09-22-2017, 05:19 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-22-2017, 10:25 PM by FaceInTheCrowd.)
(09-22-2017, 03:25 PM)irukandji Wrote: 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.
No, no and no. Nick never gets to "charge her (or anyone else) with murder." As the investigating officer, Nick has to determine what happened based on the evidence. IF he believes the evidence shows she killed someone AND she did it with criminal intent or criminal negligence he can arrest and detain her while he presents that evidence to a prosecutor, who will then decide whether that evidence is sufficient to charge her and present the case to a grand jury to decide whether to indict. If he arrests her and presents the evidence to a prosecutor saying, "I believe she acted in self defense," the prosecutor will say, "Then why are you wasting my time with this?" and walk right out the door.
In this case, what happened was that the girl was assaulted and her body reacted with an involuntary self defense mechanism. And she was actually making every effort to avoid situations where that might happen. If wesen were in the open, the result of the investigation would have been a case report stating that the deceased died while in the process of committing criminal acts and their intended victim acted in self defense, no evidence of criminal intent on her part. Case closed.
What Nick did in this case that was irregular was not filing an accurate report with the name of the victim and the wesen aspects of what happened. And that is something he did a lot of.