Q-CLub Shooter lack of charges in previous case- Legal reasoning

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Not wanting to talk about his current attack, but rather the legal issues around why he didn?t face charges for the kidnapping and bomb threats.

I get that his family didn?t want to testify against him. But this isn?t a usual domestic violence ?He hits me/I LOVE him? case. People were moved out of their houses as precaution. It seems that the family could be compelled to testify. They have the recordings of the 911 calls? That would seem to be enough? Change the story, and get charged with filing a false police report- of start charging family members with conspiracy for a terroristic act. I find it hard to believe that this guy was able to stay silent after being arrrested.

I can?t just see how this could be swept under the rug. If I were a neighbor I WOULD BE LIVID. It would seem to me that the neighbors could press charges, they were in danger.

It just seems crazy that there was NOTHING done.

[FoxtArt]

A prosecutor is truly the only person that decides a persons guilt or innocence, and it happens simply in the choices of what to charge, decline to charge, or droppimg charges. Once charged, 99.6% of cases result in convictions unless the DA chooses to drop. In this case, they absolutely could have prevailed. DA probably dropped charges simply because of effort needed to go to trial because he wouldnt plea bargain.

Aka...lazy.

But this is the way it works. DA doesn't like you, stack 11 felonies together and look at 35 years in the can. (Aaron Swartz). Or, DA likes you, they drop charges or charge a misdemeanor for the exact same class of event. They are also immune from all consequences. Even if they alter evidence, sleep with and coerce witnesses, withhold evidence, etc. There is zero recourse. This is the US justice system in truth.

[battlemidget]

So the academics are digging into this sort of thing, and guess which judicial district is not participating?

https://coloradonewsline.com/2022/09...cy-dashboards/

[Oscar77]

Not wanting to talk about his current attack, but rather the legal issues around why he didn?t face charges for the kidnapping and bomb threats.

I get that his family didn?t want to testify against him. But this isn?t a usual domestic violence ?He hits me/I LOVE him? case. People were moved out of their houses as precaution. It seems that the family could be compelled to testify. They have the recordings of the 911 calls? That would seem to be enough? Change the story, and get charged with filing a false police report- of start charging family members with conspiracy for a terroristic act. I find it hard to believe that this guy was able to stay silent after being arrrested.

I can?t just see how this could be swept under the rug. If I were a neighbor I WOULD BE LIVID. It would seem to me that the neighbors could press charges, they were in danger.

It just seems crazy that there was NOTHING done.

I'll admit I only have paid attention to this in passing, so I don't know all the details.
So just really some things to consider FWIW:

-A basic principle in US law is to be able to "face your accuser".............in other words: A persons willingness to testify against another in court. Without it, it is very hard to prosecute charges in deals like this. A "kidnapping" requires someone to say they were held or moved against their will, don't have "someone?" What charge do you have? What if the "victim" was drunk/high? Can they reasonably describe and explain what happened?

-I suspect that if you looked at how many Domestic Violence cases were dropped thru lack of Victim cooperation............... you'd be shocked.

- "......the family could be compelled to testify......" I don't think anywhere in Colorado this is the case. And THANK GOD they can't. If you are facing jail/detention......... how honest or accurate will the statements be?
Turn this around............. the GOVT thinks you have an unregistered Machinegun........... they "compel" a "witness" to come forward........... How would you feel?

-In reading the news over the years, I don't think the Police will charge anyone with false reporting, ever. Unless it is so "over-the-top," they won't do it, it's too hard to prosecute.
(ie. That Jessie Smollet (sp?) (The actor in Chicago) guy, they had the "attackers" willing to testify in court that they were paid to "attack" him.)

[def90]

The best solution would have been for a swat sniper to have plugged this kid when he was running his mouth with his temper tantrum about blowing up the neighborhood and telling the cops that today was his day to die.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

On the compelling, they had to have made a report to 911. You call them to a to trial and play the tape and ask if that is them and if that is correct. There is no ‘fifth’ since they are not in legal jeopardy and the family exclusion is only for spouses, correct? The Kid was 18, so he isn’t a dependent . If they don’t play ball, you charge them with conspiracy to kidnap, just leave one person out of that for the kidnapping. That is for the kidnapping.

For the bomb charge you do the same and the community at large is the aggrieved party- that is why they moved the neighbors.

But the reality is that the prosecutor decided that he didn’t want to play. If I was one of those neighbors, I would have MADE his life really uncomfortable in the press and social media for not taking a crazy off the street.

And finally, the reality is that you put this in front of a jury and they are going to SMELL the crazy and F-Tard on this guy and he is getting found guilty or at least plea-dealed down to something.

My guess we’ll see that prosecutor out on his ass after the next election,

[BushMasterBoy]

Whinetard thread.

[Oscar77]

On the compelling, they had to have made a report to 911. You call them to a to trial and play the tape and ask if that is them and if that is correct. There is no ‘fifth’ since they are not in legal jeopardy and the family exclusion is only for spouses, correct? The Kid was 18, so he isn’t a dependent . If they don’t play ball, you charge them with conspiracy to kidnap, just leave one person out of that for the kidnapping. That is for the kidnapping.

For the bomb charge you do the same and the community at large is the aggrieved party- that is why they moved the neighbors.

But the reality is that the prosecutor decided that he didn’t want to play. If I was one of those neighbors, I would have MADE his life really uncomfortable in the press and social media for not taking a crazy off the street.

And finally, the reality is that you put this in front of a jury and they are going to SMELL the crazy and F-Tard on this guy and he is getting found guilty or at least plea-dealed down to something.

My guess we’ll see that prosecutor out on his ass after the next election,

Again, I'm just offering some alternative ideas here.
Clearly, in retrospect, they look stupid in not pursuing this.

That said:
Your in court scenario:
-"Bob" (who refused to press charges) is ordered into court and asked to explain his comments to 911. All he has to say is........ take your pick......... "I was drunk and I don't remember any of this" "I was pissed at him and wanted him out of the house, but the Cops take forever to show up so I made some shit up" "No that wasn't me and prove it was" "I did call but I don't know what happened, I was calling for "John" who ran out the back before the Cops showed up." Or for that matter "Bob" can just ignore the Subpoena.

Same thing with the "bomb" deal.............. ok great charge him. But who can/will testify he had one/made one? It seems as though the Cops didn't actually find one, so where did it go?

Yes it sucks that maybe, just maybe, if there had been more done in this deal that maybe, just maybe the shooting wouldn't have occurred.................or it wouldn't have changed a thing.

[FoxtArt]

There are no loopholes. If the DA presented it to a jury, they would've convicted on the 911 call alone. Even if grandpa said he had a stroke and didn't remember that day at all. People forget that at the core, court is a popularity contest.

DA is concerned about working less and balancing hos conviction rate. It's far more effectice to overcharge someone else and guarantee a plea bargain, keeping those conviction rates up rather than have to deal with one of the 2% of cases that go to trial.

[Eric P]

DAs should be non political and appointed. Should have multiple DAs, that could take on cases thier peers dismiss.

I also firmly believe in a country where innocent till proven guilty is a fundamental concept, plea bargains should not be allowed. Government needs to work and shall prove your guilt to a jury. Sure it would be inefficient, but governments shouldn't be able to convict through coercion.