The Prosecutor isn't the one who deals with questions of whether or not prosecutorial action is burdensome. That's the legislator's job to legislate, the Defense's job to plead, and the judge's decision to make. He or she might consider what the defense will argue - that it's burdensome - and whether a judge will agree, but it's not their job to make that argument. Their job is to build a case and prosecute.
Prosecutors have a great deal of discretion on whether to charge and what charges to bring. So why should they bring every single case to trial when the accused is the cop, regardless of their judgment, just because the electorate demands it.
When you ask about a prosecutor charging me "against his better judgment" merely because "the mob is demanding it and the DA risks losing reelection", are you suggesting there is insufficient evidence a crime was committed, or insufficient evidence I'm the one who committed it? That would be wrongful prosecution.
That certainly happens. See Mike Nifong (we are commemorating 10 years of the Duke Lacrosse travesty this year). Of course there were many on here and elsewhere who supported Mike Nifong because they shared the same prejudices as the mob/electorate he was appealing to.
Or are you talking about a case where the prosecutor likes me or doesn't want to bring charges for personal reasons (despite having sufficient evidence to make a case) but feels pressured to do it because a mob of people is standing outside his office holding up signs calling for Justice? In that case I'd have mixed feelings. My purely self-interested side would be aggravated that the guy was being pressured to do something against my self-interests, but the side of me that values community would have to admit that a prosecutor who won't prosecute out of his own self-interests renders our justice system unjust. He's supposed to do his job in accordance with the law, not in accordance with whatever is good for him or me personally.
Or much more likely, he has a weak case where there is some evidence but a conviction is unlikely because that evidence, while clearing the minimum "probable cause" standard is unlikely to meet "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Without public pressure, a prosecutor is unlikely to prosecute in that case because in addition to needlessly burdening the defendant, trials cost a great deal of money for the county as well.
That depends on how the law in Illinois is worded.
What in the wording justifies charging somebody who legitimately confronted an armed and dangerous threat and overreacted?
But please keep in mind Officer Van Dyke was never in any danger.
The perp was 10 feet from Van Dyke when he was shot. That's no distance for a knife-wielding attacker to cover, especially when hopped up on PCP.
He shot MacDonald twice, paused as MacDonald fell to the ground, and then shot him 14 more times as the guy was lying there helpless. That's more in line with an execution than justifiable use of force. First degree murder sounds about right.
Given that first degree murder is the highest possible homicide charge it should be reserved for worst cases. Laquan posed a threat to the police and others, he was armed and aggressive. He was also in close proximity to the officers and had attacked a police car moments before.
I'm glad you recognize the 14 additional shots after MacDonald was down and helpless were unjustified.
I never claimed otherwise.
We don't judge murder cases based on how much we dislike the victim.
Two things here.
1. Who the shootee was should determine how we feel about him and his demise. And even when the shooting is unjustified, why should I be outraged if somebody like Laquan is shot. His killing probably saved somebody else's life down the road. On the other hand, #BLMers not only like Laquan, they love him:
2. Who the shootee is and what he was doing when he was shot is certainly relevant. If Laquan was just minding his business and was shot for no reason I would get both the protester outrage and prosecutor going with strongest possible charge. But given Laquan's behavior, neither is justified because he was a genuine threat.
As for priorities, the only thing we should prioritize in our justice system is fairness and justice itself. It was neither fair nor just that the man who repeatedly shot Laquan MacDonald as he was lying helpless in the street was protected from prosecution despite clear and convincing evidence of his wrongdoing.
Yes, fairness and justice. Thus, we should not overcharge because of emotional appeals or mob demands.
There were irregularities in how he handled the case before the Grand Jury, including his calling the defense to present their side without cross examination, not to mention his attack on the victim's family. He was playing fast and loose with the rules. His handling of the case appears to be another case of a Prosecutor with his thumb on the scales, tipping them in favor of the cops.
Can you elaborate, especially re attacks on the family?
I know there have been experts reviewing the case who agreed with the prosecutor. Why should the DA listen to the mob or the family rather than to them?
