daunte wright shooting

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Sure, I'll complain about it right now. It is unjust. And, there are numerous studies that address that issue, just like there are studies that address the racial issue. The only reasons you see more complains about the racial issue is 1) it affects an historically disadvantaged community (can't say that about men), and 2) certain people not only resist acknowledging its existence, but actively dispute it is even a problem, necessarily engendering a forceful response. I don't know of anyone saying we should ignore the disparity in treatment between men and women in the justice system  or that such a disparity doesn't exist. Do you?  

I only know it gets absolutely zero coverage so doubt enough people are aware about it to express an opinion. So either they don't know, don't show, or just don't care...

Edited April 15, 2021 by Johnny Sack

[Carl Spackler 3,502]

38 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

They often won't just yell out "he's got a warrant" or "he's wanted for a crime" as it spooks them as it did here.  Often, they try to get the individual away from the vehicle, others, and into a place that they can control the scenario.  

When you get pulled over, that pause when they are still in the car, they are calling in the stop and running your plates

Yep, the female officer's statement about the existence of a warrant in the presence of the subject was one of the problematic aspects of the incident.  I suppose she might argue that she had to inform her colleagues about the warrant, but I think there are quite a few police practices experts who would say she should have been more circumspect.

 

[BabaYaga 15,312]

4 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

Yep, the female officer's statement about the existence of a warrant in the presence of the subject was one of the problematic aspects of the incident.  I suppose she might argue that she had to inform her colleagues about the warrant, but I think there are quite a few police practices experts who would say she should have been more circumspect.

 

She should not have yelled it out, alerting the suspect - that much is evident.  

[Dahobbs 17,679]

11 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I only know it gets absolutely zero coverage so doubt enough people are aware about it to express an opinion. So either they don't know, don't show, or just don't care...

Start a thread on it. It does get occasional news coverage over the years, but I agree it gets substantially less coverage. I suspect that is mostly because it doesn't involve a historically disadvantaged group and because no one is keeping it in the spotlight by challenging its existence. The lack of conflict on the issue means it'll get less eyeballs, which is ultimately what the news organizations are after. 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

On 4/12/2021 at 4:14 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

Life's rich pageant

Such a great album...... errrr CD....

[Brisketexan 105,309]

1 hour ago, lmao said:

People support state power when they believe it is being used against their political enemies. I'm sure that woman's political views were abhorrent, but that does not mean she should have been murdered. She was unarmed and iirc she was standing next to security or an officer before she was shot. Police shouldn't murder unarmed people. Full stop.

You recall quite incorrectly.  The mob was actively breaking down the doors and glass, hollering "bust it down" -- they were warned not to go through by the cops on the other side.  She was actively climbing through the breach the mob created when she was shot.  It's awful, and a woman lost her life for no good damned reason at all.  You can re-watch it here:

 

 

But she wasn't "standing around minding her own business."  She was the point person on a mob that was actively and purposefully breaching a secure area (and for that matter, an inner secure area -- they had already breached multiple such areas and were now going at the cops' "last stand").  The fact that MORE people weren't shot that day is a blessing.

[TwiceHorn 31,534]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You recall quite incorrectly.  The mob was actively breaking down the doors and glass, hollering "bust it down" -- they were warned not to go through by the cops on the other side.  She was actively climbing through the breach the mob created when she was shot.  It's awful, and a woman lost her life for no good damned reason at all.  You can re-watch it here:

 

 

But she wasn't "standing around minding her own business."  She was the point person on a mob that was actively and purposefully breaching a secure area (and for that matter, an inner secure area -- they had already breached multiple such areas and were now going at the cops' "last stand").  The fact that MORE people weren't shot that day is a blessing.

Yeah, I was troubled by that at first, but it wasn't clear where that mob was headed (the Speaker's lobby, which apparently was quite close to where several were holed up).  Could she have been brained with a chair or some object, sure, but it was closer to a clean shoot than most.

[Brisketexan 105,309]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, I was troubled by that at first, but it wasn't clear where that mob was headed (the Speaker's lobby, which apparently was quite close to where several were holed up).  Could she have been brained with a chair or some object, sure, but it was closer to a clean shoot than most.

