It’s good to see a Member of Parliament tackling the issue robbery, in this case personally. British Member of Parliament, Johnny Mercer, pinned down the robber until the police arrived. Unfortunately, the store owner didn’t want to press charges against the robber. Is that a sad sign of the times?
The story is behind a pay wall, my understanding is that victims don't get to choose whether to press charges or not, that's an American concept not a British one, but I may be wrong....
Plymouth MP tackles bottle-wielding thief to the ground The police weren't informed or involved. It's interesting how your original link didn't mention that. (I assume it doesn't, as I can't read it behind the pay wall) " Plymouth MP and former Army captain Johnny Mercer tackled a racist thug who was wielding a glass bottle and trying to steal from a shopkeeper. The ex-commando tackled the thug and brought him to the ground, restraining him until the shopkeeper said he should let the man go 'because police would do nothing'. A second man is reported to have assisted Mr Mercer in the citizen's arrest. "
The victim in the US doesn't generally get to decide either; its up to police whether to arrest, and prosecutors whether to press charges in the US. Though generally minor theft where the victim doesn't want to push it I can see the prosecutor dropping things. But you can absolutely still be prosecuted even if the victim doesn't want to press charges. It may be hard with an uncooperative victim though.
Yes, in the States, an individual has control over a civil action against a wrongdoer, but criminal actions are on behalf of society as a whole and decisions are made by the District Attorney's Office. Victims can give their input but it's not ultimately their decision. The DA can look at a minor mutual scuffle and say "I don't think there's anything here that deserves state resources" even if one participant wants the other jailed. On the other hand, they can look at a horrific case of domestic violence and pursue felony charges, even if the victim returned to the abuser a few days after the incident and says she doesn't want him prosecuted.
Cool story. Ya, what Mitlov & Morik said. I'm always annoyed when it comes up in tv shows and movies. On that same note, stupid writers also write "motive" into every cop show or movie. In the USA, "motive" is not an element of the crime of murder or manslaughter. I can understand that it might help a detective sort out his suspects, but at the end of the day it is not an element of the crime! The prosecutor will never have to prove motive! Stupid writers!
Motive is not its own element, but for murder, intent sure is, and in many cases, it's hard to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt without demonstrating motive. Likewise, for first degree murder you typically have to prove both intent and premeditation. Typically, it's hard to prove premeditation without evidence of motive. That is not to say that TV really ever gets it right with legal issues. It doesn't. But motive is very important in most cases even though it's not its own element.
Agreed! And legally speaking, I could have "motive" to kill you but never have "intent" to kill you, because they're not the same. That's what bothers me in tv shows and movies! Stupid writers! (It really bugs me.)
You're the sort of guy who watches Top Gun and complains that the F-14's air brakes can't cause deceleration nearly that sudden, aren't ya?
The other issue is....the main victim "didn't want to know" in other words. No charges would've been put forward. Did a crime take place? Yes. Can the person still get arrested for it? Yes, for questioning. But even if he was brought in, it won't go to Court, because the onus is also on the victim. If it did go as far as Court somehow, the Defence would essentially say "Well, the main victim wasn't bothered and all this is via 3rd hand, therefore is this good use of Public money". This is a very common issue (also seen a lot on telly and movies)
