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: Sun Jan 02, 2022 2:37 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
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.


But you did phrase it in this way:

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


I mean, I don't know how else to interpret that question.

If the answer to that question is: No, criminal negligence does not exist if Potter was in an altered state of consciousness...

Then doesn't that mean that proving that Potter was in an altered state of consciousness would be a complete defense for criminal negligence?

I mean, what am I missing here?

If you're asking if criminal negligence even exists, isn't that the same as asking for a complete defense?

LarryCoon wrote:
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.


I don't know LarryCoon. Because initially, you said that what Potter did doesn't fit the legal definition of criminal negligence. Now you're saying that the judicial system hasn't yet caught up to the science.

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.


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.

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.


Last edited by LongBeachPoly on Sun Jan 02, 2022 2:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 27028
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Sun Jan 02, 2022 2:40 pm    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?


It appears to me you are making a better argument for holding more professions accountable as opposed to making a good argument for holding law enforcement less accountable.

If "I accidentally used the wrong tool" becomes an acceptable excuse for work related killings across the board. That lack of accountability is scary. Especially in the hands of United States Law enforcement. Who has a long history of killing unarmed people for personal reasons (racism being the most notable one).

I mean are the break and gas pedals in the car of a delivery driver considered a tool? Could he run people over while delivering pizza, and walk away without criminal liability because he pressed the wrong pedal a.k.a. used the wrong tool?
_________________
"Anybody have that same fire, that same passion that you have for the game?"

Kobe: "Westbrook plays mean. He plays mean like I did."
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 Jan 02, 2022 2:53 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
It appears to me you are making a better argument for holding more professions accountable as opposed to making a good argument for holding law enforcement less accountable.


Yes, that was my intention. I'm not trying to make any argument for holding law enforcement less accountable...

I agreed with the ruling.

It's Larry Coon's position that maybe cops should be held less accountable criminally like doctors are and I was trying to refute that by illustrating that all professionals should be held to a higher standard when it comes inflicting serious bodily harm/death on people.

Quote:
If "I accidentally used the wrong tool" becomes an acceptable excuse for work related killings across the board. That lack of accountability is scary. Especially in the hands of United States Law enforcement. Who has a long history of killing unarmed people for personal reasons (racism being the most notable one).


Agreed.

Quote:
I mean are the break and gas pedals in the car of a delivery driver considered a tool? Could he run people over while delivering pizza, and walk away without criminal liability because he pressed the wrong pedal a.k.a. used the wrong tool?


Agreed.


Last edited by LongBeachPoly on Sun Jan 02, 2022 3:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 27028
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Sun Jan 02, 2022 2:56 pm    Post subject:

The difficulty of proving culpability widely varies between a physician mistreating a patient and law enforcement immediately ending someone's life with a gun.

Also, I'm not sure death should be the focus necessarily. Non-fatal harm is just as important. But with medicine that does open another can of worms. If physicians fear criminal repercussions at a strong enough level, they would only advocate conservative treatment measures. Even if that gives patients a lower likelihood of survival. And in that case, that is doing harm as well.
_________________
"Anybody have that same fire, that same passion that you have for the game?"

Kobe: "Westbrook plays mean. He plays mean like I did."
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 Jan 02, 2022 3:01 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
The difficulty of proving culpability widely varies between a physician mistreating a patient and law enforcement immediately ending someone's life with a gun.

Also, I'm not sure death should be the focus necessarily. Non-fatal harm is just as important. But with medicine that does open another can of worms. If physicians fear criminal repercussions at a strong enough level, they would only advocate conservative treatment measures. Even if that gives patients a lower likelihood of survival. And in that case, that is doing harm as well.


I think this is the very reason why there are differences in the 2 professions. They wanted to protect the medical profession for the greater good of society so they added that extra layer of protection against criminal negligence. Agreed.

I don't think the difficulty of proving culpability plays a part in any way. The law shouldn't be written based on how difficult it is to prove.

