Defense lawyers argued that Potter's use of a weapon was justified, even as they acknowledged she meant to draw her Taser, not her handgun. "She's a human being," said attorney Paul Engh.
Defense lawyers argued that Potter's use of a weapon was justified, even as they acknowledged she meant to draw her Taser, not her handgun. "She's a human being," said attorney Paul Engh.
Defense lawyers argued that Potter's use of a weapon was justified, even as they acknowledged she meant to draw her Taser, not her handgun. "She's a human being," said attorney Paul Engh.
Defense lawyers argued that Potter's use of a weapon was justified, even as they acknowledged she meant to draw her Taser, not her handgun. "She's a human being," said attorney Paul Engh.
Defense lawyers argued that Potter's use of a weapon was justified, even as they acknowledged she meant to draw her Taser, not her handgun. "She's a human being," said attorney Paul Engh.