I don’t understand why this distinction matters to you, but it does not matter to me.
It was obviously an accident, he’s probably a really nice guy that loves puppies and Jesus; I still want him tried.
Was it an accident?
Well, I guess I can’t know for certain, but yes I am confident that it was.
Shame you don’t know anything about rifles. Did you watch the video?
Did he intentionally fire his weapon?
I know a little about rifles, I did watch the video, and yes he intentionally fired his weapon.
What did you see in the video?
What do you mean?
Why don’t you save us both some time and tell me what you are getting at.
I am guessing that one cop didn’t intentionally shot a gun and one cop did. I don’t think either cop intended to shot the people who got shot but only one pulled the trigger expecting to shoot someone even if it wasn’t the person he shot.
Sure, but why is the line of intention drawn there?
Because intentional shotting the gun means that you mean to kill, but he killed the wrong person. In other words, he fired with the intent to kill without taking into account who could have been in the line of fire.
Okay, but in the broader view, both officers killed people they didn’t intend to kill. I suppose parsing it like this might yield some mitigation, but in the final analysis Potter went to trial, and I think this officer should too.
A little more detail. If accurate, interesting.
I’m not sure deadly force was warranted in this incident. I counted at least 10 officers present. I find it pretty sad these 10 men couldn’t disarm a guy armed with a bicycle lock without firing shots.
See anything else that caught your eye?
Not sure…what did you see?
“Ricochet”
Yeah…like I said though, they shouldn’t have fired in the first place.
Ricochet off the floor.
So he either continued to shoot once the suspect was on the floor or he’s a really bad shot.
That would not be unusual. Tunnel vision and adrenalin.