But I do think the laws are different for the greater good of society. We don't want medical professionals fearing criminal prosecution., so they get that extra layer of protection.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 27028
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Sun Jan 02, 2022 3:06 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
kikanga wrote:
The difficulty of proving culpability widely varies between a physician mistreating a patient and law enforcement immediately ending someone's life with a gun.

Also, I'm not sure death should be the focus necessarily. Non-fatal harm is just as important. But with medicine that does open another can of worms. If physicians fear criminal repercussions at a strong enough level, they would only advocate conservative treatment measures. Even if that gives patients a lower likelihood of survival. And in that case, that is doing harm as well.


I think this is the very reason why there are differences in the 2 professions. They wanted to protect the medical profession for the greater good of society so they added that extra layer of protection against criminal negligence. Agreed.

I don't think the difficulty of proving culpability plays a part in any way. The law shouldn't be written based on how difficult it is to prove.

But I do think the laws are different for the greater good of society. We don't want medical professionals fearing criminal prosecution.


I think the difficulty of proving culpability plays a part in whether criminal charges are pursued by prosecutors.
_________________
"Anybody have that same fire, that same passion that you have for the game?"

Kobe: "Westbrook plays mean. He plays mean like I did."
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 Jan 02, 2022 3:12 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
I think the difficulty of proving culpability plays a part in whether criminal charges are pursued by prosecutors.


Agreed. But let's compare the standards for criminal negligence for medical professionals vs. the standards for everyone else:

For medical professionals:

Quote:
to cross from civil to criminal negligence, there must be a "gross or flagrant deviation from the standard of care." In addition, the physician in question must also have a "criminally culpable state of mind."


For everyone else:

Quote:
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances. An example is a parent leaving a loaded firearm within reach of a small child.
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 7:03 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
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.


But you did phrase it in this way:

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


I mean, I don't know how else to interpret that question.

If the answer to that question is: No, criminal negligence does not exist if Potter was in an altered state of consciousness...

Then doesn't that mean that proving that Potter was in an altered state of consciousness would be a complete defense for criminal negligence?

I mean, what am I missing here?


I guess a couple of things (not really a case of you missing so much as me not being as clear as I could be). One is that my thinking on the matter continues to evolve as we continue to discuss this. The other is that I'm differentiating (at least trying to) the reality of a situation (from a neuropsychological standpoint) from what the courts recognize and allow. I interpreted what you were asking me before is whether an altered state of consciousness is a legally recognized and allowable exception in the definition of the crime.

Quote:
If you're asking if criminal negligence even exists, isn't that the same as asking for a complete defense?

LarryCoon wrote:
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.


I don't know LarryCoon. Because initially, you said that what Potter did doesn't fit the legal definition of criminal negligence. Now you're saying that the judicial system hasn't yet caught up to the science.

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.


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.

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.


Some of it was touched on a little later in the thread, so I'll respond there. But right now my dinner's ready.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11099

PostPosted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 7:40 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
kikanga wrote:
It appears to me you are making a better argument for holding more professions accountable as opposed to making a good argument for holding law enforcement less accountable.


Yes, that was my intention. I'm not trying to make any argument for holding law enforcement less accountable...

I agreed with the ruling.

It's Larry Coon's position that maybe cops should be held less accountable criminally like doctors are and I was trying to refute that by illustrating that all professionals should be held to a higher standard when it comes inflicting serious bodily harm/death on people.


To clarify, I see civil litigation as a remedy in both cases. When it should be criminal rather than civil is still an unresolved question in my mind, because the definition doesn't apply cleanly to certain circumstances.
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: Mon Jan 03, 2022 3:25 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
kikanga wrote:
It appears to me you are making a better argument for holding more professions accountable as opposed to making a good argument for holding law enforcement less accountable.


Yes, that was my intention. I'm not trying to make any argument for holding law enforcement less accountable...

I agreed with the ruling.

It's Larry Coon's position that maybe cops should be held less accountable criminally like doctors are and I was trying to refute that by illustrating that all professionals should be held to a higher standard when it comes inflicting serious bodily harm/death on people.