Definitely would have preferred that they used pepper spray, taser, etc.  But they were caught pretty damned flat-footed and retreated to a last redoubt.  A result like this was quite unsurprising.  No less sad, but unsurprising.

[TwiceHorn 31,534]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Definitely would have preferred that they used pepper spray, taser, etc.  But they were caught pretty damned flat-footed and retreated to a last redoubt.  A result like this was quite unsurprising.  No less sad, but unsurprising.

The other thing that weirdly made me feel better about it, in one of the videos, you can see the cop pointing the pistol at her for some seconds and his hand was shaking like crazy.  It wasn't some rage-blast like a lot of these seem to be.

[Brisketexan 105,309]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The other thing that weirdly made me feel better about it, in one of the videos, you can see the cop pointing the pistol at her for some seconds and his hand was shaking like crazy.  It wasn't some rage-blast like a lot of these seem to be.

Yeah.....being at your "last stand" position with a hostile mob yelling that they are going to bust down the doors and come in....that's some serious fucking gut-check time.  As someone who has had a weapon shouldered and pointed at a target that I did NOT want to shoot (a dog, out in the country, charging me aggressively).....that was nerve-wracking as shit.  And again, I had the gun shouldered and aimed for some time, and the target was a DOG, not a person.  Thankfully, the dog stopped short of the "point of no return" I had drawn in my mind, at which point I was going to shoot.

The sad thing here is that I think a lot of the insurrectionists thought this was some sort of cosplay game....it was not.

Edited April 15, 2021 by Brisketexan

[dcar00 14,354]

20 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Serious post? 

yeah then this will cause everyone to claim racism because the guy can't get a kickass rate on his home loan.

[lmao 178]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You recall quite incorrectly.  The mob was actively breaking down the doors and glass, hollering "bust it down" -- they were warned not to go through by the cops on the other side.  She was actively climbing through the breach the mob created when she was shot.  It's awful, and a woman lost her life for no good damned reason at all.  You can re-watch it here:

 

 

But she wasn't "standing around minding her own business."  She was the point person on a mob that was actively and purposefully breaching a secure area (and for that matter, an inner secure area -- they had already breached multiple such areas and were now going at the cops' "last stand").  The fact that MORE people weren't shot that day is a blessing.

I still don't think she should have been killed as she was unarmed. My views were probably diametrically opposed to hers (would prob consider me a libitard commie or whatever). Guess I'm too much of a bleeding heart idk. 

[TwiceHorn 31,534]

1 minute ago, lmao said:

I still don't think she should have been killed as she was unarmed. My views were probably diametrically opposed to hers (would prob consider me a libitard commie or whatever). Guess I'm too much of a bleeding heart idk. 

I can understand that, for sure.

Also, I believe you are correct in that within seconds of the shooting, there was at least one armed and uniformed cop on "her side" of the partition.  Which made me think where the fuck have you been and why weren't you yanking her ass back so the guy didn't feel compelled to shoot.

[Brisketexan 105,309]

1 minute ago, lmao said:

I still don't think she should have been killed as she was unarmed. My views were probably diametrically opposed to hers (would prob consider me a libitard commie or whatever). Guess I'm too much of a bleeding heart idk. 

Definitely why I would have preferred a taser or pepper spray be used.  But these were not patrol officers with a full tactical belt of options, as I understand.  The tool of force they had available was the gun they wear inside their jacket.  They are protective detail, not folks who intervene in workaday hassles.  Again, a really awful and sad outcome.  But nonetheless, I don't think the legal justification is in any reasonable doubt.

[Brisketexan 105,309]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I can understand that, for sure.

Also, I believe you are correct in that within seconds of the shooting, there was at least one armed and uniformed cop on "her side" of the partition.  Which made me think where the fuck have you been and why weren't you yanking her ass back so the guy didn't feel compelled to shoot.

That was also a problem.  BUT, tactically, I definitely saw where that cop (and several others who were shown being the lone officer among a mob) was in a sticky and dangerous situation.  Verbally command the mob to stand down, stuff like that?  You have a role, and MOSTLY, they weren't getting violent with you.  Start putting hands on people, and you're one guy against 20, with no backup around.  You're fucked.

