045 The Erickson Report for December 29 to January 12, Page 2: The case of Kim Potter and Duante Wright

045 The Erickson Report for December 29 to January 12, Page 2: The case of Kim Potter and Duante Wright

Kim Potter                             Duante Wright

Okay, let's get to this.

On December 23, Minnesota local cop Kim Potter was convicted of first- and second-degree manslaughter in the killing of 20-year-old Duante Wright during a traffic stop in April. You probably recall this was the case where she shot him, thinking, she said, she was using her Taser, a claim that at the time was widely mocked by civil right activists and the local community and numerous places on the left.

Potter was jailed immediately after the verdict with sentencing set for February 22. I don't know why it should take two months for that, but that's the date.

Overall, I think the best reaction came from the ACLU, which tweeted "This verdict is still not justice. True justice doesn't come one verdict at a time. Real justice means that these situations do not happen in the first place."

I'll get to my own take on this outcome later but first, I want to talk about something else, something that this case raised for me when it first hit the news in April, something I have talked about before but which has gotten far too little attention and to which this case should draw attention but I fear won't: the fact that the screwed-up way we train police in this country leads to, produces, cases such as this one.

Because the fact is, we are teaching police to be afraid. We are teaching, and I mean actively teaching, cops to be in constant fear of instant death, to be prepared to shoot first and ask questions later, to feel it's not only their right but their duty to avoid to the extent possible any degree of risk even when that means just shifting the risk onto non-cops.

One notorious example is the so-called "21-foot rule" or "Tueller drill." Even though it was only intended as a training exercise, it is actively taught in some police academies and widely accepted informally among police forces. It is the idea that someone with a bladed weapon who is 21 feet away can attack and kill you before you as a cop can unholster your gun and get off a good shot. Not only has it been debunked, it has been twisted and distorted to mean that if you are carrying a blade within 21 feet of a cop, they are justified in shooting you on the grounds that they felt they were at immediate risk of death; no actual aggressive move on your part is required.

There is the widely-used "Bulletproof Warrior" seminars from Illinois-based outfit called Calibre Press, seminars which press the idea that "officer safety" is the overriding consideration in any interaction with non-cops and pushes the implicit notion that general public views cops as their enemy.

There was the so-called "research document" promoted by the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association a year ago that called Antifa and Black Lives Matter activists "terrorists" who were plotting "extreme violence" and described civil right protesters as "useful idiots."
    
We are both formally and informally, officially and unofficially, teaching police to be afraid. We are teaching them to be scared all the time. We are teaching them to think of every non-cop as a potential suspect and even a potential assailant.

That's why, for example, to cops there are police and there are "civilians," a term that by default defines the police as a military force, an army. It's why in any encounter with police we will likely be regarded as a "suspect" and therefore by definition dangerous to some degree or another.

It's an overall pattern, and overall way of thinking, that gets instilled in cops that leaves them in a constant state of stress. And note I didn't say alertness, I said stress.

I've talked about this before, how in watching videos of shootings by police, I was struck by how often the cops sounded scared. I particularly remember the video of the killing of Philando Castile in 2016. The cop has the gun, it is pointed at Castile, who is sitting and obviously unarmed, but I clearly recall thinking that despite that, the cop sounded terrified - and that wasn't the only example.

Which brings us back around to Kim Potter and Duante Wright. I'm going to revisit something I said in the spring, shortly after this hit the news, because, as I said at the time, it demonstrated what I maintain are multiple things wrong with how we train police. Some of what fllows is quoting that earlier post.

We start the incident with the male cop, Potter's partner, approaching Wright's car after he was pulled over. The cop approaches the car with his gun out and demands Wright get out of the car. Immediately: Why is his gun out? The tension is mounting before anything even happens.

