On TV shows we often see situations where person A commits a crime
against person B but the police don't arrest A because B decides
"not to press charges". Does the concept of not pressing charges
actually have any significance in the real world? After all, a
crime was committed and B is certainly obligated to provide
evidence to the police and to answer questions (unless perhaps
it's a husband-wife kind of situation). Aside from situations
where a husband and wife may elect not to provide evidence against
one another, are there other situations in the real world where
the police will refuse to make an arrest because the victim won't
"press charges"?
On TV shows we often see situations where person A commits a crime
against person B but the police don't arrest A because B decides "not to press charges". Does the concept of not pressing charges actually have any significance in the real world? After all, a crime was committed
and B is certainly obligated to provide evidence to the police and to
answer questions (unless perhaps it's a husband-wife kind of
situation). Aside from situations where a husband and wife may elect
not to provide evidence against one another, are there other situations
in the real world where the police will refuse to make an arrest because
the victim won't "press charges"?
I decided to let it go. Looking back, it was the right thing to do, even ignoring the potential danger: a conviction for A&B could have ruined
her life (especially because she was Black) and it was a minor
altercation. And I imagine having the police show up was enough to make
her think twice about "getting physical" with somebody in the future.
"Jethro_uk" wrote in message news:skgrbf$f60$2@dont-email.me...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2021 12:57:31 -0700, Barry Gold wrote:
I decided to let it go. Looking back, it was the right thing to do, even >>> ignoring the potential danger: a conviction for A&B could have ruined
her life (especially because she was Black) and it was a minor
altercation. And I imagine having the police show up was enough to make
her think twice about "getting physical" with somebody in the future.
Alternatively they learned this time they got away with it, and next time
- next victim - may not be so lucky ?
This kind of gets back to my original point in posting the question. If
the police know A committed a crime against B, why does B get to hold
the power on whether or not charges are filed? A big reason we arrest criminals is to defer both them and others from committing the same
crime in the future. If A gets away with this without being tried, who
is to say it won't embolden A or others to commit the same crime again?
Even though B is the victim here, it seems they still have an obligation
to provide evidence to the police and could be arrested themselves for obstructing an investigation or whatever.
--
On Sat, 16 Oct 2021 12:57:31 -0700, Barry Gold wrote:
I decided to let it go. Looking back, it was the right thing to do, even
ignoring the potential danger: a conviction for A&B could have ruined
her life (especially because she was Black) and it was a minor
altercation. And I imagine having the police show up was enough to make
her think twice about "getting physical" with somebody in the future.
Alternatively they learned this time they got away with it, and next time
- next victim - may not be so lucky ?
On 10/17/2021 10:27 AM, Rick wrote:
"Jethro_uk" wrote in message news:skgrbf$f60$2@dont-email.me...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2021 12:57:31 -0700, Barry Gold wrote:
I decided to let it go. Looking back, it was the right thing to do,
even
ignoring the potential danger: a conviction for A&B could have ruined
her life (especially because she was Black) and it was a minor
altercation. And I imagine having the police show up was enough to make >>>> her think twice about "getting physical" with somebody in the future.
Alternatively they learned this time they got away with it, and next
time
- next victim - may not be so lucky ?
This kind of gets back to my original point in posting the question. If
the police know A committed a crime against B, why does B get to hold the
power on whether or not charges are filed? A big reason we arrest
criminals is to defer both them and others from committing the same crime
in the future. If A gets away with this without being tried, who is to
say it won't embolden A or others to commit the same crime again? Even
though B is the victim here, it seems they still have an obligation to
provide evidence to the police and could be arrested themselves for
obstructing an investigation or whatever.
--
The point is that if a person refuses to "press" charges, the prosecutor is >going to have a difficult time in getting a guilty verdict. In many cases >the victim is the only witness. Also, the victim that doesn't want to
press charges make a great defense witness.
Atty: Why didn't you want to press charges
Victim: It was to much hassle
"Roy" wrote in message news:skhmt7$1qv$1@dont-email.me...
On 10/17/2021 10:27 AM, Rick wrote:
"Jethro_uk" wrote in message news:skgrbf$f60$2@dont-email.me...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2021 12:57:31 -0700, Barry Gold wrote:
I decided to let it go. Looking back, it was the right thing to do,Alternatively they learned this time they got away with it, and next
even
ignoring the potential danger: a conviction for A&B could have ruined >>>>> her life (especially because she was Black) and it was a minor
altercation. And I imagine having the police show up was enough to
make
her think twice about "getting physical" with somebody in the future. >>>>
time
- next victim - may not be so lucky ?
This kind of gets back to my original point in posting the question.
If the police know A committed a crime against B, why does B get to
hold the power on whether or not charges are filed? A big reason we
arrest criminals is to defer both them and others from committing the
same crime in the future. If A gets away with this without being
tried, who is to say it won't embolden A or others to commit the same
crime again? Even though B is the victim here, it seems they still
have an obligation to provide evidence to the police and could be
arrested themselves for obstructing an investigation or whatever.
--
The point is that if a person refuses to "press" charges, the
prosecutor is going to have a difficult time in getting a guilty
verdict. In many cases the victim is the only witness. Also, the
victim that doesn't want to press charges make a great defense witness.
