politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Isn't having knowledge of a felony enough for a public prosecutor to indict someone independent of the victim?
That's how it works in Germany at least - if the authorities get information about a criminal offense, they are obliged to start a criminal investigation. A victim not pressing charges only matters in terms of a civil lawsuit.
There were two separate crimes here.
The crime of abusing the ANC for a political photo and the crime of physically assaulting someone who worked for the ANC.
The crime of abusing it for political purposes is currently being ignored and the person assaulted has chosen to not press charges for the assault.
Isn’t this Army jurisdiction? Is pressing charges even relevant?
Oh yeah actually good point. Probably still relevant since it involves a civilian though, it's not like civilians can be tried through military court afaik
Although I wonder if he could claim he was acting as Trump's agent. Trump, being a former guy who tried to overthrow the government and technically former Commander in Chief of the military, maybe could be court martialed, right? If this is considered an attack by him, like a coup, on our Armed Forces?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice
Idk. I doubt they will do anything regardless. But interesting thought experiment for sure.
Assuming the only evidence for physical assault isn't just the victims statements (but even then), I feel that both crimes are currently being ignored.
To go back to the example of Germany: If you accuse someone of a crime (directed against your physical well-being or property) here, towards authorities (e.g. police) and then say "but I don't want to press charges", that no longer matters - they are obliged to record a report of a potential criminal offense and leave it to a judge to decide on how to proceed.
In the UK, you can't decide whether to 'press charges' or not, the decision is the CPS's.
But in practice, saying you aren't interested in pursuing a conviction often ends it, because:
1 - the prosecution must be 'in the public good' which is undermined if the victim isn't interested
2 - a lot of the time the testimony and cooperation of the victim is key to the prosecution case
3 - the system is horribly underfunded so if they can justify dropping it they will
CPS is? City Prosecutor ... ??
as to 1) - that's judged differently in Germany - in part to protect victims of domestic violence who will often "change their mind and not want to" press charges after filing an initial report.
in that case, yes - but again, if it's a criminal offense, the victim has an obligation to testify, even if they have no interest
I have no idea how the funding of our judicial branch looks like atm
The Crown Prosecution Service.
ah right - forgot UK still has one foot in the medieval ;) thanks for the clarification!
One foot? More like five feet ten inches!
I was thinking figuratively of the UK as a person, and of persons as bipeds...
Ah, I was referring to the current owner of the crown.
The CPS only does this for England and Wales not the whole of the UK. In Scotland the procurator fiscal prosecutes crimes and in Northern Ireland it is the Public Prosecution Service