To clarify, I see civil litigation as a remedy in both cases. When it should be criminal rather than civil is still an unresolved question in my mind, because the definition doesn't apply cleanly to certain circumstances.


IMO Intent is keyword.
_________________
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 Jan 03, 2022 4:08 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
IMO Intent is keyword.


A keyword which is not in the definition, and BTW the prosecution specifically said that they didn't need to prove intent.
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: Mon Jan 03, 2022 4:30 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
kikanga wrote:
It appears to me you are making a better argument for holding more professions accountable as opposed to making a good argument for holding law enforcement less accountable.


Yes, that was my intention. I'm not trying to make any argument for holding law enforcement less accountable...

I agreed with the ruling.

It's Larry Coon's position that maybe cops should be held less accountable criminally like doctors are and I was trying to refute that by illustrating that all professionals should be held to a higher standard when it comes inflicting serious bodily harm/death on people.


To clarify, I see civil litigation as a remedy in both cases. When it should be criminal rather than civil is still an unresolved question in my mind, because the definition doesn't apply cleanly to certain circumstances.


To my mind, if we are going to believe that both those in the medical field and in law enforcement should be dealt with in the exact same fashion, then the necessity to do so resides with moving in the direction of criminal prosecutions for doctors rather than reducing them for LEOs. And the reason is simple. LEO's have the power to exploit their power to arbitrarily end someone's life, so any "mistakes" in that area need to involve consequences that are not simply civil.
_________________
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: Tue Jan 04, 2022 6:43 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
I interpreted what you were asking me before is whether an altered state of consciousness is a legally recognized and allowable exception in the definition of the crime.


Well, I asked you this exact question from the beginning, because I really wanted clarity:

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


I was only interested in the legal conversation. If you're just giving your opinion on what it "ought to be" then I wouldn't have continued the conversation.

And it's still unclear to me.

You started off the conversation by saying Potter's actions didn't fit the legal definition of criminal negligence in your mind. So, to me, that's a legal conversation.

But then, you just said that it's not a viable defense as the definition is practically applied. But, wouldn't that also mean that the jury was correct in their practical application of the law?

And then you said the justice system hasn't yet caught up to the science, which sounds like a discussion about "what ought to be". And again, that's a discussion I'm not going to dispute you on. If you just want to state your opinion on how things should be, I wouldn't refute you on that.

LarryCoon wrote:
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.


So when you said you disagreed with the jury's verdict, it's unclear to me if you're saying:

1) The jury's practical application of the law was wrong, or

2) The jury's practical application was the correct one, however, the justice system hasn't yet caught up to the science

LarryCoon wrote:
.....and the jury, who did know the details, did see the testimony and did hear the instructions clearly disagreed with me.


So I'll ask you again. I know you want to talk about altered state of consciousness.

- Do you want to discuss that an altered state of consciousness IS a viable defense for criminal negligence, or

- Do you want to discuss that it SHOULD BE a viable defense for criminal negligence?
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: Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:11 am    Post subject:

Mostly snipped for redundancy. I can answer your question with this quote:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
So when you said you disagreed with the jury's verdict, it's unclear to me if you're saying:

1) The jury's practical application of the law was wrong, or

2) The jury's practical application was the correct one, however, the justice system hasn't yet caught up to the science


I'm not privy to the exact jury instructions, so it's not clear to me whether #1 is true or not. From a raw reading of the text of the definition, it comes down to how certain words are interpreted. But juries don't use the text of the definition in a vacuum -- they operate within the parameters or the jury instructions. So I don't know.

I do think that the justice system hasn't caught up to the science, and have said so before. If it were to have caught up, perhaps the text of the definition would be tightened up, or the jury instructions would be different. Or even the prosecution & defense cases would be presented differently.