Edited April 15, 2021 by Brisketexan

[TwiceHorn 31,534]

We have to acknowledge that hindsight bias, aka second-guessing, is always going to play a role here.  On the one hand, we can always wish for a less-lethal response, but we have to temper that with the reality of the situation.  You can also go way too far with the latter so the deference to the on the spot decision turns into carte blanche to shoot.

[lmao 178]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Definitely why I would have preferred a taser or pepper spray be used.  But these were not patrol officers with a full tactical belt of options, as I understand.  The tool of force they had available was the gun they wear inside their jacket.  They are protective detail, not folks who intervene in workaday hassles.  Again, a really awful and sad outcome.  But nonetheless, I don't think the legal justification is in any reasonable doubt.

Was there any investigation into the shooting or was it basically open & shut?

[Brisketexan 105,309]

4 minutes ago, lmao said:

Was there any investigation into the shooting or was it basically open & shut?

One level has been done -- the DOJ investigates to determine if there was a civil rights violation, and based on the facts, none was found.  That is not the only possible standard, though, so there may be another layer of inquiry on a criminal level.  I'm not sure.  But you can find a summary of the DOJ findings here:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/department-justice-closes-investigation-death-ashli-babbitt

[Jive Turkey 12,642]

as if you needed more evidence of the differential treatment.  same state, days apart.

 

[Dahobbs 17,679]

6 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

as if you needed more evidence of the differential treatment.  same state, days apart.

 

In case anyone is wondering, had that ended in a shooting and I think it would have been justified. But, I'm glad it didn't come to that and I credit the cops for bringing in him alive. 

[dieucla98 2,942]

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

In case anyone is wondering, had that ended in a shooting and I think it would have been justified. But, I'm glad it didn't come to that and I credit the cops for bringing in him alive. 

Just credit his white skin.

[TexasEd 8,077]

On 4/15/2021 at 2:24 PM, TwiceHorn said:

I can understand that, for sure.

Also, I believe you are correct in that within seconds of the shooting, there was at least one armed and uniformed cop on "her side" of the partition.  Which made me think where the fuck have you been and why weren't you yanking her ass back so the guy didn't feel compelled to shoot.

He was probably an Oathkeeper

[Hookah Horns 3,083]

On 4/15/2021 at 2:21 PM, lmao said:

I still don't think she should have been killed as she was unarmed. My views were probably diametrically opposed to hers (would prob consider me a libitard commie or whatever). Guess I'm too much of a bleeding heart idk. 

Shouldn't have been shot at all, or just not shot to kill?

The shooter was all that stood between the congress critters and an angry mob of thousands of people pushing towards them. 

The shooter didn't know she was unarmed. In some situations it's prudent to assume someone is armed. I submit this was a such a case. 

If you don't believe she should have been shot, what should the cop have done instead? If the chick gets through, many other fascists follow. And then what? Even assuming the cop had pepper spray or a taser, that's obviously not going to stop the mob. 

Probably the only thing that would've stopped the mob was what did stop them: gunfire. 

Edited April 20, 2021 by Hookah Horns

[Hookah Horns 3,083]

On 4/15/2021 at 2:24 PM, TwiceHorn said:

I can understand that, for sure.

Also, I believe you are correct in that within seconds of the shooting, there was at least one armed and uniformed cop on "her side" of the partition.  Which made me think where the fuck have you been and why weren't you yanking her ass back so the guy didn't feel compelled to shoot.

It's not like she was the only person there. He yanks her back, someone else goes through and gets the bullet. And the yanker probably gets the shit beat out of him for his trouble. And who knows, maybe he gets killed, too. 

The deceased was obligated to yank her own ass back so the guy didn't feel compelled to shoot. 

[Hookah Horns 3,083]

As for the topic of this thread, what a fucking mess. 

My initial thought was that it's inconceivable that anyone experienced with both, and where they kept them, could confuse a gun with a taser. But then I considered that on at least two occasions I've accidentally thrown my keys in the trash while retaining a piece of garbage. People do stupid shit, and that's probably exacerbated by the heat of the pertinent moment. 

That's not to say it's an excusable error, only that I find such an error conceivable. I must say I find it much more conceivable than the cop deciding to shoot Wright dead, but first deceptively yelling "taser," and then feigning surprise and regret after the shot. 

I'm not sure if that's the angle the prosecution is going to go for here, but looking at the statute, it seems like the only chance they have at a conviction.

