Chu said the trial evidence left it undisputed that Potter never intended to use her firearm and that the scene was “chaotic, tense and rapidly evolving … officer Potter was required to make a split-second judgment,” a mitigating factor in her lower sentence,
MPRNEWS
reported.
The judge made it clear this case was different than the Minneapolis police killing of George Floyd in 2020 and the 2017 killing of 911 caller Justine Ruszczyk. In those cases, officers received longer sentences.
The judge discussed aggravating factors that the state used to request a harsher sentence than found in sentencing guidelines.
The judge said the first factor was based on whether Potter caused a “greater than normal danger to the passenger in the car and the two other officers when she fired.” Chu said the state’s case did not support this position.
The judge also said the state did not meet it’s burden of proof on the second factor. She said contrary to the state’s claims, Potter did not abuse her position of authority. Chu said it is undisputed she was in the line of duty and doing her job in an attempt to lawfully arrest Wright when she mistook her gun for her Taser. The judge said Potter acted to protect the officer on the other side of the car and he could have been injured if Wright had driven away.