Black dude that got pushed in the water by his CAC friends and drowned is on the c00n wave..

[Uachet]

Oversimplification.

They can investigate, see if they uncover incriminating messages or something comes up in interrogation.

But short of something coming up, taking the matter to trial with the victim going on record saying that it was a joke he was aware of, isn't going to result in a successful conviction.

Nothing you stated changes what I wrote. Show me something that counters what I wrote, or is your purpose to be pedantic?

Re-read what I wrote, and point out the discrepancy. Since I backed my statement with actual documented evidence, how about you do the same?

 

[Umoja]

Nothing you stated changes what I wrote. Show me something that counters what I wrote, or is your purpose to be pedantic?

Re-read what I wrote, and point out the discrepancy. Since I backed my statement with actual documented evidence, how about you do the same?

Shut the fukk up, you retard.

I don't mean to be disrespectful but it is challenging having these conversations with people like you. You're too thick to realise the difference between what can be done in theory and what is done in practice.

It is not necessary for me to contradict what you said, you stupid son of a bytch. It is enough to show that in practice pursuing prosecution where the victim will be in support of the defences they raise would be a waste of resources.

 

[CHICAGO]

A crime was committed. He does not need to press charges, the prosecutor has ultimate authority on whether to prosecute or dismiss the case. So if the prosecutor is taking his concerns to heart more than the evident crime that was committed, then that fool is also learning that the system does not care about justice in his case either.

"The prosecutor assigned to the criminal case would listen to the victim's concerns in deciding whether to pursue prosecution. However, the ultimate decision on whether to prosecute or dismiss the case is up to the prosecutor."

PROSECUTION ISNT GOING
TO GO TO TRIAL WITH A CASE
THEY KNOW THEYRE GOING TO LOSE.

IF THE STAR WITNESS SAYS
IT WAS JUST HORSEPLAY
HOW ARE THEY GOING
TO CONVICT ON HIS BEHALF?




​

 

[Uachet]

PROSECUTION ISNT GOING
TO GO TO TRIAL WITH A CASE
THEY KNOW THEYRE GOING TO LOSE.

IF THE STAR WITNESS SAYS
IT WAS JUST HORSEPLAY
HOW ARE THEY GOING
TO CONVICT ON HIS BEHALF?




​

I pointed out what the actual law shows. It does not require the victim to press charges, that is up to the prosecutor alone. If he does not even attempt to pursue the case, just based on what the victim says, then he is not actually seeking justice. If you have anything that counters that, which is supported by actual law, then please post it up.

An investigation can still be conducted, even if the victim refuses to press charges. Also...

https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/different-types-of-evidence

4. Circumstantial evidence​

Circumstantial evidence describes information that doesn't directly connect a defendant to a crime but rather implies a connection exists. These examples don't directly prove that a defendant is guilty, but they provide background or context to a crime. Attorneys often rely on circumstantial evidence if direct evidence isn't available or to compile a timeline of a crime. Examples of circumstantial evidence include:

Him being left in the water while he was struggling to not drown, is Circumstantial Evidence.

11. Testimonial evidence​

Testimonial evidence is information provided by a witness who responds to questions from one or both legal teams under oath. Attorneys from the prosecution and the defense present witnesses, and they often answer questions from attorneys on both sides. Direct examination occurs when witnesses respond to questions from the attorney who presented them. Cross-examination occurs when they respond to questions from the opposing legal team.


He was not the only witness to the alleged crime. There was a group there. The whole group can be questioned.


Now, none of that means that the case will go to completion, but an actual investigation into what happened is a part of pursuing a case. Stopping that, just because he does not want to pursue it, does not in fact negate the fact that the person ultimately responsible for the case being pursued (investigated, grand juried, full trial) is up to the Prosecutor not the the victim.

 

[President Sakora]

welp when he has another mishap he'll get no sympathy over here.

 

[Uachet]

Shut the fukk up, you retard.

I don't mean to be disrespectful but it is challenging having these conversations with people like you. You're too thick to realise the difference between what can be done in theory and what is done in practice.

It is not necessary for me to contradict what you said, you stupid son of a bytch. It is enough to show that in practice pursuing prosecution where the victim will be in support of the defences they raise would be a waste of resources.

Well, there we go. You can't prove your point, so you jump right with insults.

It is challenging, because you are incapable of actually proving my statement wrong. You decided to jump in and be pedantic, and now you are upset that your statement was pointed out to not be any contradiction to what I had written. So, if you want to prove me wrong, put up something that actually counters what I placed up. Your outburst only demonstrates that you resort to insults when you are frustrated.