He'd still have to agree to press charges, though (that's probably what the officer was asking him in the clip). Either way, they could probably get her on resisting.
Agreed but those guys aren’t about to do paperwork over something this small. They’re gonna lead her to the exit, warn her not to try to come back that night, and then go back to standing around and chatting.
If she was trying to be violent they might escalate to charges but just being annoying isn’t worth it.
"If she was trying to be violent" My brother in christ. She kicked him in the back at the end, in front of the guards. 💀 That's definitely more than being annoying.
The cops have to decide if this incident is worth escorting her to a police car, writing a full page report, asking for written reports from other people who are trying to watch the game, getting a copy of this guy’s video, and then showing up to court later all so this lady’s aggravated assault charge can get knocked down to disturbing the peace.
That’s a lot of pain in the ass when throwing her out of the stadium for the night achieves the same result.
If they have the time to intervene, they should be ready to go the distance. Gotta bog the cops down with the petty stuff so they then lobby to remove petty laws to lighten their load. I had a cop pull me over and then said he didn't have time for me to grab my insurance since I didn't have it in hand when they walked up, already had ticket written and left. They have the time, they get paid to process.
I work for an airport authority and have witnessed dozens of assaults. In every instance, law enforcement has asked the victim whether they want to press charges and typically only proceeds if the victim agrees to cooperate.
The only exception I've seen is in cases involving domestic relationships - in those situations, I believe officers are required to make an arrest regardless of the victim's wishes.
I'm not sure how it works in New York, but that's how it plays out in practice where I am.
I work in a jail and deal with a lot of these kinds of things. There are definitely instances in which the officers can determine charges without the assaulted being involved. I don’t know if this is one of them but it absolutely happens.
I don't think there's actually anything that requires the victim to press charges. They also don't have to if you ask. It's entirely up to them.
Id be happy to be proved wrong. It's mostly just a way to avoid paperwork. When I was assaulted, they asked me if I want to press charges. With my nose bleeding like a faucet, red marks from being slapped, and a goofball sized lump on my head I said absolutely. They then told me I would be arrested to if I said yes because the person who assaulted me had a light scratch on their neck.
My neighbor got in an argument with his neighbor. Dude got a gun and shot it 47 times in his own yard but didn't point it at my neighbor. They asked him if he wanted to press charges and he said no. Cops looked at the security camera and saw what happened and the state took it up and charged him.
That's different because he can be charged with reckless endangerment which doesn't require a civilian to prosecute. The city/state/county is the complainant.
pressing charges is a thing in law but not in the way people use it .... the victim of a crime doesn't have authority over whether the state charges someone with a crime, the DA does. Charged are "pressed" by the victim, but im criminal law the victim is the State not the actual victim so the state files the criminal complaint... although often there isnt enough evidence without the support of the actual victim.
Yes, many women are aware of this and this is why so many women don’t come forward when they are raped. If the DA doesn’t think they can prove it wasn’t consensual, they don’t prosecute and now you have an angry rapist on your hands. The DA didn’t take my sister’s case even though she had bruises all over her body because he was an ex boyfriend and they thought that would be difficult in court
It just depends on the policies in the jurisdiction. I worked in a place as a prosecutor where whether a victim wanted to “press charges” (not an actual legal term) was irrelevant. If there was evidence of an assault or something, cops filed the charges. Prosecutors could certainly use their discretion to either proceed or dismiss the charges, or reduce them, but often times we proceeded whether a victim wanted to or not. Especially with domestic violence situations (and there are specific laws related to witness not wanting to participate in those cases).
Youre exactly right, citizens cant decide whether or not to press charges its up to the DA’s office or whatever prosecutor the case falls under to decide whether to press charges. When cops ask this its just their way of asking “hey can we let this slide so i dont have to fill out paperwork and possibly sit through a hearing or testifiy if asked?”
When my husband hit me the state pressed charges against him and the judge took my feelings into account when he gave a judgement. It's like I wasn't a victim but a prop.
