Expert: Potter not justified in using deadly force

Testimony in Minneapolis police officer’s manslaughter trial

MINNEAPOLIS — Kim Potter’s use of deadly force against Daunte Wright was not appropriate, a use-of-force expert testified Wednesday at the former suburban Minneapolis police officer’s manslaughter trial, undercutting a defense argument that she would have been justified in shooting Wright even if she didn’t mean to.

“The use of deadly force was not appropriate and the evidence suggests a reasonable officer in Officer Potter’s position could not have believed it was proportional to the threat at the time,” said Seth Stoughton, a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law.

Potter, who resigned from the Brooklyn Center police force two days after she shot and killed Wright, has said she meant to pull her Taser instead of her gun after Wright attempted to drive away as officers tried to arrest him on an outstanding weapons possession charge.

The defense has called the shooting a horrific mistake, but has also asserted that Potter would have been within her rights to use deadly force on Wright because he might have dragged another officer with his car.

Prosecutors, who are nearing the end of their case, have tried to portray Potter as an officer whose intended use of a Taser would have violated her department’s policy despite her extensive training.

Wright’s father, Arbuey Wright, was called by prosecutors to provide “spark of life” testimony, which Minnesota courts allow to humanize a victim.

He described his son as a typical big brother who joked a lot with his two younger sisters, and he said the family got together every Sunday. Arbuey Wright was moved to tears when prosecutors showed jurors photos of him and his son with their arms around each other and one of Daunte Wright with his own son.

“He was so happy about junior,” Wright said. “He loved his son.”

Potter, 49, is charged with first- and second-degree manslaughter in the killing of Wright, who was pulled over on April 11 for having expired license plate tags and an air freshener dangling from his rearview mirror. Video captured the moments when Wright pulled away from officers who were trying to arrest him on the outstanding warrant, with Potter shouting “I’ll tase you!” and then shooting Wright with her handgun.

Potter is white and Wright was Black, and his death set off several nights of angry protests in Brooklyn Center. It happened while a white former officer, Derek Chauvin, was on trial in nearby Minneapolis for the killing of George Floyd.

Stoughton also testified at Chauvin’s trial, saying he judged Chauvin’s actions against what a reasonable officer in the same situation would have done and repeatedly found that Chauvin acted excessively when he held Floyd facedown with a knee across his neck for more than nine minutes.

On Wednesday, Stoughton reminded jurors that Potter warned that she was about to use her Taser on Wright, and said a reasonable officer would not have decided to use a Taser if they thought there was an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.

What’s more, Stoughton said, “a reasonable officer in that situation would not have believed“those threats existed.

Stoughton said deadly force would have been inappropriate even if Potter believed another officer was in the car because of the risk that nearby officers or Wright’s passenger could get shot.

And he said that if it appeared Wright was going to drive away, shooting would make things worse because he could be incapacitated and the vehicle itself would become a weapon. After Potter shot Wright, his car drove a short distance down before colliding with another car and injuring several people. Stoughton said the use of a Taser would have been inappropriate for similar reasons: If Wright was incapacitated, the vehicle could turn into an unguided hazard, and if he wasn’t, he’d have been motivated to flee.

Under either situation, “the results are not good for the police,” he said.

In an acrimonious cross-examination, defense attorney Earl Gray sought to undermine Stoughton’s expertise, including by questioning his experience as a police officer. At one point, the judge admonished Gray to stop interrupting Stoughton.

Gray got Stoughton to agree that Wright would not have been shot if he hadn’t tried to get away, and he fired a series of questions at Stoughton to point out that Wright did not stop resisting the officers despite Potter’s warnings that she intended to use her Taser.

Earlier Wednesday, a use-offorce and Taser instructor from the Brooklyn Center Police Department testified that officers are allowed to use deadly force to stop fleeing suspects.

Sgt. Mike Peterson testified under cross-examination by one of Potter’s attorneys that officers are trained to provide a warning before they use their Tasers, such as saying “I’ll tase you.” He also agreed under questioning from the attorney that officers can use Tasers against suspects who are violent or physically resisting.

Peterson said the decision on whether to use a Taser or any other type of force “has to be made in a very short amount of time” and that there have been other instances around the country in which officers confused a gun for a Taser.

“Mistakes can happen when someone confuses a Taser with a gun?” Potter attorney Paul Engh asked Peterson. “Correct,” Peterson said. Stoughton testified later that he knew of only 20 such cases, but defense attorneys used objections to prevent him from talking about how significant that was to Potter’s case.

Peterson on Tuesday also walked jurors through the Brooklyn Center department’s training procedures for using Tasers as prosecutor Matthew Frank showed them pages from the manufacturer’s and the department’s training materials that warn against the dangers of mixing up a Taser and a handgun. Frank also highlighted portions that say a Taser should not be used simply to stop fleeing suspects or on suspects who are operating vehicles.

The case is being heard by a mostly white jury.