(09-22-2017, 07:40 AM)eric Wrote: [ -> ]Nick asked Renard how long he had known Nick was a Grimm. Renard said he had known what Nick was for a long time, and seemed to indicate he knew that way before Nick knew it. Sorry, can't remember the episode number. Renard knew Nick's family background-he knew about Aunt Marie- and was waiting to see if Nick would go full Grimm or remain normal, like Josh. Renard could have ordered wessen to woge around Nick for years, Adeline picked the short straw.
Maybe I should re-watch episode 1 & 2. I think it’s in those episodes Sean finds out he has a Grimm in his officers.
I think the reveal was Aunt Marie. If Monroe knew who Marie Kessler was, someone like Renard would know, and he seemed to have some plan already in place.
Other than that there really isn't anything. Renard did tell Nick that he'd protected him in ways he wasn't aware of, but that was more than halfway through S02.
(09-22-2017, 05:21 AM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: [ -> ]On what charge? Her body became involuntarily toxic to people who touched her against her will.
Is that up to the arresting officer to decide? Last time I heard, a jury was the one who decided whether she was innocent or guilty.
Only a trial jury can decide that evidence presented at trial is proof of guilt, but since the law is based on innocence until proof of guilt, there are other people who can decide there is not evidence to prove guilt (no one decides innocence, only guilt).
The investigating officer decides if there's evidence to take to a prosecutor.
The prosecutor decides if there's evidence to take to a grand jury.
The grand jury decides if there's evidence to take to a trial jury.
So the answer to your question is that the investigating officer is the first in a chain of several people who can decide there is not evidence of guilt and to not proceed with arrest and trial.
(09-22-2017, 10:28 AM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: [ -> ]Only a trial jury can decide that evidence presented at trial is proof of guilt, but since the law is based on innocence until proof of guilt, there are other people who can decide there is not evidence to prove guilt (no one decides innocence, only guilt).
The investigating officer decides if there's evidence to take to a prosecutor.
The prosecutor decides if there's evidence to take to a grand jury.
The grand jury decides if there's evidence to take to a trial jury.
So the answer to your question is that the investigating officer is the first in a chain of several people who can decide there is not evidence of guilt and to not proceed with arrest and trial.
Not in this case. A man was dead, and there was evidence on site. Nick was the investigating officer. He should have brought the evidence found into the station. Once he found the frog girl and determined she was suspect, he should have charged her with murder and taken her in. There was no margin for Nick to decide whether or not she was guilty. All he could do in this case was send her up the chain of law enforcement and let the prosecutors and jury make the decision of guilt or innocence.
(09-22-2017, 06:31 AM)Hell Rell Wrote: [ -> ]If a normal cop had investigated the frog girl, would they have sent her to prison? Is Nick now being bashed for keeping an innocent girl from going to prison? His knowledge as a Grimm did help achieve justice in that case.
I don't recall anyone stating she was definitely in for hard time. I'm just saying that Nick did the wrong thing.
I keep reading how he's supposed to be this good force for wesen, yet the wesen had nothing to do with him butting into their lives and enforcing his own justice.
I'd be curious to see how many wesen would have applauded him taking the girl into custody. Accidental or not, she's still a killer. Would wesen mothers really want someone on the street who's touch is deadly to them as well as humans?
(09-22-2017, 03:25 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]Not in this case. A man was dead, and there was evidence on site. Nick was the investigating officer. He should have brought the evidence found into the station. Once he found the frog girl and determined she was suspect, he should have charged her with murder and taken her in. There was no margin for Nick to decide whether or not she was guilty. All he could do in this case was send her up the chain of law enforcement and let the prosecutors and jury make the decision of guilt or innocence.
No, no and no. Nick never gets to "charge her (or anyone else) with murder." As the investigating officer, Nick has to determine what happened based on the evidence. IF he believes the evidence shows she killed someone AND she did it with criminal intent or criminal negligence he can arrest and detain her while he presents that evidence to a prosecutor, who will then decide whether that evidence is sufficient to charge her and present the case to a grand jury to decide whether to indict. If he arrests her and presents the evidence to a prosecutor saying, "I believe she acted in self defense," the prosecutor will say, "Then why are you wasting my time with this?" and walk right out the door.