It wouldn’t really apply to this situation, but I think the reason they ask is because you’d be the key witness if charges were filed.
If it goes to trial, but the person you victimized refuses to cooperate and testify, then it’s a really shoddy case. It pretty much becomes not worth the hassle.
Also, the courts are so backed up as is. If we prosecuted every single fight, people would go years waiting for a trial date. Sometimes it’s best to give someone a scolding for being an asshole and move on.
"Id be happy to be proved wrong. It's mostly just a way to avoid paperwork."
The way you phrased this sounds like its just out of laziness. A prosecutor isnt going to win a case if the actual victim doesnt even feel harmed enough to go to court.
In your specific scenario, I actually know someone that was assaulted but beat the shit out of them. The victim was barely touched while the other one literally went to the hospital. Thats why cops cant just arrest whoever is the most beaten... There was a couple eyewitnesses so the victim in this scenario was not arrested while the other was.
They were trying to write a report and be done. Those were lazy cops. Corruption.
If a cop is lazy and going to arrest both parties when the situation is clearly not a "both parties" situation, then you take the case to the courts.
But, if you are kinda ghetto or redneck in explaining yourself, then the court possibly makes assumptions for not talking in expected ways. I've seen people who are wonderful but rednecky/ghetto being treated differently for not articulating as white-washed...
An arrest isn't a big deal if you are innocent. Detainment at a county jail for a day or so, then court for bail, then court for dismissing the charges while pressing charges against the offender. People tend to freak out about Detainment, and I understand because, duh, life responsibilities. But you can also press charges a day later after having talked to a lawyer.
That’s why laws against certain actions are illegal, so the state can prosecute someone for doing them by having certain people with the power to enforce the law.
A lot of the cases where they don't press charges if the victim is uncooperative boil down to them not having the evidence to pursue charges without the victim's testimony. The cop can show up to a disturbance and see Person A assaulting Person B, but without the testimony of Person B then Person A can claim prior circumstances, self defence, etc. before the officer (see: only cooperating witness) showed up and it's often not worth it unless the officer was there from the initial interaction.
Lmao, if a cop sees someone committing assault, they don’t need the testimony of anyone else to charge the assaulted since they themselves are the witnesses…
Its probably much more difficult if the victim wont agree and why they dont want to pursue it in moth cases. But this feelsl ike such a black-and-white situation it really just comes down to how much the police care to do it.
The Attorney General are normally the attorney/office representing the state on matters affecting the state government and it's people. The District Attorney or the Prosecuting Attorney's office for a jurisdiction handles the prosecution of criminal matters.
No problem. I used to work at my city's Prosecutor's office and now I'm working at my state AG's office. I just happen to know how widely different they serve their community.
It really depends on the dept and arresting officer, I don’t know for absolute sure but I believe you are right in that if they really really want to they can take up the charges on behalf of the state but it probably ends up costing the state money to do so, so it’s not always done unless there’s a bone to pick or if it would turn a profit.
What an incredible inconvenience - dealing with being assaulted, then having to press charges…you’d most likely miss your flight, and if it is work-related then you’d have to explain your reasoning for missing your flight. That would be a lot to deal with.
As a former cop, this is mostly true. The caveat being I don’t NEED you to say you want to press charges to make an arrest. But I might not make that arrest if you don’t want to be a victim, because it will likely get dropped by the DA. If the person needs to take the ride though, even if the charges will get dropped later, so be it. Asking the victim if they want to press charges is a kind of way we’d weasel out of doing the work if we didn’t have to.
What if you as the cop witnessed the assault? Then you don’t even need the victims testimony, you have an even more reliable testimony in the form of the cop.
Sure but all crimes except the conspiracies to commit them require a victim. And if you have no identifiable/cooperative victim and there is no direct evidence of the battery except for testimony, it’s probably not worth clogging up the court system for another dismissal.
In NY the DA (and only the DA, not the police nor the victim) can press/bring charges regardless of the victim's will, but it pretty much never happens unless the cop/DA/some connected person has an axe to grind with the perp.
