By Alexander Ramirez
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN – The Hennepin County Medical Examiner has now determined Daunte Wright – shot and killed at a traffic stop here Sunday by a police officer who has since resigned and is facing second degree manslaughter charges – died of a gunshot wound labeled as a homicide.
Twenty-year-old Daunte Wright was pulled over on Sunday by Brooklyn Police Officer Anthony Luckey and his field training officer Kimberly Potter because his vehicle license tag had expired and he had an air freshener hanging from his rear view mirror, according to reports.
Later, police said they attempted to arrest him on an outstanding warrant for a gross misdemeanor weapons charge. But Potter – who said she thought she had a taser and not her gun – shot Wright and killed him.
After shooting her gun, Potter said, “Shit, I just shot him,” as she dropped her gun on the ground, according to body camera footage.
When a Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension investigator examined Potter’s duty belt, her 9mm handgun was found to be 
holstered on the right side of the belt and the taser on the left side, with both handles facing her rear.
The taser was yellow with a black grip and in a straight draw position meaning that Potter would have to use her left hand to draw the taser.
Potter was taken into custody Wednesday and taken to jail where she will be waiting for her first court appearance on the shooting and killing of Wright.
Imran Ali, Washington County assistant criminal division chief and the director of the Major Crime Unit, said, “Certain occupations carry an immense responsibility and none more so than a sworn police officer. With that responsibility comes a great deal of discretion and accountability.”
“We will vigorously prosecute this case and intend to prove that Officer Potter abrogated her responsibility to protect the public when she used her firearm rather than her taser. Her action caused the unlawful killing of Mr. Wright and she must be held accountable. County Attorney Peter Orput and I met with the family, expressed our deepest sympathies and assured them we would spare no resources in seeking justice for Mr. Wright,” added Ali.
Luckey and Potter approached Wright’s vehicle and told him to exit the vehicle with his hands behind his head, to which Wright complied. This is where Wright was told that he was being arrested for his outstanding warrant. Only a few seconds later, Wright tried to get back inside his vehicle. According to the criminal complaint, while Wright was resisting, Luckey tried to maintain physical control of Wright.
It was also during this time that Potter threatened to taser Wright before pulling out her 9mm handgun. She once again threatened to taser Wright, before saying, “Taser, taser, taser,” and pulling the trigger on her handgun, hitting Wright on the left side of his body as the complaint states.
Upon getting shot, Wright said, “Ah, he shot me,” before getting back in the car and driving a short distance where he crashed into another vehicle and stopped. He was pronounced dead on the scene when an ambulance arrived.
Alexander Ramirez is a third-year Political Science major at the University of California, Davis. He hopes to hone his writing skills in preparation for the inevitable time of graduation.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
The word homicide doesn’t apply in this case, it wasn’t a “deliberate” killing or murder.
The female officer meant to taser the fleeing subject, not kill him.
That is interesting, as I did not realize it had to be “deliberate” to meet that definition. We can now explore the definition of the word “deliberate”, as well.
Don’t tell anyone (as it seems to irritate them), but I’ve heard that it was “accidental”. You know – the opposite of “on purpose”. 🙂
And using the definition you posted, I’m not even sure that the Chauvin situation would qualify.
The legal definition is “The killing of one human being by another.”
Why would you use dictionary rather than a law book?
Why would you cite the definition of manslaughter when the question was what’s the definition of homicide.
Here’s the legal definition of homicide:
Criminal homicide also occurs when a person acts recklessly or with extreme negligence resulting in someone’s death. Criminal intent is not necessary.
According to this definition, if a person consciously decide not to check what weapon she is holding, or consciously not aim before firing, then it counts as negligence.
Ranking:
1. Someone who decided not to check
2. Someone who forgot to check
3. Someone who checked but got a wrong result
We know 1 fits the definition of second degree manslaughter. 2 and 3 do not qualify for me. If someone did 2 or 3, then there is evidence of incompetence but not culpability.
If someone is incompetent, unless they forced their way into the job, the problem is in the person letting them perform that job.
Envisioning this being said by an employee (to his/her supervisor), when receiving a negative performance review or reprimand. 🙂
And then, what would it say about the person who hired the supervisor?
In reality, I think that “stuff” generally flows downhill. “Systemically”.
It happened so quickly, Wright all at once shoved his way past the cop trying to handcuff him and jumped into the car. The female officer quickly went for her taser but in her haste she grabbed her gun instead. “Taser, taser, taser” as they’re trained to say. It’s obvious from the video that she didn’t’t intend to shoot him with her gun but meant to taser him. I don’t feel she deserves any jail time for this.
In a company, a bad review by a supervisor may not get an employee fired because HR might not be able to find a better one.
In terms of police hiring, a city can suffer from a principal agent problem where the principal (the residents) and the agent (the entity that hires police officers) do not share the same concerns.
To break the principal agent problem, a city could let its residents approval who may join their police force or be sponsored to go through police academy. If the residents approve no one, then the police department is being slowly abolished.