It's unfortunate that MN doesn't have a criminal statute covering this conduct. But seeing as they don't, I'm not sure why they charged her. I suspect that the anger in the community played significant role in that decision. 

If I'm right, that's rather disconcerting. The state should not be charging crimes the facts don't fit just because the masses want a conviction. That's not justice.

[Hookah Horns 3,083]

On 4/15/2021 at 4:25 PM, Jive Turkey said:

as if you needed more evidence of the differential treatment.  same state, days apart.

 

Disparate results to be sure, but I don't see how you can conclude there was disparate treatment based on that video and the story. That would seem to require the cops having an opportunity to tase (or shoot) him and instead deciding to let him go. Apparently the perp rolled up the window on the cop, trapping him, and then hit him in the head with a hammer. I'm sure if the cop could have tased the guy he'd have loved doing so. It actually looks to me like he was grabbing on his belt for what I imagine was his gun. 

[Enchubben 5,510]

^Wrong! He surely risked his life to not shoot or tase him because he’s white not black. That’s the much more likely scenario /crcrew

[Hookah Horns 3,083]

On 4/14/2021 at 5:59 PM, hayden_horn said:

so, after watching the video, what exactly would happen if she successfully deployed the taser when he's rolling in the car?

sure, at that point he's disabled, but what if the jolt causes his foot to floor it? then what? what if the car careens out of control and hits someone else or a pedestrian? hell, even after she shot him he "drove" a couple of blocks before crashing the car. what's the best possible scenario if she successfully tazes him? she panicked. cops, especially 26 year vets, should not be mistaking a firearm for a tazer. 

once he's in the car, i think you got to let him go. it's your fault he's in there to begin with. grab him later, and you can get him with another charge of resisting arrest and evasion or whatever (though i'm not the biggest fan of stacking charges, to be honest), and revoke his bail.

and i could be wrong, but the warrant wasn't for the robbery, it was for missing a court date related to that robbery. i'm happy to be corrected if wrong. given that, and that the state has let him out of a bond, is it worth it to kill him over missing a court date? there was another article i read that he had his bail revoked for not keeping up with his probation officer, and running from cops in july after being seen with a gun. 

either way, he wasn't a good guy, necessarily, but he doesn't deserve to be dead, and in my opinion, the cop shouldn't be in a place to make that split second adrenaline decision. let him go. pick him up later. if cops spent more time detecting and doing police work (like, i dunno, rounding up mr wright before noticing he has an outstanding warrant because of expired tags) then police would be looked on more favorably. how many bullshit fishing expeditions did they engage in before hitting hitting a fish?

instead of doing that, find some bad guys and arrest them when they go for smokes or whatever. 

If I'm the next guy whom he robs - or worse - and I find out the cops recently had him detained as a fugitive and let him go due to bumblefuckery, I'd be pretty pissed at the cops. 

Just throwing that thought out there. I have no idea how risky it is to tase someone who just started moving in a car. 

[Blotto 23,570]

guilty of manslaughter, sentencing in February

Quote

Potter was found guilty of first- and second-degree manslaughter in the fatal April shooting of Wright during a traffic-stop-turned-arrest on April 11.

Potter, 49, had pleaded not guilty to the charges. She took the stand and testified before the jury, breaking down in tears as she recounted the shooting, eventually apologizing and insisting she "didn't want to hurt anybody." During her emotional testimony, Potter said she remembered "yelling 'Taser, Taser, Taser,' and nothing happened, and then he told me I shot him." 

The maximum penalty for first-degree manslaughter predicated on reckless use/ handling of a firearm is 15 years in prison and/or a $30,000 fine. However, since Potter has no criminal history, Minnesota sentencing guidelines recommend a sentence roughly between 6 and 8.5 years in prison. 

Her sentencing date has been set for Feb. 18, 2022.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/23/us/kim-potter-trial-thursday/index.html

Edited December 23, 2021 by Blotto

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

I could be wrong on this one, as I have not followed the case.  But is this not closer to a driver killing someone by accidentally hitting the gas instead of the brakes?

[bluto 4,942]

17 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I could be wrong on this one, as I have not followed the case.  But is this not closer to a driver killing someone by accidentally hitting the gas instead of the brakes?