This has happened plenty of times before. For example, think back to when DNA evidence was new. Some of the early trials spent time debating what it meant and whether it was relevant, not what it showed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11099

PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:16 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
To my mind, if we are going to believe that both those in the medical field and in law enforcement should be dealt with in the exact same fashion, then the necessity to do so resides with moving in the direction of criminal prosecutions for doctors rather than reducing them for LEOs. And the reason is simple. LEO's have the power to exploit their power to arbitrarily end someone's life, so any "mistakes" in that area need to involve consequences that are not simply civil.


Sure, and I'm happy to leave this as a fundamental point on which we disagree. In my reasoning, the consequences that can result from the "ordinary" execution of one's respective duties are orthogonal to the discussion regarding consequences of "mistakes" in carrying out those duties. But I get that you don't see it this way. There's a lot of common ground in our thinking on this, but this difference leads us to different conclusions.
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: Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:47 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
I'm not privy to the exact jury instructions, so it's not clear to me whether #1 is true or not. From a raw reading of the text of the definition, it comes down to how certain words are interpreted. But juries don't use the text of the definition in a vacuum -- they operate within the parameters or the jury instructions. So I don't know.


But you started off by saying that you disagreed with the jury's verdict. So, what is it that you don't know? You know that you disgree with the jury, you just don't know why? This is so confusing.

LarryCoon wrote:
.....and the jury, who did know the details, did see the testimony and did hear the instructions clearly disagreed with me.


And you started off by stating that Potter's actions don't fit the definition of criminal negligence. So, if her actions didn't fit the definition, that means the jury wrongly applied the facts of the case to the definition of criminal negligence. Isn't that what you're saying? What am I missing?

jodeke wrote:
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.

For second-degree manslaughter, prosecutors must prove she acted with culpable negligence, meaning she consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm.


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.



And you've also stated that you're not arguing that an altered state of consciousness is a viable defense

LarryCoon wrote:
Ultimately I'm not trying to claim it's a viable defense as the definition is practically applied.


And the jury didn't think it was a viable defense either.

But yet you disagreed with the jury. So, then it's confusing or not clear. You agree with the jury that an altered state of consciousness is NOT a viable defense. But, you still disagree with their verdict. On what grounds?

What is it that you are disagreeing with?


Last edited by LongBeachPoly on Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:09 am; edited 2 times in total
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: Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:00 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
jodeke wrote:
IMO Intent is keyword.


A keyword which is not in the definition, and BTW the prosecution specifically said that they didn't need to prove intent.


I was addressing
Quote:
To clarify, I see civil litigation as a remedy in both cases. When it should be criminal rather than civil is still an unresolved question in my mind
I know the intent regarding Kim.
_________________
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: Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:40 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
I'm not privy to the exact jury instructions, so it's not clear to me whether #1 is true or not. From a raw reading of the text of the definition, it comes down to how certain words are interpreted. But juries don't use the text of the definition in a vacuum -- they operate within the parameters or the jury instructions. So I don't know.


But you started off by saying that you disagreed with the jury's verdict. So, what is it that you don't know? You know that you disgree with the jury, you just don't know why? This is so confusing.

LarryCoon wrote:
.....and the jury, who did know the details, did see the testimony and did hear the instructions clearly disagreed with me.


And you started off by stating that Potter's actions don't fit the definition of criminal negligence. So, if her actions didn't fit the definition, that means the jury wrongly applied the facts of the case to the definition of criminal negligence. Isn't that what you're saying? What am I missing?

jodeke wrote:
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.

For second-degree manslaughter, prosecutors must prove she acted with culpable negligence, meaning she consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm.


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.



And you've also stated that you're not arguing that an altered state of consciousness is a viable defense

LarryCoon wrote:
Ultimately I'm not trying to claim it's a viable defense as the definition is practically applied.


And the jury didn't think it was a viable defense either.

But yet you disagreed with the jury. So, then it's confusing or not clear. You agree with the jury that an altered state of consciousness is NOT a viable defense. But, you still disagree with their verdict. On what grounds?

What is it that you are disagreeing with?