I suspect that at the trial, an effort will be made to push the “stuff” back uphill (e.g., in regard to training, or other issues that I can’t think of at the moment).
I don’t either. I rarely feel that way, regarding accidents (even negligent ones).
Even more so, when they’re trying to enforce the law on behalf of society (rather than break it). Especially if they’re not purposefully abusive.
Someone died
cuz we’re people . . . not lawyers
Ridiculous
How do you know what the officer “meant”? A weapon on the other side of her body, different weight, different color, different feel… or do you dispute those documented facts? Her verbal ejaculation after she realized that she did an egregious “stupid”? C’mon… be real for once.
You seem to be saying, “no harm, no foul”… tell that to his family, friends… if you do, up close and personal, I’ll stand 4 yds away… a person is dead… should the officer get a promotion (yes, I’ve since heard she has resigned, as well as the Chief)?
Ron O:
Look back to your dictionary… they are not antonyms… negligence is ‘doing a stupid’, as evidenced in your post… negligence is an action… inaction/action are cognitive choices… choices have consequences… I guess you apparently agree with Keith, who seems to think there should be no consequences… would you feel the same (given the narrative to date) if the dead person was your spouse, son, daughter, friend, co-worker, or for that matter, ANY human being? Or does the latter not apply, in your view?
‘Accidents’ are random things… ‘negligence’ is not… by definition of both terms…
‘Negligence’ by someone with 26 years in their field, and a ‘training officer’, to boot, is no ‘accident’… this should be investigated as to degree of culpability, but in my opinion, there is high culpability, given the information so far provided… I believe the charges are correct… a jury will determine the level of culpability… anything less than non-intentional ‘manslaugther’, would be a travesty.
It WAS NO “ACCIDENT”!
Sounds like you should be excluded from any jury pool.
And, get yourself a dictionary.
The opposite of “accident” is “intentional”, not “negligent”.
What does that have to do with the definition of “accident”? Lots of accidents result in death. Every day. Most accidents involve some degree of negligence.
Seems to me that some people want a figurative “head on a pike”, as long as its law enforcement (instead of those “purposefully” committing crime).
The same mentality behind the riots.
Bingo!!! There you have it.
I have a question for those saying that Officer Potter should be convicted. How much jail time do you think she deserves?
And while you’re coming up with that figure, an unarmed female was shot dead on Jan. 6 during the Capitol riot and just today her murderer/killer (same things that are being said about Officer Potter) was let off without charges. They wouldn’t even name who the shooter was of the “homicide” of Ashli Babbitt. How much time do you think the law enforcer who murdered Babbitt should’ve received? Why is that case all that much different than this case? Is it because Babbitt was white and a conservative?
And it seems to me that a lot of people on here are shrugging off the fact that her reckless conduct cost someone’s life (the point of my comment before).
I think we need to know more about what happened before concluding that she deserves to be convicted. She definitely deserves to be charged. To answer the question of how much time she deserves, I don’t think she needs to serve time. I would support a restorative process.
How do you conclude that it was a fact that she was reckless?
We call a driver reckless if they routinely speed, change lanes without signaling because it is more thrilling. We call a driver careless if for once she forgot to check a blind spot before changing lane.
Those are two different state of mind.
Reckless: Behavior that is so careless that it is considered an extreme departure from the care a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances.
Careless and reckless are not two different states of mind. They differ in degree of carelessness. That commenters here feel free to make up their own definitions of technical legal terms never ceases to fascinate me.
Re: Eric
How do you know that you are not the one obfiscatimg the difference?
Recklessness and negligence are different state of mind:
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/personal-injury/negligence/recklessness/
With all due respect, you are wrong. If someone crashes into another car because they were texting while driving, the damage wasn’t accidental, it wasn’t intentional, it was negligent.
You are a very generous person, Eric, when you write,
I feel differently… good for you, I actually respect the respect you give, although I believe it is misplaced… `
I find it difficult to respect insensitivity or inanity…
Texting while driving is different from someone missing to see a stop sign and did not stop.
When a someone decides to text while driving, they are making a conscious decision place texting (self-interest) over safety (public interest).
When a person missed a stop sign because they couldn’t notice it, they did not place their self-interest over public interest. They are simply incompetent.
If someone is incompetent, then you let someone more competent do the job.
The decision to punish someone for being incompetent is “irrational” and “abusive”.
The exception is if the person knew that they are incompetent, but lied to get the job. They they put their self interest over public interest, and they are a fraud.
With all due respect, there’s all kinds of discussions of “negligent car accidents“, from legal sources on the Internet.
First one that popped-up:
https://www.perecman.com/blog/2014/june/can-someone-sue-for-negligence-in-a-car-accident/#:~:text=In%20the%20case%20of%20an,omission%20or%20failure%20to%20act.
If you or Bill are going to claim that an “accident” cannot also be defined as “negligent” – prove it.
A consistent position, at least. Not everyone is out for spiking of heads. But some are (not necessarily on here).