(09-22-2017, 10:28 AM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: Only a trial jury can decide that evidence presented at trial is proof of guilt, but since the law is based on innocence until proof of guilt, there are other people who can decide there is not evidence to prove guilt (no one decides innocence, only guilt).
The investigating officer decides if there's evidence to take to a prosecutor.
The prosecutor decides if there's evidence to take to a grand jury.
The grand jury decides if there's evidence to take to a trial jury.
So the answer to your question is that the investigating officer is the first in a chain of several people who can decide there is not evidence of guilt and to not proceed with arrest and trial.
Not in this case. A man was dead, and there was evidence on site. Nick was the investigating officer. He should have brought the evidence found into the station. Once he found the frog girl and determined she was suspect, he should have charged her with murder and taken her in. There was no margin for Nick to decide whether or not she was guilty. All he could do in this case was send her up the chain of law enforcement and let the prosecutors and jury make the decision of guilt or innocence.
(09-22-2017, 06:31 AM)Hell Rell Wrote: If a normal cop had investigated the frog girl, would they have sent her to prison? Is Nick now being bashed for keeping an innocent girl from going to prison? His knowledge as a Grimm did help achieve justice in that case.
I don't recall anyone stating she was definitely in for hard time. I'm just saying that Nick did the wrong thing.
I keep reading how he's supposed to be this good force for wesen, yet the wesen had nothing to do with him butting into their lives and enforcing his own justice.
I'd be curious to see how many wesen would have applauded him taking the girl into custody. Accidental or not, she's still a killer. Would wesen mothers really want someone on the street who's touch is deadly to them as well as humans?
The best way to frustrate a cyberbully is to ignore him.