What’s the other hypothetical you’re comparing it to? Or just asking questions?

Edited December 23, 2021 by bluto

[BrazilHorn 6,631]

I believe the jury got this right. I could squint at the mistake if she was a rookie but she was in a supervisory position and 100% should have known the difference between gun/taser. 
 

 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

53 minutes ago, bluto said:

What’s the other hypothetical you’re comparing it to? Or just asking questions?

I don't know enough about this one to comment and probably shouldn't have.  

[Harrison Bergeron 1,798]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

I don't know enough about this one to comment and probably shouldn't have.  

I have not really followed the case ... I always struggle with the difference between manslaughter and negligence. I did hear a little of her colleague's testimony, who was trapped in the car and could have been in danger. It seems as if she had intentionally shot him she might have not faced any charges.

[phdhorn 6,224]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

I could be wrong on this one, as I have not followed the case.  But is this not closer to a driver killing someone by accidentally hitting the gas instead of the brakes?

To a point, but it would be more like that driver is a professional driver and needs to be held to a higher standard of how to handle a car than the average person.

I think she'll probably do about a year to a year and a half and then get out on parole. That would be about right. She's not a danger to the community in and of herself, but as an officer, she needs to be accountable for it. The law is there for the reason that she seemed to violate.

There's no way she's racist or anything like that, she just is grossly negligent in my opinion. And when you're authorized to use a firearm in public you can't be that way. I think it was a somewhat innocent mistake (if innocent is actually the word that works here) but unfortunately she screwed up and has to account for it. If she screwed up and it didn't cost a life it would be a different story. Maybe it's not fair to her but sometimes you have to pay for your mistakes even if you had absolutely no intention of making it. Life can be unfair.

Edited December 23, 2021 by phdhorn

[Huckleberry 33,088]

Well it's a bad analogy all the way around because the difference between gas and brakes is the difference between hurt this person and completely avoid contact with this person. The difference between gun and taser is the difference between probably kill this person and hurt this person in a likely non-lethal manner. Meaning that she intended to hurt Wright, not arguing about whether or not that part was justifiable. Hitting the brakes as an analogy would mean she was trying to avoid hurting him.

I'm sure there will be discussion that clarifies things but that result seems reasonable. Manslaughter predicated on reckless use/handling of a firearm is basically exactly what happened here, but that's just based on standard definitions of those words. No idea what the legal definitions are in that jurisdiction.

Edited December 23, 2021 by Huckleberry

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

19 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Well it's a bad analogy all the way around because the difference between gas and brakes is the difference between hurt this person and completely avoid contact with this person. The difference between gun and taser is the difference between probably kill this person and hurt this person in a likely non-lethal manner. Meaning that she intended to hurt Wright, not arguing about whether or not that part was justifiable. Hitting the brakes as an analogy would mean she was trying to avoid hurting him.

I'm sure there will be discussion that clarifies things but that result seems reasonable. Manslaughter predicated on reckless use/handling of a firearm is basically exactly what happened here, but that's just based on standard definitions of those words. No idea what the legal definitions are in that jurisdiction.

Copied and pasted this, and there can be differences in jurisdictions, but this is about right:

There are four basic theories of liabilities which, depending on the type of lawsuit, can render a defendant liable for injuries he or she causes.

• Intent (also called willfulness) means the person acted with the intent to cause harm.
• Recklessness means the person knew (or should have known) that his or her action were likely to cause harm.
• Negligence means that the person acted in violation of a duty to someone else, with the breach of that duty causing harm to someone else.
• Strict liability is reserved for certain specific situations where someone can be held liable for harms they cause no matter what their mental state was.

From what limited things I know about this case, it is either reckless or negligence.  

[Basil 755]

It’s recklessness but I thought it required one to be aware of a know risk and disregard it, i.e., shoot a gun in the direction of a house but not intending to to kill anyone. If she didn’t know she was firing her gun - and she quite clearly didn’t - I don’t see how she could have been reckless.

[TwiceHorn 31,534]

I posted this in another thread and it has links to the MN man 1 and 2 statutes.

I think the jury fucked up on manslaughter 1.  I'm not even sure why it was charged as I can barely see the offense fitting the statute.

