Jury nullification triumph!

[Quantum Windbag]

Insufficient information.

The law does not condone jury nullification, but jurys still do it.

Generally speaking, it is resorted to when the prosecution itself (for whatever reason) is unjust even if the defendant is technically guilty of the crime. The basis for saying THIS particular case was an unjust prosecution is unclear.

If he kicked her but caused no injury -- in a state where the crime being prosecuted requires "injury" as an ELEMENT of that crime -- then it was perfectly proper to acquit the guy of that charge. But, here's the thing. If that's what happened, then it wasn't jury nullification. It was a failure of proof.

If the kick did cause "injury" however that term is defined in that State, and the jury recognized THAT fact, then their resort to "jury nullification" is itself an injustice.

I think you misunderstand the term justice. The law does not define justice, and only rarely embodies it. Justice is about being right and fair, not following laws that were laid down even when they are wrong. It was not just to send escaped slaves back to their owners, but it was completely legal. It is not just to send a person who defends his family from attack to prison, yet it happens.

If a trial is about justice like you are arguing it is, then the jury must also decide if the law is right as it is being applied. Judges and prosecutors do not do that, they only decide if the law, as they interpret it, can be used to achieve the ends they desire. That is why people can actually be charged with, and convicted of, hacking even if they have permission to use a computer and access files on it. The criminal justice system is about money, justifying its existence, and devouring more resources, it is not about justice.

Jury nullification is the onlu hope that normal people have when confronted with government excess.

 

[TheBrain]

Insufficient information.

The law does not condone jury nullification, but jurys still do it.

Generally speaking, it is resorted to when the prosecution itself (for whatever reason) is unjust even if the defendant is technically guilty of the crime. The basis for saying THIS particular case was an unjust prosecution is unclear.

If he kicked her but caused no injury -- in a state where the crime being prosecuted requires "injury" as an ELEMENT of that crime -- then it was perfectly proper to acquit the guy of that charge. But, here's the thing. If that's what happened, then it wasn't jury nullification. It was a failure of proof.

If the kick did cause "injury" however that term is defined in that State, and the jury recognized THAT fact, then their resort to "jury nullification" is itself an injustice.

I think you misunderstand the term justice. The law does not define justice, and only rarely embodies it. Justice is about being right and fair, not following laws that were laid down even when they are wrong. It was not just to send escaped slaves back to their owners, but it was completely legal. It is not just to send a person who defends his family from attack to prison, yet it happens.

If a trial is about justice like you are arguing it is, then the jury must also decide if the law is right as it is being applied. Judges and prosecutors do not do that, they only decide if the law, as they interpret it, can be used to achieve the ends they desire. That is why people can actually be charged with, and convicted of, hacking even if they have permission to use a computer and access files on it. The criminal justice system is about money, justifying its existence, and devouring more resources, it is not about justice.

Jury nullification is the onlu hope that normal people have when confronted with government excess.

I think you imagine jury nullification happens more often than it really does.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How many of you actually read the link? Actually seems like a case of where the women is pissed off and being a total bitch and the guy pushed her with his foot and then gets charges with battery. Not exactly a wife beater if you ask me.

They way I see it, is if a jury of your peers deems the "crime" to be insignificant enough to warrant letting you go the so be it.

This PC, zero tolerance bullshit has to have a "check" somewhere.

A Grand Jury decides if the crime is significant enough to warrant a charge, not the trial jury. That is the way our legal system is set up. The only issues before a trial jury are

1) Is the defendant guilty of the crime as charged
2) If so what is the best punishment

In this case they could have found the guy guilty of simple assault recommended probation, and got the same result without skirting the law. THAT is within their authority without risking contempt of court for jury nullification.

That depends on what state you are in. Even if there is a grand jury, in most states all they here is what the prosecutor and the police tell them. The jury followed the procedure you outlined, and determined that the man was not guilty of the crime charged. They actually decided that this was not an assault because it did not meet the definition of assault as they understood them. End of story.

 

[editec]

How many of you actually read the link? Actually seems like a case of where the women is pissed off and being a total bitch and the guy pushed her with his foot and then gets charges with battery. Not exactly a wife beater if you ask me.

They way I see it, is if a jury of your peers deems the "crime" to be insignificant enough to warrant letting you go the so be it.

This PC, zero tolerance bullshit has to have a "check" somewhere.

A Grand Jury decides if the crime is significant enough to warrant a charge, not the trial jury. That is the way our legal system is set up. The only issues before a trial jury are

1) Is the defendant guilty of the crime as charged
2) If so what is the best punishment

In this case they could have found the guy guilty of simple assault recommended probation, and got the same result without skirting the law. THAT is within their authority without risking contempt of court for jury nullification.

Yup, that's the way it works.

Jury nullification IS contempt of court.

And sometimes the court (or the law itself) DESERVES nothing BUT our contempt.

 

[TheBrain]

How many of you actually read the link? Actually seems like a case of where the women is pissed off and being a total bitch and the guy pushed her with his foot and then gets charges with battery. Not exactly a wife beater if you ask me.

They way I see it, is if a jury of your peers deems the "crime" to be insignificant enough to warrant letting you go the so be it.

This PC, zero tolerance bullshit has to have a "check" somewhere.

A Grand Jury decides if the crime is significant enough to warrant a charge, not the trial jury. That is the way our legal system is set up. The only issues before a trial jury are

1) Is the defendant guilty of the crime as charged
2) If so what is the best punishment

In this case they could have found the guy guilty of simple assault recommended probation, and got the same result without skirting the law. THAT is within their authority without risking contempt of court for jury nullification.

Yup, that's the way it works.

Jury nullification IS contempt of court.

And sometimes the court (or the law itself) DESERVES nothing BUT our contempt.

I agree, but those cases are rare.

 

[Immanuel]

if he hadn't assaulted his wife, then the jury would not have had to find him guilty under the law. if they felt they had to engage in jury nullificaiton then his behavior was domestic violence and they let a batterer free.... which means the battering will increase in frequency and intensity.

if true, they violated their oath as jurors and should be held in contempt.

that said, i think it's a lie... the prosecutor doesn't instruct on the law except at the grand jury stage. at the trial stage, only a judge can instruct on the law.

Reading this thread it sure looks to me like the OP is advocating men being let off for spousal abuse via jury nullification (IE "the bitch deserved it".) Pretty sad.

How many of you actually read the link?

This wasn't domestic battery. From the sounds of it, it was nothing more than a playful game between the two. She was seizing the TV remote and he simply put his foot against her and "kicked" her away from it without any malicious intent.

If that is a crime, then so is putting your arms around your wife and giving her a hug.

This jury simply said, screw this we are not going to ruin a man's life because of legal stupidity.

Immie

 

[jillian]

if he hadn't assaulted his wife, then the jury would not have had to find him guilty under the law. if they felt they had to engage in jury nullificaiton then his behavior was domestic violence and they let a batterer free.... which means the battering will increase in frequency and intensity.

if true, they violated their oath as jurors and should be held in contempt.

that said, i think it's a lie... the prosecutor doesn't instruct on the law except at the grand jury stage. at the trial stage, only a judge can instruct on the law.

Reading this thread it sure looks to me like the OP is advocating men being let off for spousal abuse via jury nullification (IE "the bitch deserved it".) Pretty sad.

How many of you actually read the link?

This wasn't domestic battery. From the sounds of it, it was nothing more than a playful game between the two. She was seizing the TV remote and he simply put his foot against her and "kicked" her away from it without any malicious intent.

If that is a crime, then so is putting your arms around your wife and giving her a hug.

This jury simply said, screw this we are not going to ruin a man's life because of legal stupidity.

Immie

that is how it's being portrayed in the link. as i stated earlier in the thread that cannot be possible. if, as a factual matter, the actions didn't rise to the level of abuse, then there was no jury nullification. they simply did their job. if the acts DID rise to the level of abuse and they engaged in jury nullification, they let a batterer go free.

additionally, as you can note, there is no mention as to what the JUDGE instructed them.... only the prosecutor. the prosecutor does not charge a jury. ONLY A JUDGE CAN.

 

[TheBrain]

if he hadn't assaulted his wife, then the jury would not have had to find him guilty under the law. if they felt they had to engage in jury nullificaiton then his behavior was domestic violence and they let a batterer free.... which means the battering will increase in frequency and intensity.

if true, they violated their oath as jurors and should be held in contempt.

that said, i think it's a lie... the prosecutor doesn't instruct on the law except at the grand jury stage. at the trial stage, only a judge can instruct on the law.

Reading this thread it sure looks to me like the OP is advocating men being let off for spousal abuse via jury nullification (IE "the bitch deserved it".) Pretty sad.

How many of you actually read the link?

This wasn't domestic battery. From the sounds of it, it was nothing more than a playful game between the two. She was seizing the TV remote and he simply put his foot against her and "kicked" her away from it without any malicious intent.

If that is a crime, then so is putting your arms around your wife and giving her a hug.

This jury simply said, screw this we are not going to ruin a man's life because of legal stupidity.

Immie

I just find it almost impossible to believe that events transpired in the manner you suggest and the man ended up being charged with battery. There HAS to be more to the story.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Reading this thread it sure looks to me like the OP is advocating men being let off for spousal abuse via jury nullification (IE "the bitch deserved it".) Pretty sad.

How many of you actually read the link?

This wasn't domestic battery. From the sounds of it, it was nothing more than a playful game between the two. She was seizing the TV remote and he simply put his foot against her and "kicked" her away from it without any malicious intent.

If that is a crime, then so is putting your arms around your wife and giving her a hug.

This jury simply said, screw this we are not going to ruin a man's life because of legal stupidity.

Immie

I just find it almost impossible to believe that events transpired in the manner you suggest and the man ended up being charged with battery. There HAS to be more to the story.

The arresting officer was apparently adamant that a crime had taken place. Maybe she was the victim of DV, or grew up in a house where it occurred. The fact that there has to be more to the story does not mean that the more is actually factual, it could be bias.

 

[Ravi]

The guy that wrote the article is a playwright...it sounds like fiction.

 

[Immanuel]

Reading this thread it sure looks to me like the OP is advocating men being let off for spousal abuse via jury nullification (IE "the bitch deserved it".) Pretty sad.

How many of you actually read the link?

This wasn't domestic battery. From the sounds of it, it was nothing more than a playful game between the two. She was seizing the TV remote and he simply put his foot against her and "kicked" her away from it without any malicious intent.

If that is a crime, then so is putting your arms around your wife and giving her a hug.

This jury simply said, screw this we are not going to ruin a man's life because of legal stupidity.

Immie

I just find it almost impossible to believe that events transpired in the manner you suggest and the man ended up being charged with battery. There HAS to be more to the story.

I really don't find it impossible to believe that. Have you ever watched cops? According to those cops, it does not matter if there is any marks on the victim or not or even if he or she want to press charges. If they are called out on a domestic abuse call and they believe some action was taken, and in this case both the victim and the accused stated that he had "kicked" her, the accused is going to jail. From there it goes to the prosecutor.

I think the prosecutor is the idiot here. He/she should have looked at the facts and said, "this is bullshit. I'm not bringing this guy to trial." Evidently there was no malicious intent in this. It does not appear that he was attempting to hurt her in any way. I would have voted not guilty as well if the facts are as they were presented in the article. And I would later admit to contempt of court if that is the case, because abuse of power (which this seems to be to me) is contemptible.

Immie

 

[TheBrain]

How many of you actually read the link?

This wasn't domestic battery. From the sounds of it, it was nothing more than a playful game between the two. She was seizing the TV remote and he simply put his foot against her and "kicked" her away from it without any malicious intent.