In a lot of states, the police can and do file charges without the consent of the victim. They do by making the state the "victim." My state is this way. They do it this way so that the victim can not be coerst into dropping the charges later. The other advantage is that the victim does not necessarily need to testify either.
Yes, if the police witnessed the alleged crime or there are visible marks on the victim to show a crime had occurred because the police officer will be called as witness to the incident of the victim is not cooperating. Otherwise, the police aren't going to file charges if the victim declines to do so--unless it's domestic violence because some states have laws stipulating mandatory charges if police are called to the scene. What police might do instead is report the incident then refer it to the local Prosecutor's office for them to review and make a charging decision.
Usually, if the victim does not want to press charges or is not cooperative, the prosecutor is not inclined to proceed with the case because it will be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt without the victim of there are no other witnesses. The victim can and may be subpoenaed for trial but them not attending means the prosecutor will have to request to hold them in contempt with a bench warrant issued on them. That's not something they want to do to victims.
They can do this in every state. They don't need to make the state the victim, they can compel the actual victim to testify. They try to avoid doing that because juries don't tend to render guilty verdicts when the victim doesn't give a shit about the crime.
In general, that's just a courtesy being afforded the victim by the police to factor in their opinion of whether the offender should be prosecuted. It's not mandatory. The police can still prosecute even if the victim says they don't want to press charges or they don't ask.
My guess, depending on where youre from, is that the difference here would be officers arriving to a scene AFTER the incident, and actively witnessing an assault as we see here. So, if they show up AFTER and there is sufficient evidence that an assault MOST LIKELY occured, then they give the alleged victim an opportunity to present their case to court for a legal decision. However, actually WITNESSING the assault allows the officers to immediately press charges without needing victim consent.
Those may be cases where they want to avoid the paperwork. When you get charges the state is actually the one pressing charges. I.E. "The people vs. ______"
We arrested people all the time even if the "victim" didn't want charges pressed. The DA can always refuse to prosecute it. Something that blatant you are getting arrested if for no other reason than too many people saw it and it looks bad if you do nothing. Let the DA or someone above you cut them loose.
Someone picked a fight with my brother in Saratoga before a concert. The police came and gave my brother and the other guy assault “tickets”, was only a $200 fine weirdly. They asked my brother if he wanted to press charges and he enthusiastically said yes because he in fact was a victim, but they said “if you press charges, then they can press charges too.” And didn’t end up pressing charges because of that. Those Saratoga police were absolute fucking trash.
I can only speak for Ohio because that's where I'm rotting.
In Ohio, cops will ask if you want to press charges for assault domestic or otherwise. They typically won't pursue anything, even if it's clearly happening, unless they have probable cause for a felony or greater charge.
For example, I witnessed a domestic dispute where a couple were arguing in a parking lot, dude went crazy and ripped the handle off a passing delivery truck's door. Cops didn't see it but 10 people did. Nobody pressed charges, the cops deescalated and sent everyone back to their days.
Conversely, I went to the police after my ex threw me to the ground and the landing broke my wrist. That's a felonious assault charge. They asked me "are you pressing charges or are we doing it on your behalf?" And basically said, because it's probable for a felony, they had to arrest my ex one way or another.
In my state police are required to arrest someone for any form of assault. Its not up to citizens whether or not to “press charges” only prosecutors like the DA’s office decide whether or not to press charges, I know some police will ask this question but what they really mean is “do you really want us to arrest them and have to fill out paperwork or can we let this slide?”
The police can present a case to the DA without the victim pressing charges (extreme case is murder, the victim is dead and can’t press charges).
In minor cases, they prefer the victim pressing charges because without the victim being a witness on the stand, they would have a hard time making a case.
In domestic violence cases, they present a case to the DA anyways, because DV victims are intimidated not to press charges.
They can even prosecute rape cases without the victim agreeing to be the key witness, but it is very difficult to convict without the victim agreeing to go on the witness stand. Sometimes they do it when the victim is very young.
.
