She was wearing her gear in the recommended manner.

Criminal negligence doesn't cover all unintentional accidents. Drawing the wrong weapon was clearly accidental here, and there was no other element to suggest recklessness. Its like in the car accident example. Running over someone, the action itself in a vacuum, isn't criminally negligent. Its the sum of factors surrounding it and whether any conscious decisions were made that were recklessly negligent. Manslaughter doesn't require the intent to kill someone, but it does require the intent to act recklessly in a way that could kill someone. Doing something that kills someone, without intent, without reckless decisions, isn't manslaughter.

We're going to conflict. You clearly have much lower standards you want to hold a firearms holder and officer at than I do. As a person that is given a tool set as part of their job and the other need to show competency in using them I correct situations I expect the right tool for the job. I don't accept it's an accident she drew the wrong one.

I say run her through the mud. Give her 15+ years and perhaps we will have a higher standard of officer in the future if there's clear consequences to blatant incompetence.

That video makes it so much worse. It wasent even an instant thing. She's waving around that gun for 5 or six seconds before discharge.

Again I don't accept confusion as an excuse for her negligence. She's supposed to be able to deal with confusion especially after 26 years. This is pure incompetency and it should be used to make an example of these people as a reminder of what's on their hips.

This post was edited by SBD on Dec 8 2021 05:40pm

I don't think there's criminal wrongdoing here. The city should have to pony up for a wrongful death and she should be terminated but that's about it.

The civil liability is undermined by the fact Daunte Wright's family would be sued for every penny they get from the city by the victims he tried to kill. The kid whos still a half vegetable after Daunte shot him.
So they might have a case, but they might not get any money out of it.



What kind of deterrent are you trying to establish by locking up someone for an unintentional mistake done without recklessness?
What takeaway would there be for firearm holders and officers? Its not that you have to be vigilant and safe- you can't control that, not in chaotic circumstances like a fleeing felon and endangering your partner. Officers can't look at this and say, well I'd just have to be extra extra careful and slow to draw- because they'll wind up dead or negligently causing someone elses death when they fail to act. No, the only rational takeaway would be that its just one more proof that officers are screwed when shit hits the fan and will be pilloried even if they were innocent. And so the only way to reliably avoid it, would be to avoid putting yourself in such circumstances in the first place. IE, quit their jobs, or fail to do their jobs by not bothering to actually make such proactive arrests anymore. And that is exactly what we are already seeing, especially in Minneapolis as the epicenter of the police drawdown. Massive increases in officers retiring or going on indefinite PTSD disability leave, no-go zones they won't enforce the laws in anymore, and proactive policing basically ended.

Let them go and fill the ranks with better officers I'm fine with that.

Better officers who transcend human limitations and make no mistakes?
Sorry, instead what happens is there are no officers around and the daunte wrights have free rein to terrorize their neighborhoods

Clearly more comprehensive training can't hurt. Now that everyone has cameras things are coming to light that everyone knew was happening before but didn't have it on video.

Sure this is not like that in this case, I firmly belive nothing was racially motivated here but it's still clear incompetence and I stand by making an example of her.

It's an opinion. Take it or leave it.

How does that undermine the city's civil liability? Whether or not the Wright family ends up with anything in the end due to unrelated cases doesn't change the fact that the city would be liable for Daunte's death.

It undermines the family's reason to pursue the civil case at all. At least Ben Crump would still get his cut

Good luck suing the family of a dead man for crimes they had nothing to do with.