If that is a crime, then so is putting your arms around your wife and giving her a hug.

This jury simply said, screw this we are not going to ruin a man's life because of legal stupidity.

Immie

I just find it almost impossible to believe that events transpired in the manner you suggest and the man ended up being charged with battery. There HAS to be more to the story.

The arresting officer was apparently adamant that a crime had taken place. Maybe she was the victim of DV, or grew up in a house where it occurred. The fact that there has to be more to the story does not mean that the more is actually factual, it could be bias.

What part of this are you not getting? Police do not charge anyone with ANYTHING. They arrest people if they feel an arrest is warranted, then they present the facts to a prosecuting attorney, who decides whether charges are to be proffered. In domestic violence cases , barring cooperation from the victim there has to be quite a bit of evidence to support the charges. Some local patrolman doesn't get to just say you're going to trial for spousal abuse fool and your ass is in prison. I don't believe the guy just lightly kicked her while playing around and she confirmed this and he was still arrested for abuse. Not in anyway , shape, or form.

 

[Liability]

Insufficient information.

The law does not condone jury nullification, but jurys still do it.

Generally speaking, it is resorted to when the prosecution itself (for whatever reason) is unjust even if the defendant is technically guilty of the crime. The basis for saying THIS particular case was an unjust prosecution is unclear.

If he kicked her but caused no injury -- in a state where the crime being prosecuted requires "injury" as an ELEMENT of that crime -- then it was perfectly proper to acquit the guy of that charge. But, here's the thing. If that's what happened, then it wasn't jury nullification. It was a failure of proof.

If the kick did cause "injury" however that term is defined in that State, and the jury recognized THAT fact, then their resort to "jury nullification" is itself an injustice.

I think you misunderstand the term justice. The law does not define justice, and only rarely embodies it. Justice is about being right and fair, not following laws that were laid down even when they are wrong. It was not just to send escaped slaves back to their owners, but it was completely legal. It is not just to send a person who defends his family from attack to prison, yet it happens.

If a trial is about justice like you are arguing it is, then the jury must also decide if the law is right as it is being applied. Judges and prosecutors do not do that, they only decide if the law, as they interpret it, can be used to achieve the ends they desire. That is why people can actually be charged with, and convicted of, hacking even if they have permission to use a computer and access files on it. The criminal justice system is about money, justifying its existence, and devouring more resources, it is not about justice.

Jury nullification is the onlu hope that normal people have when confronted with government excess.

I have a firm grasp on the meaning of the term justice.

Justice has more than one meaning and the varying meanings depend on context,

Nevertheless, there are some very common denominators.

Something which is unjust cannot be "justice."

And "government excess" is itself an ill-defined term. What you and I might on some occasion consider to be a demonstration of government excess, two other perfectly reasonable people might find to be entirely within the rational authority and power of the government. Again, it depends a lot on the case and a lot on our own (somewhat subjective) definitions.

When a jury is permitted to decide whether they like a particular law, you can end up with anything BUT justice. If a jury in the deep South in the early days of the so-called "Civil Rights Movement" considered racial equality to be obscene and unjust, then the outcome of a jury nullification might be anything BUT just.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The guy that wrote the article is a playwright...it sounds like fiction.

It is amazing how much of the real world sounds like fiction to you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I just find it almost impossible to believe that events transpired in the manner you suggest and the man ended up being charged with battery. There HAS to be more to the story.

The arresting officer was apparently adamant that a crime had taken place. Maybe she was the victim of DV, or grew up in a house where it occurred. The fact that there has to be more to the story does not mean that the more is actually factual, it could be bias.

What part of this are you not getting? Police do not charge anyone with ANYTHING. They arrest people if they feel an arrest is warranted, then they present the facts to a prosecuting attorney, who decides whether charges are to be proffered. In domestic violence cases , barring cooperation from the victim there has to be quite a bit of evidence to support the charges. Some local patrolman doesn't get to just say you're going to trial for spousal abuse fool and your ass is in prison. I don't believe the guy just lightly kicked her while playing around and she confirmed this and he was still arrested for abuse. Not in anyway , shape, or form.