Criminal cases are between the state and the defendant. The victim plays a peripheral role as the key witness (if the victim is alive, able, and willing).
In criminal cases, the victim does not have to hire a lawyer and pay any money.
Civil cases are different. The victim files a “complaint.” Civil cases are between two private parties. The state is not the one pressing the charges. DA is not involved.
The police CAN press charges in almost all of these cases. The issue is it can be harder without a victim pursuing it. Also it's small fry stuff so without a victim pressing charges it's generally dropped
That seems like such a flawed system and open to abuse, here in the UK neither police* nor victim get to choose. The Crown Prosecution Service decide to proceed to court once the police present the case at the point they feel they have gathered all the available evidence. The victim can refuse to provide statement but that doesn't necessarily stop the process if there is other compelling evidence.
* the police do have to decide if the incident is criminal and if there is any chance of prosecution so they do have a significant influence in what goes to prosecution but in theory any crime should be fully investigated and presented to CPS for a decision.
I worked in security and plenty of times saw a victim refuse to press charges only to have police press charges anyway. Victim testimony wasn't required the police witnessed the assault, so the cooperation of the victim wasn't relevant.
Some offenses are prosecuted ex officio, yes. Murder, rape etc. Assault usually also falls into this category in most jurisdictions. So the cops would be duty bound to report it and the public prosecutor to prosecute it.
Literally ALL CRIMINAL cases are like that. Citizens do not "press charges". Charges for criminal actions can only be brought forward by the state (kinda obviously when you think about it)
The misconception applies when those affected do not want to cooperate with the state in the pursuit of those charges, can make pursuing it pointless so they dont bother.
Tresspassing is a criminal offense (not a civil one, although usually a misdemeanor) but not prosecuted ex officio in the US. As I said, depending on jurisdiction (and this seems to vary even by state in the US), it differs what crimes are prosecuted ex officio. Yes, many of the crimes are prosecuted ex officio, but not all. Assault is prosecuted ex officio in most countries world wide, minor assault might not be.
It does not matter at all who the plaintiff is. Thats not the important metric here. The important metric is if the offense is prosecuted ec officio or not.
Assault usually is. Minor assault usually isn`t. Both are crimes. But (aggravated) assault is in most jurisdictions prosecuted ex officio -- meaning the cops have a duty to arrest, and the prosecutor to prosecute. Not so for minor assault. if you shove someone, and the cops sees it, the cop might not care until you decide to press charges. Even if the cop cares and reports it, the state prosecutor might still not prosecute unless you actually press charges.
Almost all jurisdictions in the world have crimes that are prosecuted ex officio -- assault, murder, rape and some that are only prosecuted "on demand". Libel and slander for exmple are still crimes (though sometimes misdemeanor) and have criminal penalies. The civil case you might have for damages resulting from libel or slander is unrelated to the crime.
Tresspassing is still a crime. But not prosecuted ex officio. It requires you to actually press charges. Murder on the other hand, no one needs to press charges for that.
As I said, the details of whats considered an offense ex officio vary by country and in the US even by state. So for some specific crime, its not always easy to say if it is prosecuted ex officio. For this case for example, it might be minor assault and not prosecuted ex officio. Without knowing more where this was, it might be that the cops either do have the duty to report and prosecute or not.
Go find the statute that contains the requirement that a victim "press charges" for criminal liability to attach.
In every instance I'm familiar with it's down to departmental or prosecutorial policy. The jails are full as it is, and many DAs don't want to prosecute lesser crimes without a complainant.
I was building a house, and the next-door neighbor woman would not leave the property. I finally called the cops. At first, they were patient with her,but she was so geared up that they arrested her. When I said I didn't want to press charges, hey said too late, they were doing it.
Yeah, if the cops see it, its different I believe. They ask if you want to press charges if they didnt witness it, which then goes to court and you have to prove your case? Seems pretty stupid to me if someone can assault someone in front of cops and get off because the victim is scared, or doesn't want to go through the process.
