another self-defense shooter is cleared

[roscoe]

This was kind of unusual, given the players, and noteworthy coming so soon after the popcorn shooter acquittal. I thought the prosecutor's phrasing was interesting: “In line with our ethical obligations, we cannot overcome the legal justifications of self-defense or defense of others,” she said. “We are not able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/us/denver-security-guard-charges-dropped.html.

https://kdvr.com/news/local/lawyer-...icensed-security-guard-who-shot-man-at-rally/

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I would argue that the shooter wasn't "cleared," because the case was never heard. It appears to me that the prosecutors didn't want to take it to trial, probably (my guess) because they are unsympathetic to right-wing Americans and so just don't care to prosecute someone for killing a right-wing American.

I have never heard of a prosecutor making a statement like this:

“In line with our ethical obligations, we cannot overcome the legal justifications of self-defense or defense of others,” she said. “We are not able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

If any prosecutor should have made such a statement, it was the prosecutor in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. His case blew up in his face, with even his own witnesses not supporting his case -- but he nevertheless took it to trial and forged ahead, mangling the facts and the truth right up through his closing argument.

This case should have gone to trial. By punting, the prosecutor doesn't have to worry about a rogue jury bringing in an unwanted conviction.

Shameful.

 

[roscoe]

It seems like it falls somewhere between the popcorn shooter and Rittenhouse.

 

[44 AMP]

“In line with our ethical obligations, we cannot overcome the legal justifications of self-defense or defense of others,” she said. “We are not able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

While making such a statement in public is unusual, it would seem the prosecutor fulfilled their ethical requirement of not prosecuting a case they did not believe they could win.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

While making such a statement in public is unusual, it would seem the prosecutor fulfilled their ethical requirement of not prosecuting a case they did not believe they could win.

True -- and if that was the prosecutor's sole and pure motivation, then kudos for being so ethical.

However, I watched the video and I didn't think it was a good shoot. I admit that I am biased, but I honestly don't think the case is so weak that the prosecution could possibly know without taking it to trial that they couldn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe the case was dropped for purely political reasons.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.