What part of this are you not getting? Police charge people all the time. Prosecutors then decide whether or not to indict them Police cannot arrest you unless they charge you with something, and they can get warrants from judges, do prosecutor involved until Monday morning when the case file shows up in the inbox. Police do not have the luxury of always consulting with a DA to determine if they should charge someone, or what charges are appropriate. That is why charges are sometimes dropped when the prosecutor determines there is not enough evidence.

In domestic violence cases the police are often required by law to arrest someone every single time they respond. This is the law in at least 21 states. The police actually have no discretion, even if they believe that nothing was happening, and they only show up because a neighbor called. On top of that, they are conditioned to believe that the man is always the aggressor. Some laws actually assume that the man is the guilty party, which could make prosecutions of DV between lesbians impossible.

What are the State Laws that Mandate Arrest for DV Assault? » SAVE: Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

Of course there is more to the story, I already pointed that out earlier in the thread. The rest of the story is the law is designed to "protect the victim," even if there is no victim.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Insufficient information.

The law does not condone jury nullification, but jurys still do it.

Generally speaking, it is resorted to when the prosecution itself (for whatever reason) is unjust even if the defendant is technically guilty of the crime. The basis for saying THIS particular case was an unjust prosecution is unclear.

If he kicked her but caused no injury -- in a state where the crime being prosecuted requires "injury" as an ELEMENT of that crime -- then it was perfectly proper to acquit the guy of that charge. But, here's the thing. If that's what happened, then it wasn't jury nullification. It was a failure of proof.

If the kick did cause "injury" however that term is defined in that State, and the jury recognized THAT fact, then their resort to "jury nullification" is itself an injustice.

I think you misunderstand the term justice. The law does not define justice, and only rarely embodies it. Justice is about being right and fair, not following laws that were laid down even when they are wrong. It was not just to send escaped slaves back to their owners, but it was completely legal. It is not just to send a person who defends his family from attack to prison, yet it happens.

If a trial is about justice like you are arguing it is, then the jury must also decide if the law is right as it is being applied. Judges and prosecutors do not do that, they only decide if the law, as they interpret it, can be used to achieve the ends they desire. That is why people can actually be charged with, and convicted of, hacking even if they have permission to use a computer and access files on it. The criminal justice system is about money, justifying its existence, and devouring more resources, it is not about justice.

Jury nullification is the onlu hope that normal people have when confronted with government excess.

I have a firm grasp on the meaning of the term justice.

Justice has more than one meaning and the varying meanings depend on context,

Nevertheless, there are some very common denominators.

Something which is unjust cannot be "justice."

And "government excess" is itself an ill-defined term. What you and I might on some occasion consider to be a demonstration of government excess, two other perfectly reasonable people might find to be entirely within the rational authority and power of the government. Again, it depends a lot on the case and a lot on our own (somewhat subjective) definitions.

When a jury is permitted to decide whether they like a particular law, you can end up with anything BUT justice. If a jury in the deep South in the early days of the so-called "Civil Rights Movement" considered racial equality to be obscene and unjust, then the outcome of a jury nullification might be anything BUT just.

Never said it couldn't. That does not make my argument invalid though, the only defense the common man has against government excess is the right to a trial by jury. That is why it is written into the Bill of Rights. The fact that the courts and the government have been chipping away at that right because they do not trust us should concern everyone. I realize that it doesn't, but it should.

 

[TheBrain]

The arresting officer was apparently adamant that a crime had taken place. Maybe she was the victim of DV, or grew up in a house where it occurred. The fact that there has to be more to the story does not mean that the more is actually factual, it could be bias.