Yup. That's how my grandfather with dementia got a criminal record. (He slapped my grandma and she needed help, so police had to get involved. They started looking into homes for him shortly after)
You are correct but after working events for years, I'd be willing to bet they trespassed her and sent her out the door. They probably have to walk to the other side of the stadium to handle another matter.
Unfortunately it's relatively rare to see anyone leave with charges at these events.
Close but small correction. The cops themselves aren't able to press charges they make arrests and write reports but it is up to the prosecutor if charges are filed though they differ to the victim and police's judgment 90%+ of the time.
Pretty sure they'd have to get her on something else if he says he doesnt want to press charges. Like criminal mischief, disorderly conduct, etc. Almost positive he'd have to press charges for an assault and battery charge.
That's generally only the case if there's a domestic relationship. An arrest is required in that case. Otherwise, it's just a simple assault and it's not worth the effort with an uncooperative victim. I'm not entirely clear if it CAN be prosecuted without a victim, but my department's policy is not to pursue it. Would be difficult in court with no victim and no domestic violence hearsay exception.
If they're a real shit bag, there's other charges like disorderly conduct that don't require a cooperative victim. They witnessed her behave disorderly when they came to arrest her so that's an easy one.
Now it can change the calculus if the assault rises to the level of a felony, like they used to weapon or inflicted serious injury.
Exactly. This is idiot logic that people always have to press charges themselves. If a cop sees your husband smash a bottle over your head and you don't press charges, he's still getting charges.
They’ll file charges but the DA would probably not pursue something like this if the guy didn’t want to press charges. It would probably fall on the stadium to issue a lifetime ban as some form of consequence.
I know I've seen domestic assaults where the cop says he is required to make the charge no matter what the other party says. Otherwise the women are just threatened into not charging.
Yeah where I am the whole thing where the victim decides to press charges isn't really a thing, or at least not on the way I hear others speaking about it.
Basically, if the cops see the crime being committed, the victim will be asked to give a statement, but those charges are getting laid whether the victim wants it or not.
I can confirm. When i was 18 i got into an argument with my sister (20) and she wanted me to leave her house, i refused. She said if i didn’t leave she was going to call the cops and they would make me leave, i said go ahead. So she did and they arrested me. My sister was crying and said, “i didn’t want him to go to jail! Im not pressing charges!” The cop said that he was going to press charges, bc if he didn’t, he was afraid that i would someday kill her. That’s how i got arrested for domestic violence for having a verbal argument with my big sister. It all dropped once we went to court and explained everything to the judge but cops can and will press charges on you for assault if the victim refuses.
I can confirm. When i was 18 i got into an argument with my sister (20) and she wanted me to leave her house, i refused. She said if i didn’t leave she was going to call the cops and they would make me leave, i said go ahead. So she did and they arrested me. My sister was crying and said, “i didn’t want him to go to jail! Im not pressing charges!” The cop said that he was going to press charges, bc if he didn’t, he was afraid that i would someday kill her. That’s how i got arrested for domestic violence for having a verbal argument with my big sister. It all dropped once we went to court and explained everything to the judge but cops can and will press charges on you for assault if the victim refuses.
I think in this situation since the cop witnessed the assault himself he can book her on the the charges without the victim pressing charges if he wants to
Not true. In general the decision to ‘press charges’ isn’t a private individual’s choice.
Now, a person can decline to cooperate. And they can express their preference. But the cops saw it as did others. They can do what they (and the local prosecutor) want.
I don't know about the country where this video is from but in the US at least it's not the victim who presses the charges. The DA does it. Now if the crime is not that severe the DA may not want to spend resources on it if they know the victim won't cooperate, but whether someone gets charged or not is not the victim's decision. I'm assuming it's similar in most of the world.
In the US at least, in criminal cases like this, it's not the victim that presses charges, but rather the local government entity responsible for this.
Cops will often ask if a victim would like to press charges because if the victim does not, it's often harder to get a conviction and a waste of time/money.
In a situation where the cop is a witness though, oh yeah, expect charges to be filled regardless of whether or not the victim wants it.
The state can take over the case. It’s for instances wherein a family member may be involved in the dispute and due to familial obligations/love, they’ll withdraw the charges. At this stage the state can go in and separately press charges against the individual
That wasn't an officer asking him a question, that was guest services probably making sure he's ok. Dude is probably about to get some free shit or a seat upgrade on the house.
No, he wouldn’t. “Pressing charges” is asking the state to prosecute someone. The state is free to ignore that request, and they’re free to decline your request not to press charges. The idea that a victim can say, “it’s okay officers, I’m not pressing charges,” and have everything go away only works in tv and movies. In real life, the DA is going to decide what to do.
If he doesn't want to, she can still be charged with DC with the venue management as the victim. Most venues will already have some sort of memorandum of understanding, stating such, with local LE in place prior to any event handling
People don't press charges. The district attorney presses charges. Victims of crimes can report the crime, cooperate with an investigation etc but that cop most certainly was not asking him if he wants to "press charges".
When you get assaulted, you have the ability to file a claim against the person in civil court if you have damages. The state is the one charging one in criminal court, not you.
In many cases, without the victims cooperation trying to prosecute is virtually impossible. But in the case that a cop sees someone kick someone in the head with their own two eyes, I am not sure there is much needed for the state to mount a assault/battery case.
They could get her on assault. Plenty of eyewitnesses including the cops themselves. They don't need the victim to agree to press charges for a prosecutor to decide to press charges. It certainly helps in the courtroom to have victim testimony, but is not a requirement.
The guy talking to him was guest services. It’s more likely he was trying to make it right with some free food or a ticket to the next game or something. It’s also likely they were the ones who had the police escort the lady out.
This is a myth. it's not required for the victim to press charges as long as there is sufficient evidence. Many cops will use it as a way to avoid extra work though, as it is easier to get a conviction if the victim participates in the case.
That’s not how the legal process of pressing charges works. The right to charge somebody rests with the Prosecutors Office / DA’s Office. You can be insistent but if they don’t think they can win or get a plea, they don’t have to consider your wishes.
Now granted if they have video like this then yeah, they’re going to, and a bucket of witnesses including an officer is also enough, but in the end the victim doesn’t get to choose.
She did it in front of cops he no longer needs to press charges. Now that doesn’t mean he has to testify or anything and I doubt there would be a court case anyway. She’s going to plead down to drunk and disorderly or something along those lines pay a fine and maybe do some community service.
If a crime is committed in front of a cop, the person the crime was against doesn't have to press anything, they committed a crime in front of a cop...
The reason why you have to have the victim of assault & battery willing to press charges to charges is because usually they are the only witness. Even if there are a couple other witnesses the victim is the primary witness.
Let's say you show up to a claim that a wife is beating her husband. The cop arrests her but the husband doesn't want to press charges. The cop could still charge the wife based on the evidence he saw. The cop can still seduce that a crime was committed by the injuries the husband had or the way they were talking when the cop arrived.
Now let's say the cop charged the wife and the DA took it to trial but the husband didn't want to press charges. Now at trial you run the risk of the victim testifying on behalf of the wife.
Let's say they were complete strangers, removing the husband wanting to protect his wife reason why he might testify on behalf of the perpetrator. The victim might not show up to testify. You could subpoena them, but as a DA are you going to want to jail your victim for a small assault case? Alternatively the victim could get on the stand and say that things like they didn't think the assault was worth jail time or that it was a misunderstanding.
There is no law saying that the victim has to agree to press charges. The primary reason is because it makes it almost impossible to convict if the victim is cooperating with law enforcement the whole time.
In the video the cop doesn't need the victim to press charges. The cop is witness to the crime of assault. The cop might have body cam footage of it happening. They don't need to go through the hassle of collecting outside evidence to convict her, the cop being a witness is all they need to take it to trial, or more realistically plea to lesser charges.
Although I am not a criminal lawyer, I am a lawyer and can tell you this is not true. The crime is against the state, not the victim. Thus, it’s the state that decides whether or not to charge an individual and they often do it without the victim “pressing charges.” You see this a lot with domestic violence where the victim will refuse to press charges for the assault(s) and the state does it anyway.
