(09-23-2017, 07:17 AM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: Granted, deadly force would be an excessive response to what he did, but the fact that she had no control over her body's reaction precludes intent and her efforts to avoid physical contact preclude negligence. This death would be accidental while the other one would be self defense.
Who actually tested and determined this on behalf of the suspect? Legally that is.
(09-23-2017, 07:28 AM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: Unwanted physical contact of any kind constitutes assault. I don't recall how many times she told the guy not to touch her, but it was at least twice. Granted, deadly force would be an excessive response to what he did, but the fact that she had no control over her body's reaction precludes intent and her efforts to avoid physical contact preclude negligence. This death would be accidental while the other one would be self defense.
And yes, as the investigating officer, Nick can believe the girl and prevent her from being charged. Proceduraly, it would be done by filing a report stating his conclusion that the evidence doesn't establish intent or negligence, and no sane prosecutor would file a charge knowing that the report and his testimony saying the same thing would result in an acquittal. So, as I said before, the irregularity Nick committed is not filing a proper report but the result is the same.
If that was my son lying dead on the trail you can sure bet I wouldn't be standing still for Nick stating "he believes it's self-defense" when there's no evidence to suggest such a thing. I'd be demanding a grand jury look at that convoluted investigation because that's exactly what it is.
I don't believe any attorney would simply dismiss a dead body found under questionable circumstances as a complete and total act of self defense.
The best way to frustrate a cyberbully is to ignore him.