The prosecutor is safe. Under the system set up by the legal industry, all the prosecutor has to have is “proabable cause” and he is free to ignore affirmative defense. That standard allows this sort of literlal nonsense case, but the legal system is fine with the nonsense. Pays by the hour, as they say>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WHat you say is true according to law but the facts show that the law you recite does not apply. There is no probable cause. And there is malice.
But in this prosecutors case, malice can be proven, which makes the procecutor “NOT SAFE.” As a matter of fact the prosecutor is a poliotycal prosecutor who maliciously brought this prosecution , maliciously tried to convince the court that evidence of “victim agression” was not probative, so as to be excluded, and other factors.
In fact its a political trial which was maliciously brought. WITH MALICE.
No prosecutor is protected from that. Because we have rights of second amendment, and due process, both abused by this prosecutor, the malice is apparent for any jury to see. Kyle will have a million dollar case once he is exhonorated, against both the prosecutor and the false complainant / witness.
Not only that. The prosecutor can be disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct in ignoring exculpatory evidence,real evidence, the clear videos of the defendent acting in self defence in all three instances of his fire arm’s use.
We’ll see what happens. The word “malice” has varied meanings under the law. None of those meanings is the same as plain, regular usage.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/malicious+prosecution
Because the system allows the prosecutor to pretend self defense does not exist as a matter of law (meaning he is allowed to ignore any and all facts that suggest self defence, regardless of how clear or obvious they are),all he needs is the shooting, which is not contested. There is his probable cause.
It’s utter nonsense, but that is the rule of law, nonsensical. The nonsensical rule absolutely protects the prosecutor.
The system is rigged. Prosecutors are STRONGLY protected, and for the most part free to do very bad things without repercussion. The system is DESIGNED this way, under bad assumption that prosecutors will by and large be decent people. Falls apart when the assumption is false.
The only duty a prosecutor has in exculpatory evidence is to disclose it to defendant. Brady et seq cases set that. Failure to produce Brady material affects the trial, but has no persoanl ramification against the prosecutor.
The ongoing ethical duty to disclose facts that prove innocence, after a guilty verdict, don’t have play before a guilty verdict.
“the clear videos of the defendent acting in self defence in all three instances of his fire arm’s use.”
Not quite. There was no video of the first shooting.