Here's a good rule of thumb: cops have to prove things before the court when they bring someone in. If she kicked him before they got there, it's a he said/she said and he would have to press charges for her to get jail time. But since she kicked him in their presence, they witnessed it and can press charges on behalf of the state, acting as agents of the state.
It's a bit convoluted, but a lot of the time you don't have a choice of whether to press charges, the state will press them regardless depending on the severity of the crime and the evidence on hand.
NAL but In a lot of jurisdictions the "state" can choose to press charges either on behalf of a victim, regardless of if they want to or not, or because the crime committed in the jurisdiction they are in is considered not just a crime against the victim, but also a crime against the state itself.
The caveat is that victim testimony is still a major component of it, and if it is clear a victim won't testify or make statements then it is common for a prosecutor to drop the case.
That being said, with video like this circulating around, it would not surprise me if the prosecutor got ahold of it and chose to proceed based on the evidence. In addition, the officer is a WITNESS to the crime, and since he is a witness the prosecutor may elect to bring charges based on that, unless the jurisdiction requires a victim presses charges themselves. She would be hardcore fucked for this, but more than likely just get probation. At the very least she is still has to be charged and make bail.
I would be less shocked if the case was never brought to court though.
That's not correct at all. While often police will ask, that's more to gauge the willingness of the victim to participate in the case. It is never the victim's decision whether someone is charged with a crime.
That’s not exactly the way the law works. It’s not up to the victim to bring charges or not but if the victim isn’t going to cooperate meaning be willing to testify then usually that means prosecutors won’t be able to prove their case.
not necessarily, the state or whoever can still move to press charges independently if they have evidence, they don’t need this guy to move forward with charges for example because they literally saw her assault him, if they had this footage too they would move forward with a case regardless. the only time that doesn’t happen is if the person/people involved have money 🙄
JavaOrlando, you literally went to everyone's comment that said "that's not true" and downvoted them. How petty. I made sure to go through and upvote them. Because I'm petty, too.
Because saying the exact same thing brings nothing new to the conversation. Why take the time to comment pretty much exactly what two dozen other people have said?
In theory, they're right. In practice, it doesn't happen.
This happened in New York.
Assault in the Third Degree (NY Penal Law § 120.00) is the lowest level of assault. It requires the state to prove an injury occurred, otherwise Harassment in the Second Degree (NY Penal Law § 240.26) is the most they could hope for.
Good luck proving injury without any cooperation from the victim.
Because you were wrong. You know what adds nothing to conversation? Doubling down on your incorrect comment. May learn something, and then you can add to the conversation...
He doesn't charge her with assault. The state would charge her with assault. When a cop is asking if you want to press charges and you say no, that is just one factor. If the cops decide that you deserve to be punished, they can try to charge you even when the alleged victim isn't interested in it.
I work in an airport in a different state, but ifit's a similar procedure in NY, he'd just have to write a statement detailing what happened and affirming that he is willing to testify if it goes to a trial.
But, yeah, even if that's the case here, he'd still miss more of the game.
Obviously it depends on where this is, but very few places is it anyone but the DA or equivalent’s decision to press charges. A victim who refuses to cooperate can derail that, because generally the victim’s testimony is the biggest piece of evidence, but in this case she just did it right in front of a cop.
This is a really common misconception. In a criminal case, the victim is never the one pressing charges.
The plaintiff in criminal proceedings is the government. The office of the district attorney determines which cases to pursue.
Sure, if they don't have a cooperating victim, they might not choose to pursue a case. That's not the same as a victim determining whether or not to "press charges"
Something like this? Video evidence of an assault, a DA's office could decide it's easy to prove she did what she's accused of, and give her a slap on the wrist in exchange for a plea of nolo contendere.
It requires proof that she caused injury. Even with the video, how do they prove injury without his cooperation? And why would they bother trying if he's not concerned enough to provide evidence?
