Comments by "Theory Of Personality" (@theoryofpersonality1420) on "Testimony continues in the case of ex-officer Kim Potter | COURT TV" video.

I've seen nothing to date to show she didn't do this with malice and forethought. I have no reasonable doubt. She knew what she was doing. I believe she did it because she thought she would get away with it. Remember Tony Tempa.
11
The judge will give instructions that the jury may disregard part or an entire testimony of any witnesses. Just because a someone who is a cop says deadly force would have been allowed does not mean the jury will agree. The jury may very well disregard his entire testimony as the cop defending the blue brotherhood. Just because it's allowed doesn't mean it's right. It doesn't mean the jury will agree. To assume this spells the end is just your assumption.
7
@Nall412 I see you have never been on a jury.
4
✊
4
I agree with you.
3
@Nall412 it's part of jury instructions. The jury doesn't have to believe anything any of them say. It's completely up to their discretion.
2
@Nall412 their witness just make me dislike the defendant more. The fact they think taking a life is justified is sick. The fact they think they have a right to take a life when their life wasn't in danger is sick. He was not pointing a gun at them. He had not shot at them. So no I completely disagree with you assessment of the situation at hand. My grandfather was a law enforcement officer. An officer that had the entire left side of his body and face melted off in a house fire saving three children and a kitten. These people are an insult to good officers nation wide. They had no right. They were not in danger. This was and is excessive force. I believe she did it because of her own personal beliefs of entitlement. I hope she rots in prison.
2
@Nall412 they have the right to disregard in part or the whole of any testimony. Period.
2
@Nall412 actually they can. If it's unlawful then and only then there will be a jury nullification. However the verdict is completely up to the jury. That's why we have jury trials. She could have opted to have the case decided by a judge and not had a jury. However the jury has complete discretion once it goes to the jury room. The judge will make that clear during jury instructions.
2
@Nall412 we are going to have to agree to disagree. If we were in the jury room we would either be there forever or it would be a hung jury and mistrial. As I know as a juror I don't have to believe anything anyone says. All that matters is the evidence. The video speaks for itself. They were not in mortal danger.
2
@midnightspares don't be absurd. The other cop didn't feel threatened and didn't draw a weapon or a taser. Your comment is void.
2
@midnightspares you're the one trolling my comment. So get lost.
2
@DriveInFreak its the only one my phone has. Lol
2
@Nall412 @Mikey D I am not bias towards officers at all. That is just your assumption. You are entitled to your own opinion. I was impartial until I saw the evidence that clearly shows her guilt of abusing power. She falsely claims to percieve a danger that clearly wasn't there. He was unarmed. There was no threat to her life. If the other officer had felt threatened he would have drawn his taser and he did not because he nor her were in danger.
1
@holdontight1981 yes because that makes so much sense that my one comment on the internet is going to ruin the justice system. Learn to speak English and get bent.
1
@DriveInFreak I fail to understand the question
1
I have a cheap tracphone.
1