Trump's Campaign Mgr arrested in Florida

[tvc184]

So what you are saying is.. as a LEO, you've never encountered or heard of cases that were brought before a DA that were not taken or accepted but you knew crimes had been committed ..or that DA'S have never been influenced by the circumstances or environments surrounding a case and acted in their own best interests.
Cmon... this has the perfect recipe for a DA with bigger aspirations to make freinds in powerful places.

I have seen all kinds of things.

I do know that no matter what a DA does, if it ever goes in front of a jury, there has to be proof. Most of the times the DA is not going to waste his time with a losing case.

Could a DA drop it for political purposes, friendship or any other reason? Sure.

I looked at that case from what I could see on the video and didn't see that as an assault where you could convince ever member of a jury of guilt. Under TX law it would not likely be an assault and I read FL law and it was similar.

I made the same call with Zimmerman in this forum. I said a few times that unless there was something in the case that wasn't public (and there wasn't as it turned out), they would not likely get a conviction as there was no evidence showing guilt at the legal standard.

Merely saying it is an assault is not the law. Every time your doctor gives you a shot, he committed assault by the letter of the law in TX. Almost every time a tackle is made in football, an assault happened. The reason that those people are not arrested is those exemption, exceptions and defenses written into law. Looking at the video, that seems to apply in this case.

Being offended is not part of the law. Committing an act with the culpable mental state require is the law. If that was not true, bumping into someone while standing in line at a store would be an assault. It doesn't matter what the "victim" felt but the intent of the person accused. Being offended is not part of the law.

I didn't see it in this case. It is no more than that no matter what the DA may have had in mind.

[stickerpatch59]

I have seen all kinds of things.

I do know that no matter what a DA does, if it ever goes in front of a jury, there has to be proof. Most of the times the DA is not going to waste his time with a losing case.

Could a DA drop it for political purposes, friendship or any other reason? Sure.

I looked at that case from what I could see on the video and didn't see that as an assault where you could convince ever member of a jury of guilt. Under TX law it would not likely be an assault and I read FL law and it was similar.

I made the same call with Zimmerman in this forum. I said a few times that unless there was something in the case that wasn't public (and there wasn't as it turned out), they would not likely get a conviction as there was no evidence showing guilt at the legal standard.

Merely saying it is an assault is not the law. Every time your doctor gives you a shot, he committed assault by the letter of the law in TX. Almost every time a tackle is made in football, an assault happened. The reason that those people are not arrested is those exemption, exceptions and defenses written into law. Looking at the video, that seems to apply in this case.

Being offended is not part of the law. Committing an act with the culpable mental state require is the law. If that was not true, bumping into someone while standing in line at a store would be an assault. It doesn't matter what the "victim" felt but the intent of the person accused. Being offended is not part of the law.

I didn't see it in this case. It is no more than that no matter what the DA may have had in mind.

I agree with you, but it seems that there are a lot of people today that think they have the right to not be offended.

[texansfan]

I have seen all kinds of things.

I do know that no matter what a DA does, if it ever goes in front of a jury, there has to be proof. Most of the times the DA is not going to waste his time with a losing case.

Could a DA drop it for political purposes, friendship or any other reason? Sure.

I looked at that case from what I could see on the video and didn't see that as an assault where you could convince ever member of a jury of guilt. Under TX law it would not likely be an assault and I read FL law and it was similar.

I made the same call with Zimmerman in this forum. I said a few times that unless there was something in the case that wasn't public (and there wasn't as it turned out), they would not likely get a conviction as there was no evidence showing guilt at the legal standard.

Merely saying it is an assault is not the law. Every time your doctor gives you a shot, he committed assault by the letter of the law in TX. Almost every time a tackle is made in football, an assault happened. The reason that those people are not arrested is those exemption, exceptions and defenses written into law. Looking at the video, that seems to apply in this case.

Being offended is not part of the law. Committing an act with the culpable mental state require is the law. If that was not true, bumping into someone while standing in line at a store would be an assault. It doesn't matter what the "victim" felt but the intent of the person accused. Being offended is not part of the law.

I didn't see it in this case. It is no more than that no matter what the DA may have had in mind.

That's pretty good.
You practice criminal law?
Who'd you clerk for?