they think will end the pain and abuse—they will make stuff, and/or confess to things they didn't actually do in an attempt to get a reprieve. Even to the point that they may even face other, potentially worse consequences in the long run.

In the case of near death experience, people are also usually incapacitated, in a great deal of pain and lack consciousness. They construct an idea of what was happening in that altered state that likely doesn't have a basis in reality. And in that case it isn't likely a calculated decision, though it may be driven by a preconceived notion "I think I'm dying, am I being drawn to the 'otherside'?"

And then there's Potter's statement, that while it may have been made in the heat of the moment in a challenging situation, it was not a statement contrived to end that situation or the trauma associated with it. It was clearly a statement of realization of the ramifications of what she had done, indicating a cognitive awareness of the realities she faced. Not an attempt at finding some meaning to what was happening to her like a near death experience.

So while at the initial core, there may be a basic element in the three instances that shares a similarity—stress or trauma—similarity certain doesn't mean the same. And as that similarity diverges, the analogy become more and more incongruous. And that is why I say that comparing Potter's statement of realization (that had factual basis), to the attempts of a torture subject to end their torment is not analogous.

Quote:
My entire line of reasoning in this topic has been: 1) Was she in an altered state of consciousness? 2) Can that altered state of consciousness help explain the events? 3) Does criminal negligence exist if she was in an altered state of consciousness?

My assessment of your responses to these questions is: 1) Either "not applicable" or "no"; 2) No; 3) Yes. But I'm not sure you ever really considered these alternatives.


Of course I have considered the alternatives. I'm not going to summarily dismiss them. In fact, it is the consideration of them that leads me to say, "hold on, I disagree with the premise" and have stated the differences as to why.

So, let's explore the idea that because Potter was in an "altered state of consciousness" (and for the purposes of the discussion, I will assume I agree with the essence of that statement). How does her altered state of consciousness alleviate the responsibilities for what happened? If we are going to allow a blanket notion that being in "altered state of consciousness" in the broad sense you have outlined in your analogies between three very different degrees erases culpability for the consequences of one's actions go down a path , where does that end? What about the husband who comes home to find his wife is in the act of cheating on him with another man. Is the rage he feels an "altered state of consciousness"? If he goes and grabs his gun and kills his wife and her lover an "oh well, didn't really mean it, he was out of his mind" moment and thus the criminality of the murder shouldn't be pursued? Or what about a lesser example like the truck driver who killed four people. Did he intend to go out that day and kill the victims? Highly doubtful. But he did operate the truck knowing it had brake problems. He did fail to utilize safety precautions like the runaway truck ramp. And those negligent actions lead to the deaths of four people. So do we ignore the criminal negligence involved because he might have panicked in a the event that arose because of the negligence—an incident of "altered state of consciousness"? What about drunk drivers who are clearly in an "altered state of consciousness"? They may have made the conscious decision to drink, but at some point that altered state of consciousness kicks in and decisions are made based on it.

I know that to your analytical mind, nuance might not matter as much as the clinical basics that apparently ties things together as being similar to the point they are treated as being the same. But nuance does in fact matter when evaluating very different sets of circumstances. And that is my point.
_________________
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  Next
Page 3 of 5
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