[GopherRock 1,765]

1 hour ago, Basil said:

It’s recklessness but I thought it required one to be aware of a know risk and disregard it, i.e., shoot a gun in the direction of a house but not intending to to kill anyone. If she didn’t know she was firing her gun - and she quite clearly didn’t - I don’t see how she could have been reckless.

Anytime a gun goes off when the responsible person didn't intend to is a negligent discharge. 

https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2021/the-difference-between-accidental-and-negligent-discharge-and-why-journalists-shouldnt-parrot-police-language/

[Blotto 23,570]

Quote

Kim Potter, the former Minnesota police officer who mistakenly drew a gun instead of a Taser and fatally shot Daunte Wright during a traffic stop, was sentenced on Friday to 2 years in prison.

The sentence comes nearly two months after Potter was convicted of first- and second-degree manslaughter. Prosecutors had requested 7 years and 2 months while Potter's attorneys argued for a lesser sentence, pointing to her lack of a prior criminal history and remorse for Wright's death.

Potter will be required to serve two-thirds of her sentence in prison, or 16 months, according to state law. With good behavior, she will be eligible for supervised release for the remaining third.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/18/us/kim-potter-sentencing-daunte-wright/index.html

[Brisketexan 105,309]

5 minutes ago, Blotto said:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/18/us/kim-potter-sentencing-daunte-wright/index.html

On first impression, I don't have a huge problem with this sentence.  It was a valid manslaughter case (she didn't intend to cause his death), and she demonstrated immediate and consistent remorse.  Yes, the counter-argument is that cops should be held to a high standard when it comes to the use of force, but honestly, the power here is that she was convicted and will serve time.

['stache 21,860]

What's the ordinary sentence for a person who accidentally kills someone with their car while speeding? My guess is this fell somewhere near that, and while I agree that cops should be held to a higher standard and would have preferred a longer sentence, I'm not horribly upset by this outcome. Like Brisket said, at least she was convicted. 

[Helobious 9,464]

That’s a fair sentence imo. She didn’t intend to kill him, but was still being reckless. She’ll probably be locked up about a year or so. Thats enough time to let other cops know their actions have serious consequences. 

[Jive Turkey 12,642]

Judge cried when she sentenced the officer. 

 

[atomheartbevo 89,787]

10 hours ago, 'stache said:

What's the ordinary sentence for a person who accidentally kills someone with their car while speeding?

I don't know about the sentence for killing someone, but I can tell you the sentence is bullshit for somebody who accidentally hits someone with their car while speeding.

[Helobious 9,464]

6 hours ago, Jive Turkey said:

Judge cried when she sentenced the officer. 

 

If you cry while sentencing someone you have no business being a judge. Embarrassing. 

[hookemATL 11,851]

One less murderer on the streets. 

[TwiceHorn 31,534]

8 hours ago, Helobious said:

If you cry while sentencing someone you have no business being a judge. Embarrassing. 

It's rather telling how this judge, and Amber Guyger's judge, seemed to have a lot of sympathy for their cop defendants.

DAs generally are assigned to a single court for periods of time and gain too much influence and credibility with the judge of that court.

Courts seem too sympathetic to the cops that appear in cases before them.

This is not a good thing.

[Brisketexan 105,309]

It's rather telling how this judge, and Amber Guyger's judge, seemed to have a lot of sympathy for their cop defendants.
DAs generally are assigned to a single court for periods of time and gain too much influence and credibility with the judge of that court.
Courts seem too sympathetic to the cops that appear in cases before them.
This is not a good thing.

I hear you….but it’s also human, and can’t be avoided. I’m friends with most of our local judges - either because we knew each other before they got on the bench, or because I’m in front of them so often, we do Bar activities together, etc. Hell, I was texting with a judge yesterday (not one of our locals) who was a client and friend well before she got on the bench - were trying to get together for drinks. She is a dear friend, and if I ever appear in front of her, it would be apparent (and knowing her, she would properly disclose our long-standing friendship).
But when you see a certain person repeatedly, you come to know and care about them. It’s natural. Where a judge has to be careful is to afford the same level of compassion and humanity to all who come through her court, even (especially) the person who is only there once.
I want judges who see people as human beings, not just as actors in some cold drama. The human element of our justice system can indeed be a weakness, but without it, what we would produce would not be real and complete justice. It is absolutely necessary.