Stay updated with breaking news from Recertifications. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
Her if you will in front of this jury who had to hear her apology and explanation as best she could give it. the prosecution flat out says that a mistake is not a real defense here. it s not, john. inherent in the crime of manslaughter under minnesota law it is the accidental killing of another human being. you call it accidental or mistaken. you have that mistake in the offense. so a mistake is not a defense to the mistake. it isn t. i think the defense has been quite cleverly misleading in repeatedly telling the jury in closing arguments that it was a human mistake. it was an action error. first of all, it is not any human. it is an officer of 26 years of experience who has had training and certifications and recertifications. it seems to me like it might be working. just finally, look. we always talk about the effect weekends have on juries and having them reach a decision. ....
To say that she never, in her 26 years of being an officer, had deployed a taser. well, that goes straight to count two and criminal negligence, right? the idea that, you know, you have had all these certifications and recertifications and you are out in in the public to protect and to serve, which is your duty and your oath of office. and you have, you know, these these weapons on your body that you are completely ignorant of using. and by the way, there is a department policy that you are supposed to test fire your taser each time you sign onto your shift and you failed to do that. so it goes to criminal negligence and i think she really sort of established the prosecution s case through some of these admissions. the the defense tried to humanize her. talked about her family. how she decided to become a police officer. is i mean, will the jury be tasked with looking at that? or will they just be looking at first, second-degree manslaughter charges? well you know, anderson ....
You know what, you ve had certification, recertifications, 26 years of experience, so too bad that you didn t know, but you should have known. right. the defense rested its case after potter s testimony, who do you think has the upper hand heading into the closing arguments? it s hard to think that the prosecution is not feeling, you know, pretty positive about where things stand right now. i think, you know, again, when you re looking at the law and the facts, it s completely on the prosecution s side. i think they re going to argument that not only was she justified in deadly force, that s one of the things they re going to argument that her mistake given that she s an officer, has a badge, has training, was completely unreasonable. she acted with criminal negligence gens and manage handled her weapon, which is ....
To say that she never, in her 26 years of being an officer, had deployed a taser. well, that goes straight to count two and criminal negligence, right? the idea that, you know, you have had all these certifications and recertifications and you are out in in the public to protect and to serve, which is your duty and your oath of office. and you have, you know, these these weapons on your body that you are completely ignorant of using. and by the way, there is a department policy that you are supposed to test fire your taser each time you sign on to your shift and you failed to do that. so it goes to criminal negligence and i think she really sort of established the prosecution s case through some of these admissions. the defense tried to humanize her. talked about her family. how she decided to become a police officer. is i mean, will the jury be tasked with looking at that? or will they just be looking at first, second-degree manslaughter charges? well, you know, anderson, th ....
Think the whole community, the whole state is doing it, especially in south florida. other parts of the state don t even have 40-year recertifications. we did that a lot of that after hurricane andrew, which i recall very well, increased our building code, we were much more exacting in the requirements. the question is, are we making sure the requirements are in fact enacted, do we need new requirements? i think all that is going to happen, but we re not going to just sort of rush into something. we want to do it in an informed thoughtful way. right. before i let you go, i want to ask but this washington post reporting about frank moribida, the structural engineer working on the buildings and its repairs. i wonder as we think about how to make sure this doesn t happen again, does there need to be a situation in which there are two separate structural engineers working on the recertification process of these buildings to make sure you got four eyes ....