So, you do adocate arresting the mugging victim or rape victim if there is evidence that their attacker incurred a physical injury?
I'm not arguing with you, I just want to be sure that this is your position.
I mean, they aren't mind readers. The sex *could* have simply been rough consensual sex, and the guy who was being mugged *could* have overreacted to a slight bumb on the head.
It's never obvious who is innocent and who is guilty? Really? It always takes the power of a mind reader?
That is you official position?
This may shock you, but some criminals do lie and can also play the victim, they may even be able to get a witness to b.s. for them, doesn't mean you just let them walk because they "seem" honest.
Well, then round up all those rape victims who fought back and arrest 'em. I mean, you pretty much gotta, cause it's possible they were simply playing the victim.
*shrug* If that's what you think, that's what you think. Not sure I agree, but that's okay.
I wouldn't say arrest a rape victim who fought back, but you sure as hell wouldn't tip your hat and let them walk off either. You would have to question them, when the time was right.
I'll admit, I'm one of those sort the facts out first and verify everything types. Here in NYC, even if your a victim, the cops want every detail, even if your justified (sometimes criminals also are victims and may have a warrant out for there arrest), other times the "victim" wasn't really the victim but the real perp.
Naturally, I'm always a bit skeptical, my attitude is let the cops do there job and make sure everything is verified, and the facts are all there, god forbid, there is a screw up and you let a bad guy walk. The prosecutor has the responsibilty of pressing charges or not, in this case, it looks like he made the right call (though for the wrong reason). I'm glad this didn't happen in NYC, here a prosecutor would have pressed charges, which shamefully, they have in circumstances just like this.