Wright says "For what?" and the cop answers "I'll explain to you when you get out of the car." Again: Cops are taught they they have to be in control of the situation, to dominate the situation, at all times. Why couldn't he have said "You have an expired inspection sticker," which is supposedly the reason they pulled him over in the first place? Why couldn't he just answer the question instead of responding, in effect, "Be quiet and do what I tell you" and so raising the tension further and giving Wright cause not to cooperate but to fear cooperation? So why? Because that's what cops are taught: to be in charge and accept nothing other than passive submission.

Wright starts to get out of his car but then tries to get back in. Potter runs up to join the other cop. There is a struggle. The tension is stretched to the limit. Potter is heard shouting "I'll tase you! Taser! Taser! Taser!" - then a bang and a second later, "Holy shit, I shot him."

In the wake of this, the police chief said he believed Potter intended to use a Taser but mistakenly drew her gun, a claim that was, as I said, widely ridiculed.

And on its face, it does seem absurd. A cop's gun is about a pound heavier than a Taser, is a different color and an at least somewhat different feel.

So here's the question: Did I believe, do I believe Potter told the truth? Did I believe, do I believe that she shot Daunte Wright thinking she was Tasering him? The answer is yes, I did and I do. And again it relates to failures in how we train police.

Most police departments, including the one here, require that officers carry their guns on their dominant side and Tasers on the opposite side, which is supposed to lower the risk of confusing the two. But the instant I heard that, I said "That's wrong, that's ridiculous, that's the opposite of what it should be." Because under stress, in a high-stress, adrenaline-pumping situation, you are going to default to your dominant hand. Having your gun on your dominant side is going to increase the risk of tragedies such as that of Daunte Wright.

Betsy Brantner Smith of the National Police Association said it's called "slip and capture" and likened it to getting into a rental car, going to start it up, and reaching for how you start your own car before realizing that's not where you are.

It's also called "muscle memory" and you know damn well you have experienced it. Hell, I had my current car for six months before I finally stopped reaching for the gear shift in the wrong place. You've experienced it, you know you have, and you weren't even under stress.

What's more, this is certainly not the first time this has happened, of a cop shooting someone thinking they were firing a Taser. There are documented cases of it. So can I believe that Kim Potter shot Daunte Wright believing at that moment that she was Tasering him? Yes, I can. Because of the way she was trained. That, it shouldn't need to be said but probably is, does not excuse it. In the immortal words of Mr. Spock, "I understand. I do not approve."

So if I were the sentencing judge, what would I do? I have genuine sympathy for Kim Potter. I believe it was a genuine mistake - something on which, I will note, it seems most observers now agree. Not, however, some places on the left; the Southern Poverty Law Center, for example, used the term "murder," which while technically legally correct, still carries a heavy connotation of deliberateness, something made explicit by Color of Change which said of Potter "her actions were not accidental," which if it means anything at all it means they're saying she shot Wright on purpose.

I also noted more a recent video, from the body cam of a cop who arrived soon enough to see what happened but not soon enough to be involved, showing the immediate aftermath of the shooting, showing Kim Potter on the ground, crying, her remorse both immediate and extreme, extreme to the point where that cop took her gun for evidence but let her hold his - and then went back and took his gun back because of fear of what she might do as she leaned on a fence going "I just want to die."

So I do have genuine sympathy for her. But at the same time, we can't let this go. We can't let it pass. She made a mistake and she's sorry, but someone died. There has to be punishment; there have to be consequences.

So with all that in mind, if I were the sentencing judge I would go for 3.5 years followed by several years of probation and community service and I would very likely say she could never again be a cop. Anywhere - none of this going to another jurisdiction and getting hired there. Anywhere.

I guarantee you that for some people that would not be nearly enough and some news accounts say prosecutors intend to push for something close to the maximum of 15 years to "make a point." But I think that would only add another tragedy to a tale that already had enough of them.

Because the point I would make is that while it is true as we so often say that we can't address police violence and brutality without addressing racism, particularly in our police forces but in our society as well, it's equally true that we can't address police violence and brutality without addressing the screwed-up way we are training them to think.