this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
394 points (99.7% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2371 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Yesterday's crazy keeps on keepin' on....

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Yep. ~~Mysteriously~~ dropped, iirc.

Edit: It wasn’t mysterious, there were legitimate reasons.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Nothing mysterious, no evidence. Everyone figured his buddy would squeal to spare himself jail time. Nada. The 17-yo girl in question wouldn't testify either. Also, she had since started an OF site and prosecution felt she would get torn up as a witness.

[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

After educating myself, agree - nothing mysterious.

However, is this really the same as “no evidence”? -

The recommendation comes in part because prosecutors have questions over whether the central witnesses in the long-running investigation would be perceived as credible before a jury.

Sounds like they did have evidence, but it was more about the reaction of the jury to the witness for other reasons.

[–] Tyfud@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

No objective evidence. It's tough to build a case around key witnesses and testimonies that are easily assailable by the defense, especially ones that could play well to a jury.

It's not fair, and this all very, very likely happened as the court documents allege. But proving it in a court of law is a whole different thing.

Prosecutors generally try not to take cases they're not confident they can win. They're underpaid and overworked and try and follow the 80/20 rule, which is that they can do more good prosecuting the 80% of cases that are slam dunks, than waste tax payer money chasing 20% of the cases that require just about "everything to go right" for them to come out on top.

It's one of the many things flawed within our justice system right now that a DA won't pursue this because the blowback of losing the case would end their career.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

I had understood that the girl wouldn't testify and the DA didn't want that in any case?

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

since started an OF site

Link?

(You were all thinking it, I just care less about my fake internet points)

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago