Return to Transcripts main page

At This Hour

Teen Speaks Out After Being Handcuffed During Mall Fight; Defense Secretary: "There Is Still Time For Diplomacy"; Former Officer Kim Potter Speaks At Her Sentencing Hearing. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired February 18, 2022 - 11:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[11:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Developing this morning. Growing outrage over this viral video, I will show you and I'm sure you have seen, of two New Jersey police officers responding to a mall fight between two teens.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh no.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's because he's black.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Racially motivated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: You can see there, the officers handcuffing the black teen while leaving the white teen sitting on the couch watching and you can hear the reaction from the other kids who are standing around.

Now, the NAACP is calling for the officers to be removed from the force. CNN's Athena Jones is back with us with more because there's an update, Athena, the boy at the center of this spoke to CNN this morning. What is he saying?

ATHENA JONES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: He did. He and his mother are obviously upset about this. This is a video that's getting a lot of attention or upsetting a lot of people because of what they feel it shows about racial bias in policing. Listen to what the boy, Z'Kye, and his mother, Ebone, had to say this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: And when you found out that he'd been sitting on the couch and you were in handcuffs, what do you think about that?

Z'KYE, INVOLVED IN MALL FIGHT: I was like mad. I was angry that they treated me differently.

EBONE, MOTHER OF Z'KYE: He wasn't put in handcuffs, so when he -- when they say that it's protocol, I'm just saying what is -- who is it protocol for? Because if only the black kid was, you know, put in handcuffs, it just makes me wonder.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JONES: And it makes a lot of people wonder why these two teens were treated differently. Z'Kye also went on to say in that interview that he believes that people should be treated, not -- should not be treated differently simply because of the color of their skin and what they look like.

I did speak to their attorney, Benjamin Crump, last night. He said they are looking at legal remedies, looking -- possibly pursuing legal action. And he says you know there is an investigation going on. As we know the prosecutor's office and the police department are asking for more videos. More videos are coming in. There were a lot of folks standing around that fight --

BOLDUAN: Yes.

JONES: Then Crump tells me that in one of the videos, there's a lot of questions about what happened to the -- to the white teen after the black teen, we know, was taken to a holding area at the mall.

BOLDUAN: OK.

JONES: Then Crump tells me that one of the videos shows that the officer -- the female officer told the white teen, just patted him on the shoulder and said no, you're good, you're free to go. He didn't -- he thought he might be arrested. He even, at one point, you can see him putting his hands together as if to offer to be arrested but they just said you're fine. You're good to go. We have not seen this video we are trying to obtain as some of these additional videos but it's just an important bit of context to add to this.

BOLDUAN: And then -- and that will be important and we will get those, we will see those. It's great to see you, Athena. Thank you for bringing that to us. Really appreciate it.

Coming up for us, we've just learned that Kim Potter will speak at her sentencing hearing today after the family of Daunte Wright, as we discussed at the top of the hour, gave just heartbreaking and gut- wrenching impact -- victim impact statements. We're going to bring that to you live ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:35:00]

BOLDUAN: Ahead of the President's Address to the Nation that we just learned of and he's going to be speaking on the Ukraine crisis this afternoon, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin also says that there is, in his words, still time for diplomacy but he is also sending that message. But at the same time visiting troops and allies in the region are all now on high alert as we've learned Russia has nearly 200,000 troops on the border with Ukraine.

Joining me right now for more on this, two former NATO Supreme Allied Commanders, General Wesley Clark, and General Philip Breedlove. Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here.

General Clark, U.S. Ambassador Michael Carpenter said today what I was getting out right there that Russia has probably amassed the number -- the range that he put was 169,000 to 190,000 troops near Ukraine. Just thinking, almost 200,000 troops in the region, what does this troop level mean to you?

WESLEY CLARK, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: It means they're fully capable of executing a number of different options or several options simultaneously against Ukraine. They can come in from the north attempting to seize Kyiv, they can launch out of Crimea to open up the land bridge to Crimea and get water resources, they could invade from the sea or they could come out of Donbas, many options.

BOLDUAN: General Breedlove, you were a NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Europe when Russia invaded Crimea and the Donbas region and eastern Ukraine previously.

[11:40:00]

BOLDUAN: Ukraine has said overnight that the shelling has not stopped in the Donbas region and it is much more than the back and forth that they have kind of seen for a while now. They're also saying, though, that they won't be provoked, at least that's what they're saying. But can they continue to not respond do you think?

PHILIP BREEDLOVE, FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: Well, they're going to be patient. I think General Zelensky -- or excuse me, President Zelensky told us last week that patience and calm are what he's shooting for. And what we really need to look at is, is this a feint? Is this a ploy to fix the troops on the line of contact? And as General Clark said, then, launch an attack in the north or the south. So I think we have to have some strategic patience to understand what Russia is really doing.