In this case, what happened was that the girl was assaulted and her body reacted with an involuntary self defense mechanism. And she was actually making every effort to avoid situations where that might happen. If wesen were in the open, the result of the investigation would have been a case report stating that the deceased died while in the process of committing criminal acts and their intended victim acted in self defense, no evidence of criminal intent on her part. Case closed.
What Nick did in this case that
was irregular was not filing an accurate report with the name of the victim and the wesen aspects of what happened. And that
is something he did a lot of.
(09-22-2017, 05:19 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: [ -> ] (09-22-2017, 03:25 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]Not in this case. A man was dead, and there was evidence on site. Nick was the investigating officer. He should have brought the evidence found into the station. Once he found the frog girl and determined she was suspect, he should have charged her with murder and taken her in. There was no margin for Nick to decide whether or not she was guilty. All he could do in this case was send her up the chain of law enforcement and let the prosecutors and jury make the decision of guilt or innocence.
No, no and no. Nick never gets to "charge her (or anyone else) with murder." As the investigating officer, Nick has to determine what happened based on the evidence. IF he believes the evidence shows she killed someone AND she did it with criminal intent or criminal negligence he can arrest and detain her while he presents that evidence to a prosecutor, who will then decide whether that evidence is sufficient to charge her and present the case to a grand jury to decide whether to indict. If he arrests her and presents the evidence to a prosecutor saying, "I believe she acted in self defense," the prosecutor will say, "Then why are you wasting my time with this?" and walk right out the door.
In this case, what happened was that the girl was assaulted and her body reacted with an involuntary self defense mechanism. And she was actually making every effort to avoid situations where that might happen. If wesen were in the open, the result of the investigation would have been a case report stating that the deceased died while in the process of committing criminal acts and their intended victim acted in self defense, no evidence of criminal intent on her part. Case closed.
What Nick did in this case that was irregular was not filing an accurate report with the name of the victim and the wesen aspects of what happened. And that is something he did a lot of.
Face, does it make you wonder, sometimes, the arguments that are made, on the maturity of the argument-tee?
No. I have enough to do maintaining my own.
(09-23-2017, 01:07 AM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: [ -> ]No. I have enough to do maintaining my own.
Have you noted one of my original signatures i sign off below?
(09-22-2017, 05:19 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: [ -> ]No, no and no. Nick never gets to "charge her (or anyone else) with murder." As the investigating officer, Nick has to determine what happened based on the evidence. IF he believes the evidence shows she killed someone AND she did it with criminal intent or criminal negligence he can arrest and detain her while he presents that evidence to a prosecutor, who will then decide whether that evidence is sufficient to charge her and present the case to a grand jury to decide whether to indict. If he arrests her and presents the evidence to a prosecutor saying, "I believe she acted in self defense," the prosecutor will say, "Then why are you wasting my time with this?" and walk right out the door.
Let's call it a complaint. There's a dead body. No prosecutor is ever going to just drop it based on Nick's word that "he believes it's self-defense". Not with a body on a bike trail.
(09-22-2017, 05:19 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: [ -> ]In this case, what happened was that the girl was assaulted and her body reacted with an involuntary self defense mechanism. And she was actually making every effort to avoid situations where that might happen. If wesen were in the open, the result of the investigation would have been a case report stating that the deceased died while in the process of committing criminal acts and their intended victim acted in self defense, no evidence of criminal intent on her part. Case closed.
You just argued not so long ago that Adalind's violation of Nick would not be rape. Now you're stating this girl was assaulted when all the guy did was touch her. We don't know that, and neither does Nick. She warned the guy not to touch her after that. He wasn't given a second chance to vacate the premises. Before he could make the decision to continue, or get the hell out of there, she killed him.
Nick didn't see any of it. He can't make a decision in a complicated case like this to simply believe the girl and let her go. The right thing to do was to gather the evidence, bring her in, and let the law take its course.