The difficulty of prosecuting Kim Potter in Minnesota

Why? Because of the way Minnesota’s homicide statutes are worded. There doesn’t seem to be a charge that clearly captures what Potter did. Here’s the second-degree-manslaughter statute, in relevant part: "A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both: "(1) by the person’s culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another" Both “culpable negligence” and “consciously” present issues. In a previous police-shooting case, for example, jurors were instructed that to find culpable negligence, they needed to think the defendant acted with “gross negligence coupled with an element of recklessness,” meaning he consciously committed an unreasonable act that created a substantial risk. Of course, while even Tasers are dangerous, Potter consciously thought she was using a weapon designed to incapacitate rather than kill, in response to a suspect resisting arrest.