BOLDUAN: Strategic Patience seems to be definitely in high demand at this moment. One thing that no one knows is what's in Putin's mind. Know -- the general view is that no one knows if he has made the decision to invade or not. But we do know, General Clark, that Secretary of State Tony Blinken laid out very clearly how Russia could, in his words, manufacture a pretext for its attack. I want to play the kind of detail that he offered.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTONY BLINKEN, SECRETARY OF STATE: This could be a violent event that Russia will blame on Ukraine or an outrageous accusation that Russia will level against the Ukrainian government. We don't know exactly the formal take. It could be a fabricated so-called terrorist bombing inside Russia, the invented discovery of the mass grave, a stage drone strike against civilians, or a fake, even a real attack using chemical weapons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: General Clark, when you heard him say that yesterday, you heard that and you thought what?

CLARK: Well, I think that there's no doubt that the Russians will want a pretext for invasion. I think, you know, Putin has studied the United States for a long time. He knows exactly how we operate. I think he's looking for an excuse to go in.

I think he'll probably do an address to the Russian people or something like this or issue a statement that the situation is unstable, and he has to act to defend Russia. So he needs a pretext. And I think that Secretary Blinken laid out a number of these that could be created to give him that pretext if he decides he wants to go through with the invasion.

BOLDUAN: General Breedlove, Lloyd Austin, the -- Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, he actually -- he's meeting with NATO allies and in the past two days he is often talked about the role of NATO saying that he's never seen NATO more unified than it is now. And what Putin is actually wanted, he's actually getting the exact opposite because he doesn't want a strong NATO -- gentlemen, I'm actually getting interrupted really quickly. I need to head over to Minneapolis. Thank you, Generals, very much.

Heading over to Minneapolis, Kim Potter is speaking now at her own sentencing hearing. Let's listen in.

KIMBERLY POTTER, FORMER POLICE OFFICER, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA: Thank you. To the family of Daunte Wright, I am so sorry that I brought the death of your father.

JUDGE REGINA CHU, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA: OK, Miss Potter, my (INAUDIBLE) can't hear you, so.

POTTER: Thank you. To the family of Daunte Wright, I am so sorry. I thought I brought the death of your son, father, brother, uncle, grandson, nephew, and the rest of your family to your home. Katie, I understand the mother's love and I'm sorry I broke your heart. My heart is broken for all of you.

Earlier when you said that I didn't look at you during the trial, I don't believe I had a right to. I didn't even have a right to be in the same room with you. I am so sorry that I hurt so badly. My heart is broken, devastated for all of you. I pray for Daunte and all of you many, many times a day.

He is not more than one thought away from my heart and I have no right for that, for him to be in my heart. I do pray that one day you can find forgiveness only because hatred is so destructive to all of us. And that I pray peace will always be with you and your family. Again, I am so sorry.

[11:45:00] POTTER: And to the community of Brooklyn Center, I do owe you an apology too. I loved working for you. And I am sorry for what has happened to our community since the death of Daunte. And the men and women who worked for you still are good, honorable people, and will work hard for you. Thank you, Your Honor.

CHU: Thank you, Miss Potter. OK, this is -- this is one of the saddest cases I've had in my 20 years on the bench. On the one hand, a young man was killed, and on the other, a respected 26-year veteran police officer made a tragic error by pulling her handgun instead of her Taser.

Thank you, to everyone who spoke. I am -- I have been profoundly moved by the comments of the Wright family. Daunte was very loved, his son has lost a father, and Mr. And Mrs. Wright, I cannot begin to understand the grief of losing a child. I'm so sorry for your loss.

Kimberly Potter honorably served her community for 26 years as a police officer. She was a respected officer and consistently went over and above the call of duty. She's a wife, a mother, an aunt, a granddaughter, a colleague, and a friend to many.

In addition to the letters that were forwarded to me by Mr. Engh, I received hundreds and hundreds of letters in her, support from colleagues, family, friends, acquaintances, community leaders and members, and even strangers. I read them all. They paint a portrait of a woman who touched a lot of people in a good way. I want to talk briefly about the aggravating factors that were brought up in this case.

As I mentioned before the State initially took the position, Ms. Potter should receive a sentence about the guidelines and filed a brief in support of two aggravating factors under Blakely. All parties agreed that I would determine whether aggravating factors existed to justify a harsher sentence than that set forth in the guidelines. I feel compelled to address the grounds for that requests because they were made public and I think it is important to note they were not proven in this case.

The state did not meet its burden of proof on the first factor. It is based on Defendant causing a greater than normal danger to the passenger in the car and to other officers when she fired but the shot only hit Daunte Wright. The passenger and the officers were not injured by that shot.

