But did she know that? It's unlikely. If she had started out with, "I knew that ghetto fuck was violent and I shot him to save lives" she would have gotten off and would have been a hero. Not as much of a hero as Kyle Rittenhouse, but a hero nonetheless. Instead, she ADMITTED that she meant to only use a taser which means that she didn't INTEND to eliminate the threat. So no, the victim's criminal history is irrelevant and maybe next time, she'll shut the fuck up when she does something wrong.

She deserved it

That is an interesting way of saying premeditated murderer.

So to review for the people who don't understand the law:

Committing an unconscious mistake that results in death is not manslaughter unless you made prior decisions that directly created the risks.
If you make a driving mistake and kill someone, its not criminal if you had been obeying all the laws, driving cautiously and responsibly up until the moment of that unconscious mistake.
If you were on your phone, or drinking and driving, or speeding, or running red lights- it means you made the conscious decision to engage in reckless behavior that created the risks of the mistake, thus the unconscious mistake is manslaughter.
Mens rea has to exist for it to be a crime, but mens rea doesn't have to be the intention to kill someone- that would make it murder.

For the state to convict Kim Potter of 1st degree manslaughter required them to prove that she killed Daunte Wright in the commission of a serious crime. They charged that her decision to use a taser constituted assault, and thus it didn't matter that the fact she used a gun instead was an unconscious decision without intent, what mattered is that by deciding to use a taser on Daunte Wright in the first place, she was committing a serious crime, and thus the unintentional death of the victim of her serious crime constituted 1st degree manslaughter.

So understand that difference. The state proved to a jury that Kim Potter was illegally trying to use a taser, and that even if she had used the Taser as she intended and Daunte Wright was never killed, she should still have been convicted of aggravated assault and battery and sent to prison for years. Defense counsel Earl Grey provided a very poor defense for this where he tried to explain these matters of fact and law, tried to put out the logical holes and catch 22's in the state's arguments and their use of prejudicial evidence. He gave his speeches like his audience were law students. The prosecutors got up and put on displays of emotional family members with nothing material to the case, just crying, then made their arguments about how cops can't be trusted, cops stick up for each other, cops are lying bastards, all cops are bastards, etc. A very blunt use of naked prejudice by the prosecutors, counting on a jury of randomly selected Hennepin County residents to live up to their reputation as the most prejudiced, anti-cop county in America. As long as Kim Potter was wearing a uniform, they'd convict her of anything the prosecutors slapped at her

Peak cope

I expected Chauvin, Potter and Rittenhouse to all be convicted in spite of them being innocent.

"iF yUo cAnT eVeN gEt aWaY WiTh uNjUsTiFiaBLy KiLLinG pEoPLe aNyMoRe, nO oNe wiLL dO tHiS jOb, hUrrR!"

this just proves that at least SOME of the people who become cops for all the wrong reason would re-consider it now. good.

I expected Chauvin and Potter to be convicted because they're guilty. Jumping through mental hoops to explain the Potter verdict is pure cope.

Chauvin was never getting off entirely. He was obviously guilty of at least manslaughter and it just highlights your dishonesty that you still claim hes innocent.

Its not manslaughter if he didn't cause the death, and the overwhelming physical evidence established that Floyd died of a drug overdose from the bag of pills he swallowed immediately prior to being arrested, with zero evidence indicating Chauvin's restraint caused the death. You've continually peddled a line of 'muh dishonesty' but you refuse to acknowledge the fact that every single possible indicator for restraint causing the death was absent, while the indicators for the drug overdose causing the death weren't just present, they were present at almost cartoonish levels of lethality. No bruising, no subdermal trauma, no petechial hemorrhaging, no broken bones, no damage to scalp or skull or brain or chest wall or neck or face or occult trauma, no markings of any kind from Chauvin's knee- but 3:1 left ventricular hypertrophy, 90% blocked coronal arteries, 540g cardiomegaly, history of hypertension, 11 ng/mL fentanyl, polysubstance abuse with positive meth, THC, caffeine, a previous incident of him nearly dying overdosing on the same pills and the partially digested pills he spat back up recovered at the scene.

Manslaughter, like murder, still requires that you caused the death. The physical evidence in the Chauvin case was clear, Chauvin didn't cause the death.