What part of this are you not getting? Police do not charge anyone with ANYTHING. They arrest people if they feel an arrest is warranted, then they present the facts to a prosecuting attorney, who decides whether charges are to be proffered. In domestic violence cases , barring cooperation from the victim there has to be quite a bit of evidence to support the charges. Some local patrolman doesn't get to just say you're going to trial for spousal abuse fool and your ass is in prison. I don't believe the guy just lightly kicked her while playing around and she confirmed this and he was still arrested for abuse. Not in anyway , shape, or form.

What part of this are you not getting? Police charge people all the time. Prosecutors then decide whether or not to indict them Police cannot arrest you unless they charge you with something, and they can get warrants from judges, do prosecutor involved until Monday morning when the case file shows up in the inbox. Police do not have the luxury of always consulting with a DA to determine if they should charge someone, or what charges are appropriate. That is why charges are sometimes dropped when the prosecutor determines there is not enough evidence.

In domestic violence cases the police are often required by law to arrest someone every single time they respond. This is the law in at least 21 states. The police actually have no discretion, even if they believe that nothing was happening, and they only show up because a neighbor called. On top of that, they are conditioned to believe that the man is always the aggressor. Some laws actually assume that the man is the guilty party, which could make prosecutions of DV between lesbians impossible.

What are the State Laws that Mandate Arrest for DV Assault? » SAVE: Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

Of course there is more to the story, I already pointed that out earlier in the thread. The rest of the story is the law is designed to "protect the victim," even if there is no victim.

Once again, you are INCORRECT. Police do not charge anyone. Being charged with a crime is a legality that is done by the prosecuting attorney, not the police. Being detained, even to the point of being placed in handcuffs does not mean you have been charged with anything. It simply means you have been arrested. You CAN be arrested without being charged. You can also be arrested via a prosecuting attorney filing charges against you and having the police serve a warrant for your arrest. you can NOT be charged for a crime by a police officer. PERIOD.

You are right, in most states someone is being taken in when police are called out on a domestic violence call, but just because they are taken in doesn't mean they are being charged with a crime. In fact often times the police will arrest someone, and not just for DV cases, and a prosecuting attorney will decide that there is no evidence that a crime was committed so no one gets charged with anything. So how does that happen, if the police are the ones who charge people with crimes? Oh yeah, they don't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What part of this are you not getting? Police do not charge anyone with ANYTHING. They arrest people if they feel an arrest is warranted, then they present the facts to a prosecuting attorney, who decides whether charges are to be proffered. In domestic violence cases , barring cooperation from the victim there has to be quite a bit of evidence to support the charges. Some local patrolman doesn't get to just say you're going to trial for spousal abuse fool and your ass is in prison. I don't believe the guy just lightly kicked her while playing around and she confirmed this and he was still arrested for abuse. Not in anyway , shape, or form.

What part of this are you not getting? Police charge people all the time. Prosecutors then decide whether or not to indict them Police cannot arrest you unless they charge you with something, and they can get warrants from judges, do prosecutor involved until Monday morning when the case file shows up in the inbox. Police do not have the luxury of always consulting with a DA to determine if they should charge someone, or what charges are appropriate. That is why charges are sometimes dropped when the prosecutor determines there is not enough evidence.

In domestic violence cases the police are often required by law to arrest someone every single time they respond. This is the law in at least 21 states. The police actually have no discretion, even if they believe that nothing was happening, and they only show up because a neighbor called. On top of that, they are conditioned to believe that the man is always the aggressor. Some laws actually assume that the man is the guilty party, which could make prosecutions of DV between lesbians impossible.

What are the State Laws that Mandate Arrest for DV Assault? » SAVE: Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

Of course there is more to the story, I already pointed that out earlier in the thread. The rest of the story is the law is designed to "protect the victim," even if there is no victim.