The cases cited by the state and its brief did not support its position. In fact, they illustrate why this case does not involve a greater than normal danger to others. In the Fleming case, he fired a gun six times in a park filled with children. In State versus Omaha, Defendant fired numerous shots into two apartment buildings. There is no comparison here.

The state also did not meet its burden of proof on the second Blakely factor. Contrary to the state's claims, Kimberly Potter did not abuse her position of authority. In fact, it is undisputed Ms. Potter or officer Potter was in the line of duty and doing her job in attempting to lawfully arrest Daunte Wright on the warrant when she mistook her gun for her Taser.

[11:50:00]

CHU: What's more, she drew her Taser legitimately to protect a fellow officer on the other side of the vehicle, who could have been dragged and seriously injured if the car were to speed away. Officer Potter's conduct clearly was not significantly more serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question, justifying an upward departure.

Turning to Defendant's requests for a disposition or departure, there is no question that Ms. Potter is extremely remorseful. She showed that today, she showed that when it happened. It is also beyond dispute that she is particularly amenable to probation. But the court retains the discretion to make departure decisions independently. The court is not required to depart even where mitigating factors are present and that set forth in State versus Birch 689 N.W. 2d 276 affirmed by the Supreme Court 707 N.W. 2d 660.

This has been an extremely difficult decision. In making my decision, I look to the purposes of incarceration. There are four, retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Three of the four would not be served in this case. Incapacitation refers to the physical removal of a convicted person to prevent them from committing future crimes. That is not an issue in this case.

Kimberly Potter does not present a danger of future crimes obviously. Deterrence refers to the prevention of future crime and the idea that those who have committed crimes will be discouraged from reoffending after experiencing punishment. That purpose would not be served here. Rehabilitation is also not a purpose that would justify incarceration in this case.

Ms. Potter does not require rehabilitation to become a law-abiding citizen. Retribution or serving time as a way for a convicted person to pay for the harm inflicted on a victim is the sole purpose that applies in this case. And in this case, a young man was killed because Officer Potter was reckless. There rightfully should be some accountability.

Sentencing Guidelines are just that. They are guidelines that inform a judge regarding sentencing for various crimes. They are not set in stone. The court has the discretion to depart from guidelines depending on the particular facts of a case. A downward durational departure is justified if a crime is less onerous than typical. Put another way. If the conduct is significantly less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime, sentencing below the guidelines is justified.

I find the facts and circumstances here justify a downward departure from the guidelines. First, Officer Potter's conduct was significantly less serious than your typical manslaughter case. The misdemeanor predicate for the manslaughter count was reckless handling or use of a firearm.

[11:55:00] CHU: Here, everybody agrees and the evidence is undisputed that Officer Potter never intended to use her firearm. She mistakenly drew her firearm at all times intending to use her Taser. There were police officers and experts who testified that the use of her Taser was reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances presented for the officer's safety reasons. The fact she never intended to draw her firearm makes this case less serious than other cases.

Second, the scene was chaotic, tense, and rapidly evolving. Officer Potter was required to make a split-second judgment. That constitutes a mitigating circumstance. Finally, unlike other manslaughter-one cases, Officer Potter's actions were not driven by personal animosity toward Daunte Wright. Instead, she was acting in the line of duty in effectuating a lawful arrest.

This case is highly unusual. The other officer cases tried in this court are distinguishable. This is not a cop found guilty of murder for using his knees to pin down a person for nine and a half minutes as he gasps for air. This is not a cop found guilty of manslaughter for intentionally drawing his firearm and shooting across his partner and killing an unarmed woman who approached his squad. This is a cop who made a tragic mistake. She drew her firearm, thinking it was a Taser, and ended up killing a young man.

Miss Potter, will you please rise? Given all these considerations and having carefully considered the comments of the family of both Daunte Wright and the comments of Kimberly Potter as well as the arguments of counsel, it is the sentence and judgment of this court that you shall be committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections for a period of 24 months. You shall serve two-thirds of bar time or 16 months in prison and a third on supervised release assuming no disciplinary offenses, or conditional release violations.

You have credit for 58 days already served, restitution will be reserved, there'll be a fine of $1,000 and a surcharge of $78 to be taken out of prison wages are due within 180 days. You must provide a DNA sample. You may not use or possess any firearms, ammunition, or explosives. You have the right to appeal the conviction and sentence. If you are unable to pay the cost of an appeal, you may apply for leave to appeal at state expense by contacting the state public defender. You may be seated, Ms. Potter.

I'd like to make a few parting comments. I recognize there will be those who disagree with the sentence that I granted a significant downward departure does not in any way diminish Daunte Wright's life. His life mattered. And to those who disagree and feel a longer prison sentence is appropriate, as difficult as it may be, please try --

END