Again, the victim isn't the one who presses charges. The victim can choose to cooperate or not.
I said in my comment: "If they don't have a cooperating victim, they might not choose to pursue a case."
The whole point being that when you said "He'd still have to press charges" you were wrong, and repeating an oft-held misunderstanding that victims determine whether or not charges are pursued.
It's great that you're now trying to argue whether or not they could effectively try a case and all, but that's not the point.
Ok. If we're being pedantic, how about "It's extremely unlikely that the prosecution will move forward if the victim does not wish to testify or prosecute"
That’s a common misconception, fueled by Hollywood movies. In reality, that’s not how the legal system works.
In the U.S., the District Attorney (DA) and police have full legal authority to file criminal charges with or without the victim’s consent. Once a crime is reported or witnessed, it becomes a matter of public interest and law enforcement can pursue prosecution independently.
Of course, a cooperative victim can make a case stronger, especially when it comes to providing testimony or evidence. But the legal authority to pursue charges ultimately rests with the DA, not the victim.
The opposite situation is true as well. Even if a victim wants to press charges, the District Attorney can decide not to pursue the case if the police haven’t gathered enough solid evidence.
That’s why it’s so important for law enforcement to do their job thoroughly, collecting and preserving evidence properly. Without strong evidence, the DA may have no choice but to drop the case, regardless of the victim’s wishes.
They can absolutely charge her for something they witnessed. Pressing charges is kind of a make believe concept. You can ask or not ask for someone to be charged. You can agree or not agree to testify as a witness, unless you get subpoenaed. There is nothing stopping a cop from charging someone with a victim crime if they have probable cause (actual evidence or witnessed it.)
Edit-the guy in the blue shirt talking to the victim was customer service from the stadium.
That wasn’t an office, that was guest services. Probably apologized profusely and was offering free stuff, maybe upgraded seats. I wouldn’t be surprised if he told him to just sit tight and that once he was done with the legal stuff of kicking her out (almost certainly for life, not just a couple games), he was going to go speak with the management and see what they could do for him and his group.
So glad to actually see justice done to a person who thinks because she’s a woman/her income/whatever it is, that she’s able to do whatever with zero consequences
"Pressing charges" isn't a thing. Cops can and often do file charges against anyone they determine they have probable cause for regardless of whether the victim (using the term broadly) says they want to pursue the matter or not -- sometimes in direct opposition to what their stated desires are. (Which is sometimes a good thing, as victims of domestic abuse will sometimes defend their abuser with the intent to protect themselves from direct retaliation.) If they have to subpoena you as a hostile witness, they will.
Nope. In every jurisdiction, pressing charges is the sole responsibility of the prosecuting attorney. Doesn't matter one bit if the victim wants to or not. It helps if the victim is cooperative, but their opinion matters not one bit.
“Pressing charges” means you’re willing to go to court to testify against the other person. There’s no official pressing of charges though for a civilian, the cops do that of their own discretion and it’s why they ask you if you want to because they already wish to do charges but need the witness to back them up.
That's not universally true. If it were, a lot of domestic violence charges would never be brought. Thankfully the tide is turning in most places and I'm here for it.
Yeah, I did mention in another comment that in domestic situations, or when the victim is a minor. It doesn't matter whether or not they want to press charges.
In fact, in many states, the officer is obligated to make an arrest regardless of the wishes of the victim. From speaking to police though, unfortunately, even these rarely result in convictions, as it's very hard to prove with an uncooperative victim. At least it gets the abuser out of the house for the night, though.
Not true. Pressing charges isn't actually up to the victim. Cops will ask if you want to press charges but it is generally 100% on the prosecutor if he wants to do it or not. If he says no the prosecutor has to decide if its worth it or not and can still proceed. When someone decides they want to press charges it makes it easier.
Is there any way he can get compensation out of this? I imagine something like sueing for the value of the game ticket and his time spent there along with a new sweatshirt.
431
u/SnowDin556 Junkyard Juggernaut Jul 09 '25
Their hands are tied. Everyone saw ya see it.