Once again, you are INCORRECT. Police do not charge anyone. Being charged with a crime is a legality that is done by the prosecuting attorney, not the police. Being detained, even to the point of being placed in handcuffs does not mean you have been charged with anything. It simply means you have been arrested. You CAN be arrested without being charged. You can also be arrested via a prosecuting attorney filing charges against you and having the police serve a warrant for your arrest. you can NOT be charged for a crime by a police officer. PERIOD.

You are right, in most states someone is being taken in when police are called out on a domestic violence call, but just because they are taken in doesn't mean they are being charged with a crime. In fact often times the police will arrest someone, and not just for DV cases, and a prosecuting attorney will decide that there is no evidence that a crime was committed so no one gets charged with anything. So how does that happen, if the police are the ones who charge people with crimes? Oh yeah, they don't.

I can walk down to the police station and file charges, so can you. That is not the decision of the prosecutor, his decision is whether to take the case to trial.

police file charges - Google Search

You cannot be arrested unless you are charged with something. Period. If you are not charged you are only being detained.

 

[TheBrain]

What part of this are you not getting? Police charge people all the time. Prosecutors then decide whether or not to indict them Police cannot arrest you unless they charge you with something, and they can get warrants from judges, do prosecutor involved until Monday morning when the case file shows up in the inbox. Police do not have the luxury of always consulting with a DA to determine if they should charge someone, or what charges are appropriate. That is why charges are sometimes dropped when the prosecutor determines there is not enough evidence.

In domestic violence cases the police are often required by law to arrest someone every single time they respond. This is the law in at least 21 states. The police actually have no discretion, even if they believe that nothing was happening, and they only show up because a neighbor called. On top of that, they are conditioned to believe that the man is always the aggressor. Some laws actually assume that the man is the guilty party, which could make prosecutions of DV between lesbians impossible.

What are the State Laws that Mandate Arrest for DV Assault? » SAVE: Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

Of course there is more to the story, I already pointed that out earlier in the thread. The rest of the story is the law is designed to "protect the victim," even if there is no victim.

Once again, you are INCORRECT. Police do not charge anyone. Being charged with a crime is a legality that is done by the prosecuting attorney, not the police. Being detained, even to the point of being placed in handcuffs does not mean you have been charged with anything. It simply means you have been arrested. You CAN be arrested without being charged. You can also be arrested via a prosecuting attorney filing charges against you and having the police serve a warrant for your arrest. you can NOT be charged for a crime by a police officer. PERIOD.

You are right, in most states someone is being taken in when police are called out on a domestic violence call, but just because they are taken in doesn't mean they are being charged with a crime. In fact often times the police will arrest someone, and not just for DV cases, and a prosecuting attorney will decide that there is no evidence that a crime was committed so no one gets charged with anything. So how does that happen, if the police are the ones who charge people with crimes? Oh yeah, they don't.

I can walk down to the police station and file charges, so can you. That is not the decision of the prosecutor, his decision is whether to take the case to trial.

police file charges - Google Search

No sir, you can go to the police station and file a complaint. Not charges. You are an idiot.

 

[Ravi]

Once again, you are INCORRECT. Police do not charge anyone. Being charged with a crime is a legality that is done by the prosecuting attorney, not the police. Being detained, even to the point of being placed in handcuffs does not mean you have been charged with anything. It simply means you have been arrested. You CAN be arrested without being charged. You can also be arrested via a prosecuting attorney filing charges against you and having the police serve a warrant for your arrest. you can NOT be charged for a crime by a police officer. PERIOD.

You are right, in most states someone is being taken in when police are called out on a domestic violence call, but just because they are taken in doesn't mean they are being charged with a crime. In fact often times the police will arrest someone, and not just for DV cases, and a prosecuting attorney will decide that there is no evidence that a crime was committed so no one gets charged with anything. So how does that happen, if the police are the ones who charge people with crimes? Oh yeah, they don't.

I can walk down to the police station and file charges, so can you. That is not the decision of the prosecutor, his decision is whether to take the case to trial.

police file charges - Google Search

No sir, you can go to the police station and file a complaint. Not charges. You are an idiot.

Yep.