Atty: Why didn't you want to press charges
Victim: It was to much hassle
I get all that. I'm just thinking - if the police have reason to
believe a crime was committed by A against B, so they bring B in for questioning about it. If B refuses to cooperate or provide information
to assist in the investigation, isn't that refusal to provide
information potentially a crime itself? Can a potential witness to a
crime - even if it is the actual victim - just refuse to provide
information in a criminal investigation? I'm trying to discern what is
the line between refusing to press charges and refusing to cooperate
with police in a criminal investigation?
Well, the issue (as I see it) with "If B refuses to cooperate or provide information to assist in the investigation, isn't that refusal to
provide information potentially a crime itself?" is how do they even
show there was a crime?
On 10/19/2021 1:28 PM, Mike Anderson wrote:
Well, the issue (as I see it) with "If B refuses to cooperate or provide
information to assist in the investigation, isn't that refusal to provide
information potentially a crime itself?" is how do they even show there
was a crime?
No. Let me remind you: "You have the right to remain silent. If you give up >the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you in a >court of law."
That doesn't only apply when you're being arrested. It applies any time >you're answering questions from the police. Or just having a conversation >with a cop.
No. Let me remind you: "You have the right to remain silent. If
you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can be
used against you in a court of law."
That doesn't only apply when you're being arrested. It applies any
time you're answering questions from the police. Or just having a conversation with a cop.
Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:
No. Let me remind you: "You have the right to remain silent. If
you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can be
used against you in a court of law."
That doesn't only apply when you're being arrested. It applies any
time you're answering questions from the police. Or just having a
conversation with a cop.
In real life police seldom if ever read a suspect his rights when he's
being arrested. The rights only apply when he's being questioned. If
the guy talks while in the back of a patrol car when he hasn't been
asked a question, even if he has not been "read his rights," it's
considered voluntary and not excludable from evidence.
Really? I thought you could only refuse to answer questions if you are invoking Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. While there could be some exceptions to this, it's hard to make a general case
that a victim of a crime can refuse to answer questions on the grounds
of possible self-incrimination.
Barry Gold<bgold@labcats.org> wrote:
} No. Let me remind you: "You have the right to remain silent. If you give
} up the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you
} in a court of law."
}
} That doesn't only apply when you're being arrested. It applies any time
} you're answering questions from the police. Or just having a
} conversation with a cop.
Don't you have to be warned? OR can just answering a random question put
you in jeopardy?
Bernie Cosell wrote:
Barry Gold<bgold@labcats.org> wrote:
} No. Let me remind you: "You have the right to remain silent. If
you give } up the right to remain silent, anything you say can be
used against you } in a court of law."
}
} That doesn't only apply when you're being arrested. It applies
any time } you're answering questions from the police. Or just
having a } conversation with a cop.
Don't you have to be warned? OR can just answering a random
question put you in jeopardy?
ANYTHING you say to the police (or on social media, or to your 20
closest friends) can put you in jeopardy.
Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote
Bernie Cosell wrote:
Barry Gold<bgold@labcats.org> wrote:
} No. Let me remind you: "You have the right to remain silent. If
you give } up the right to remain silent, anything you say can be
used against you } in a court of law."
}
} That doesn't only apply when you're being arrested. It applies
any time } you're answering questions from the police. Or just
having a } conversation with a cop.
Don't you have to be warned? OR can just answering a random
question put you in jeopardy?
ANYTHING you say to the police (or on social media, or to your 20
closest friends) can put you in jeopardy.
Right. Whether you're warned or not. That's why some cops don't
read rights or question a suspect at all at the time of arrest. If
they're quiet, or even make provocative statements (without actually
asking a question), the suspect might talk and say something that can
be used against him, even though he hasn't been told his rights.
But if the suspect is not under oath, what obligation does he or she
have to tell the truth? If the cops don't issue a warning and simply
write down things the suspect randomly says, wouldn't it be a valid
defense for the suspect to say "I knew I wasn't under oath so I was just deliberately saying random things to mess with you." Or "I was just amusing myself while sitting in the back of the police car by
fantasizing about being in a movie or playing back a dream I had." To
put it another way, if a person has not been told his statements are
being taken down for evidence and could be used against him and has not
been warned that he could be charged with perjury for saying things that
are false (even though he's not being questioned), what legal obligation
does he have to ever tell the truth?
--
Right. Whether you're warned or not. That's why some cops don't
read rights or question a suspect at all at the time of arrest.
If they're quiet, or even make provocative statements (without
actually asking a question), the suspect might talk and say
something that can be used against him, even though he hasn't been
told his rights.
But if the suspect is not under oath, what obligation does he or
she have to tell the truth? If the cops don't issue a warning and
simply write down things the suspect randomly says, wouldn't it be
a valid defense for the suspect to say "I knew I wasn't under oath
so I was just deliberately saying random things to mess with you."
Or "I was just amusing myself while sitting in the back of the
police car by fantasizing about being in a movie or playing back a
dream I had." To put it another way, if a person has not been
told his statements are being taken down for evidence and could be
used against him and has not been warned that he could be charged
with perjury for saying things that are false (even though he's
not being questioned), what legal obligation does he have to ever
tell the truth?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 341 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 25:21:05 |
| Calls: | 7,510 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 12,713 |
| Messages: | 5,641,565 |
| Posted today: | 2 |