Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "Breaking down Kim Potter’s emotional testimony" video.

@guitarsz Her tears are irrelevant. A conviction of manslaughter violates two basic things: the traditional distinction between ordinary negligence -- usually a civil matter, as in medical malpractice for example -- and gross recklessness. The second is the amputation of due process. It's inherently impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt she acted with extreme recklessness, or even ordinary negligence. That's what the research says: even the most experienced are not perfect in their ability to act under stress.
4
And traditionally we don't go for manslaughter under what might be termed "ordinary negligence." Unless you can prove it rises to gross recklessness, in the US at least, it's usually handled as a civil matter witness commercial airline crashes and medical malpractice. The idea we jail everyone for every single mistake they make under pressure is way off base IMHO. No matter how experienced, there's never a guarantee we can always avoid even big mistakes. It's this element of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" that's being amputated in this case. There's an inherent element of speculation when we assert she was careless or reckless. The research in heuristics (despite the fancy name, it just means decision making under stress) shows that even very experienced people can make such mistakes. The scary part is these mistakes often happen at an unconscious level, so we can't always detect them as they happen.
4
These two women are experts?
3
@jwhome9319 At least they didn't get carried away with wanting her to serve the full 15 years. I haven't looked yet at the other networks. I hope they have wiser and less biased commentators.
2
@SpiceItUp_5150 Well, everyone fancies themselves an armchair psychologist. To me, her tears could go either way. The overriding flaw, IMHO, with this whole trial, is it's fundamentally misguided. Negligence resulting in death should be a civil matter, as is usually the case with medical malpractice, for example, or as I like to point out, with commercial airline pilots. We in the US at least, don't jail pilots for fatal errors under stress. Only when we get to gross recklessness or criminal intent, should we bring in manslaughter or worse. Just my opinion. Do we have that level of recklessness here? Not if we go by the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There's inherently speculation in saying she was too casual or not being as cautious as she might.
2
That's really under the heading of "speculation." The research in heuristics (fancy name for decision making under pressure) tends to confirm that when we employ such shortcut thinking, it's not a fool proof system. Even highly experienced people can make surprising mistakes. The reason is that these errors are often at an unconscious level, so they can't be detected as they happen. So I give her the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise we are simply playing god. Not a good idea given our principles of due process and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Just my to cents
2
@Westberg246 "("I'm going to prison!") is not only a confession but also BENEATH THE DIGNITY" Me personally: I wouldn't put too much into a spontaneous comment under extreme emotional shock, what, 2 seconds later? Give her a break. It's not necessarily a confession either. It could be just a statement of, here's what I am likely to face, whether fair or not. Again, just my two cents. I am not saying you are wrong.
2
@johnmas9221 She admitted she made amistake. You don't understand the nature of evidence, but this is Youtube, so I give you a pass. :)
2
You're right. No one can know for sure. But due process requires the accused gets the benefit of the doubt.
1
@Westberg246 "MISTAKES are not defensible" Now I've lost you. As I've said on other threads, the research on heuristics (fancy name: decisions under a deadline) doesn't bear this out. It tends to show that shortcut thinking is never perfect even for highly experienced people. No one is entirely immune. These errors are often unconscious so they can't be detected as they happen. This notion of absolute perfection goes against the real world. Some mistakes are defensible, unless you think we humans have complete control over all of our actions at all time. Seems to me that's a fantasy world you describe. "That benefit of the doubt DOOMS many future victims of brutality." And dispensing with reasonable doubt dooms many innocent people to prison or worse. We see this especially with the new generation of DNA evidence, which has made frighteningly clear just how flawed the jury system has been in murder cases, for example. I totally disagree we need to dispense with due process. We've survived it very well for generations. Without due process, we are free to wreck the lives of innocent people in a way which is far more cruel. Intentionally playing fast and loose with people's rights is only a notch or two above vigilantism, in my opinion. Thank you for a challenging discussion.
