Was "guilty" verdict justified for Kim Potter?

 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59776917

I know that a lot of people have problems comparing the Kim Potter case to pedal confusion; but, I think it's a valid comparison and it is something that kills a lot of people.

Say a car runs a red light and causes a fatal accident. If the driver was running late for work and decided to accelerate through the red light then the driver created unnecessary risk, was aware of the risk, and disregarded the risk. That's criminal negligence. If the driver intended to stop but accidentally hit the gas instead of the break that's not criminal negligence. There are still massive civil implications; but, not criminal.

I don't see how twelve people agreed that Potter's actions qualified as criminal negligence.

The best argument for the prosecution was that Potter created an unnecessary risk; but, even that's unclear when a person with a felony warrant is trying to flee the scene in his vehicle with an officer half way in the vehicle. But, even if you give that one to the prosecution they still had to prove that Potter was aware of the risk and disregarded it. The prosecution needs to prove all of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt. There's no evidence that Potter was aware of the risk; in fact, there's solid evidence that she was unaware. If she was completely unaware of the risk she couldn't disregard the risk.

Now, what the prosecutors tried to do (I guess successfully with those jurors; but, I didn't buy it) was that Kim Potter's career of two and a half decades with a spotless record means that she should have known and that her record places her at a higher level of culpability.

There's some truth to that -- I guess. But, she had literally never discharged either her gun or her taser in the line of duty until that day. Pedal confusion still happens to experienced drivers and it happens in less tense situations. Still, even if you do buy that argument, do you really want that to be a standard for determining criminal negligence? Do you want an eighteen year old with a bad driving record whose foot accidentally slipped to the accelerator and killed somebody to get off scott free and a driver who has had a license for thirty years without so much as a parking ticket to spend decades in prison for the same slip up? Do we want to punish people for having a great track record?

I do think the jury got this one wrong.