this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
630 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2610 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 44 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] potpotato@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Isn’t this Army jurisdiction? Is pressing charges even relevant?

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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?

After review by any of these intermediate courts, the next level of appeal is the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF).[17][21] The Supreme Court of the United States has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1259 to review cases under the UCMJ on direct appeal where the CAAF has conducted a mandatory review (death penalty and certified cases), granted discretionary review of a petition, or otherwise granted relief.

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.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] Kellamity@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

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

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

  1. 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

  2. I have no idea how the funding of our judicial branch looks like atm

[–] Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

ah right - forgot UK still has one foot in the medieval ;) thanks for the clarification!

[–] Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

One foot? More like five feet ten inches!

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I was thinking figuratively of the UK as a person, and of persons as bipeds...

[–] Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk 1 points 2 months ago

Ah, I was referring to the current owner of the crown.

[–] mdwhite999@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 months ago

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