1
@Westberg246 Of course I agree racism is still rampant in this country, and stereotypes abound, and the police rely on them too much. No argument from me. "how you can forgive her lapse of reason and then condemn Wright's survival instinct " I don't think I said that. I well understand the survival fight or flight. It's human nature. We do see some things a bit differently, and that can make for interesting conversation. Thank you for a civil exchange. I don't know Minnesota law except from this passage: "A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both: (1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another..." Maybe you can help me here. It seems to be saying, even for 2nd degree, that there must be a conscious intent to take a chance. If that really is the full story, I don't see how this even came to court, as we (mostly all) agree she didn't consciously take a chance. The only thing she did consciously was intend to use a taser. Thoughts?
1
@creamlust6669 It's precisely because blacks have NOT been given the benefit of the doubt that they have more to lose in the long run if we trash fair trials. Everyone loses that way. If it was you who were on trial and you knew you were innocent, even though the evidence looked damning, would you still be complaining about due process?
1
I agree. These two analysts are not in my mind up to the task of reasonable assessment. They speculate out proportion to the evidence.
1
@gabrielmichael3701 I didn't watch every minute of her testimony but a big chunk of it. Maybe you can refresh my memory. To save me another 3 hour long review of this video, do you remember if she indicated any basic confusion about her overall training? I only heard she couldn't remember the smaller details about some things. Was she ignorant of basic training? Thank you.
1
@gabrielmichael3701 "Pilots don’t survive crashes nice try." Careful, you're talking to a certified aviation/aviation safety geek. National Airlines Pensacola Bay 1978 3 dead, pilot survived, "unprofessional approach" Jail time: no United Portand crash 1978 5-10 deaths, crew survives. jail time: no USAir Laguardia 1989 fatal: pilot survived. jail time: no USAir Charlotte 1994 fatal: pilot survived Jail: no If you'd like more, please don't hesitate to ask.
1
@gabrielmichael3701 An aside: Follow up on USAir Charlotte. Interesting case in point. "Although the jury said USAir’s negligence contributed to the crash, it ruled that the airline was not liable for claims of wrongful death. . . North Carolina law under which the case was tried has a stringent standard for punishment, said David Rapoport, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers. . . .This jury verdict means the jury felt there was not a willful, intentional reckless disregard for safety, and I think that’s the difference,″ he said." (Me): This is standard in commercial crashes in the US. Manslaughter isn't even mentioned despite stringent North Carolina law and the prosecutor stating "USAir was willfully and wantonly negligent, grossly negligent, and we were disappointed in that regard with the verdict. However, we are quite pleased that there has been a finding of fault,″ This to me is very analogous to the Kim Potter case. The main difference is that we don't have race cops and a climate of racial and racist denial hysteria distorting everything. But the essentials are all the same. In fact, it's even worse in the USAir crash. More negligence. So do we want to put all these people in jail? Should a doctor who has a one time lapse and cuts the wrong artery go to prison? Is this the direction we want to go? Every last lapse is always criminal?
1
@gabrielmichael3701 I agree with you. Surgeons are not facing identical kinds of judgements. But the essence is still the same. In fact, surgeons arguably face even less stress. In each case, there is human fallibility. There may be more room for malice, but that's hard to prove by standards of due process. Can we conclusively prove Potter acted with Malice?
1
@gabrielmichael3701 Yes, it all depends on the circumstances. I can see Potter being found guilty. But as I've said elswwhere, there's a field of study known as heuristics, which is decision-making when faced with a deadline. What it tends to show is that even the most highly qualified people can suffer an unconscious lapse. This is due to the very nature of short-cut thinking, which must be used when under pressure or a deadline. Because it's often at an unconscious level, these mistakes can't be detected as they happen. I've seen many examples where this may be at play. Though I present this as tentative, this has been my overwhelming argument: it's antiquated thinking to assume even the most careful and experienced cannot fall victim to these lapses. They may be rare, but hardly beyond reasonable doubt. A very good article as regards hunting accidents is worth a read: excerpt: "Contrary to what most people think, the hunters committing these accidents are often experienced and considered to be safe and competent. Crucially, they often believe they have, 100%, correctly identified their target. Psychology and human factors can provide insight into how these situations might occur. When interpreting information, we rely heavily upon mental rules of thumb called heuristics. Heuristics operate outside of our conscious awareness and are utilised even more in stressful or emotionally charged situations. However, they can also make us susceptible to cognitive biases which may lead us astray—we underestimate the impact heuristics will have on our decisions. Attempts to manage heuristics and cognitive biases are often futile because we normally cannot detect them when they occur. Hunters are constantly told that they need to treat every sound or movement as human in an attempt to change their mind-set. However, given the difficulty in detecting cognitive biases, it is unlikely a hunter’s conscious management of heuristics would be consistently possible in the long term."
1
@Westberg246 This is an age old question: Benefit of the doubt versus a convenient way to escape responsibility. I agree with you. I don't pretend to have a definitive solution. So, should we just do away with due process and proof beyond reasonable doubt?
1
@krp9555 As I said, the research on decision making under pressure or time limit shows we are all subject to unconscious bias. Not expecting many to agree with me because this is not part of our "common sense" worldview. But it should be, IMO.
1
This forum is not for the mentally ill.
1
Pure speculation.
1
Sorry, you're not a mind reader.
1
@robertchandler2124 Sorry, that's wrong. The field of heuristics (fancy name for decision making under a deadline) shows that we have to employ an element of shortcut thinking under pressure. The research shows that even highly experienced people can make mistakes like this. The scary part is that such errors often happen at an unconscious level, so we can't always guard against them as they happen. This is the inherent flaw in your view. But I give you a pass because heuristic models fly in the face of common sense. Modern day "common sense" has not yet caught up with this reality.
1
@Latingyal58 I don't agree with even manslaughter. If a surgeon with a perfect record causes death by a single mistake, we don't traditionally send her or him to jail. Nor do we jail commercial airline pilots for fatal errors that kill. Because we make a distinction between negligence, especially under stress, versus gross recklessness. That distinction is fast collapsing in the legal system as of late. I think it totally goes against due process and reasonable doubt. But I admit this is all open to debate.
1
@robertchandler2124 Like I said, I give you a pass.
1
Well, if we go by due process, in the final analysis, there's no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she was negligent or reckless. Sometimes even the most careful people can make basic mistakes. The study of heuristics (decisions under a deadline) has tended to prove this. The lapses can be entirely unconscious. The arguments against Potter carry some weight. But does it really prove beyond a reasonable doubt a careful person could NEVER make such a mistake? I don't see how.
1
@johnmas9221 And accountability in this case should be a civil issue, not a criminal one. There's no proof she acted criminally. But even if there were, that doesn't automatically warrant jail time. This case has seemed to sway people because it's cops and race. if it were, say, a doctor with a perfect record causing death from a single mistake, we wouldn't usually rush to jail them. Otherwise we would be jailing everyone for every single mistake they make. Do we want to go that route in society? In a country where lawyers are out of control, it's hardly surprising this is we seem to be going. Under the ideal rule of lawyers, there would be no such thing as an honest mistake.
1
@johnmas9221 I've given you a pass. So don't worry. We all get get it wrong sometimes.
1
@Westberg246 That's open to some argument. The wording in the statute can be interpreted differently. But I let that go as we've discussed it to death. What astounded me most is the defense bringing up the examples of airline pilots and doctors. Could I be forgiven for thinking he had read my comments? Probably just coincidence - OR, maybe I think too much like a lawyer. I wasn't too impressed by either side's closing statements. Gray was confusing if not incompetent. Outrageous he blamed the victim for his own death. Eldridge was far more effective, and I predict will win the jury over. But in her gratuitous excess, hyperbole and ridiculous straw men, she is a typical lawyer at heart: cold, calculating, uncharitable. I am glad I am not in this ugly profession.
1
@Westberg246 Thank you too for a fine conversation, forced me to rethink things. Are you getting that annoying dot dot dot where it should say "show more"? ? It's very annoying, just try refreshing page. You're not missing much, just my opinionated take on things!
1