I don't think you & I are getting anywhere, so perhaps we should leave it rest. You're bringing up things I said at different points in time when I was talking about different aspects of this and pointing out that they don't reconcile. In addition, as I said, my thinking continues to evolve as we continue to discuss this. So for both of these reasons I don't expect everything I've said in the course of this discussion to reconcile with everything else I've said. I think my more recent posts are clear about my current thinking, but we're just not taking the same approach on how to approach the discussion and move it forward.
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: Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:44 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
I don't think you & I are getting anywhere, so perhaps we should leave it rest. You're bringing up things I said at different points in time when I was talking about different aspects of this and pointing out that they don't reconcile. In addition, as I said, my thinking continues to evolve as we continue to discuss this. So for both of these reasons I don't expect everything I've said in the course of this discussion to reconcile with everything else I've said. I think my more recent posts are clear about my current thinking, but we're just not taking the same approach on how to approach the discussion and move it forward.


Ok, I can accept that. So, basically you've changed your stance from when the conversation started?

Moving the discussion forward then, do you still disagree with the jury?


Last edited by LongBeachPoly on Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:45 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: 11099

PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:45 am    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
jodeke wrote:
IMO Intent is keyword.


A keyword which is not in the definition, and BTW the prosecution specifically said that they didn't need to prove intent.


I was addressing
Quote:
To clarify, I see civil litigation as a remedy in both cases. When it should be criminal rather than civil is still an unresolved question in my mind
I know the intent regarding Kim.


No, either you're employing bad logic, or you're not expressing yourself clearly. From the above, if intent is the keyword (direct quote from you) for differentiating criminal from civil (the thing of mine you said you were addressing), then it'd have to be that intent makes it criminal, and lack of intent makes it civil (or the converse). But we already know that intent isn't a factor in the criminal statute (see the definition of the law, what was said at the trial, and the jury instructions), so it can't be that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11099

PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:48 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
I don't think you & I are getting anywhere, so perhaps we should leave it rest. You're bringing up things I said at different points in time when I was talking about different aspects of this and pointing out that they don't reconcile. In addition, as I said, my thinking continues to evolve as we continue to discuss this. So for both of these reasons I don't expect everything I've said in the course of this discussion to reconcile with everything else I've said. I think my more recent posts are clear about my current thinking, but we're just not taking the same approach on how to approach the discussion and move it forward.


Ok, I can accept that. So, basically you've changed your stance from when the conversation started?

Moving the discussion forward then, do you still disagree with the jury?


No, we're running into the same problem, which is why I said we're not getting anywhere and should leave it rest. The premise of your two questions here glosses over nuance in both my thinking and my dialog, and I don't want to keep going round & round.
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: Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:54 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
I don't think you & I are getting anywhere, so perhaps we should leave it rest. You're bringing up things I said at different points in time when I was talking about different aspects of this and pointing out that they don't reconcile. In addition, as I said, my thinking continues to evolve as we continue to discuss this. So for both of these reasons I don't expect everything I've said in the course of this discussion to reconcile with everything else I've said. I think my more recent posts are clear about my current thinking, but we're just not taking the same approach on how to approach the discussion and move it forward.


Ok, I can accept that. So, basically you've changed your stance from when the conversation started?

Moving the discussion forward then, do you still disagree with the jury?


No, we're running into the same problem, which is why I said we're not getting anywhere and should leave it rest. The premise of your two questions here glosses over nuance in both my thinking and my dialog, and I don't want to keep going round & round.


ok.

I'll leave it as you wish then.

I really don't understand how 2 people can't seek clarification. I'm not even trying to persuade you or change your stance. My whole issue for this ENTIRE conversation has been trying to figure out exactly where your stance lies. I asked right at the beginning, and I asked at the end.

And we still have no clarity on what your stance is. You said you've been extremely clear. So, I'm really missing something. I'll go back and reread but I honestly have no idea what your stance is.

If someone was to ask me, hey, does Larry Coon disagree with the jury's verdict and on what legal grounds? I'd shrug my shoulders and say I really don't know. And it boggles my mind how it's so hard to get clarity on such a simple question.

Usually, before you start any argument or explanation, you clearly state your stance:

- I agree with the verdict, or
- I disagree with the verdict.
- And these are my legal grounds...

Maybe it's just me. Maybe your stance is entirely clear to everyone else but me? Maybe someone else in here can explain to me what your stance is.

But I know it can't be just me because even DMR thinks your stance was trying to argue that an altered state of consciousness removes Potter's culpability, something which you've said you weren't trying to do:

DaMuleRules wrote:
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.


But, I'll leave it as you wish.
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: Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:08 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
jodeke wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
jodeke wrote:
IMO Intent is keyword.


A keyword which is not in the definition, and BTW the prosecution specifically said that they didn't need to prove intent.


I was addressing
Quote:
To clarify, I see civil litigation as a remedy in both cases. When it should be criminal rather than civil is still an unresolved question in my mind
I know the intent regarding Kim.


No, either you're employing bad logic, or you're not expressing yourself clearly. From the above, if intent is the keyword (direct quote from you) for differentiating criminal from civil (the thing of mine you said you were addressing), then it'd have to be that intent makes it criminal, and lack of intent makes it civil (or the converse). But we already know that intent isn't a factor in the criminal statute (see the definition of the law, what was said at the trial, and the jury instructions), so it can't be that.


I confess to bad logic. I don't actually think a doctor would intentionally kill a patient unless a love triangle was involved. I'ma git on outa this convo.
_________________
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
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 89196
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:47 pm    Post subject:

I admit to being less sure about things after some compelling arguments, and where the line of public interest and actual fairness resides. I'm also concerned that much like the reasonableness self-defense standards have eroded for cops, leading gangs of heavily armed men to shoot a single unarmed and unthreatening person and get off based on the idea that they "feared for their safety", giving another get out of jail card will just result in a lot more "accidents". I also don't think civil penalties, usually paid by the municipality or its insurer (and ultimately the taxpayers) does much to be a deterrent, especially since we know of places with multiple payouts who continue to employ the offenders. And frankly, the same holds true of doctors in some sense, although i give a bit more leeway due to the consent of the patient, the differing level of authority, and the different mission (although I lean toward criminalizing negligence beyond a significantly reasonable barrier of mistake)

Where it gets a little slippery is when you start asking how someone who would freeze up in a situation where she admits she did not feel threatened or think the victim had a weapon or was threatening anyone would be a cop in general or a training officer in particular. There are ways to test excitability and rationality under pressure, and frankly if that set her off, she's a danger. But is that her fault or the department's? And to what degree?

FWIW, I've carried a firearm and a less than lethal device, and I've never been in a situation where the LTL device was called for (non life threatening, determined to be more of a control than a self defense situation) and I was so excited I pulled my gun. I can't think of a situation where a taser would be required where a reasonable person would be in any sort of fear to the level that they'd get confused. It could conceivably happen in the gray area between "should I defend my life or can I handle this with less than a gun?" in some situations. But she clearly wasn't in that at all. Sadly, she was likely just emotionally unsuitable to any sort of conflict, getting way too amped and aggressive, and it's fortunate she hasn't harmed someone else.
_________________
“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: 11099

PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2022 1:31 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
Where it gets a little slippery is when you start asking how someone who would freeze up in a situation where she admits she did not feel threatened or think the victim had a weapon or was threatening anyone would be a cop in general or a training officer in particular. There are ways to test excitability and rationality under pressure, and frankly if that set her off, she's a danger. But is that her fault or the department's? And to what degree?


Yes -- and the department of course has responsibility to ensure that they're not putting someone on the street who can't handle the situations she might find herself in. But are they culpable here? What if they employed all reasonable weed-out measures, and she still slipped through the cracks? And whatever your answer to the previous questions, then to what extent is it her responsibility?

Maybe apply an analogy to some other activity where there's extensive weed-out filtering -- astronauts or Navy Seals or something. Who's responsible when the candidate passes the training and still gets into a situation they can't handle?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 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 4 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