Ah, the name calling and personal adjective usage again. Figured you had enough of that being banned on your other name. I defined a term you incorrectly used in an attempt at educating. YOU "defined" words you chose with the intent to demean and belittle. You never do learn, do you?

If you had a workable knowledge of the law, you would understand that what you are saying in part of your posting you are contradicting by another part.

The poster feels as though he was not treated fairly because the police did NOT make a determination about his innocence or guilt. You are telling him the police DID make a determination of fact. They did not. He says they did not. In fact, he asserts if they HAD, he never would have been arrested or prosecuted. You are telling him they DID. They did not, and it is not their job to do so.

They establish PROBABLE CAUSE--they determine (conclude) nothing.

The police do not "decide who to believe". They REPORT statements such as (for example) "the complaintant stated" or the "victim stated" or "subject was holding a gun upon our arrival". They do not determine who is innocent and who is guilty. They do not say, "The subject was holding a gun because the illegal tenant was hitting a woman in the bedroom". That calls for a finding--a determination. They may say, "Subject STATED the reason he was holding the gun was because such and such". But they do NOT make definitive statements that portray guilt or innocence--and this is a PERFECT example of how precison matters.

The entire misconception the poster has is based upon his expectations of the role the police and the DA play. He is stating they did NOT make a determination (determine facts) that decided him not guilty. He feels if they HAD investigated and made a determination (i.e. judgment, finding) they would not have prosecuted him because they would have determined he was, in fact, not guilty. The critical point he is missing and you are clouding for some bizarre reason is that this is NOT the role of the police.

The only LEGAL recourse he has against the DA or police is if he was detained, arrested, and prosecuted without PROBABLE cause.

Telling him the police determine (arrive at a conclusion) and then the next sentence tell him they do not is contradictory and displays a laymans inabililty to understand these roles in their most rudimentary form and is little more than (another) perpetuation of misinformation.
As always, I invite you to not simply take my word for it. N. W. Whitley, Plaintiff-appellee, v. George Seibel, Individually and As a Police Officer of Thechicago Police Department, Defendant-appellant

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. - 613 F.2d 682

Argued Dec. 5, 1979.Decided Jan. 25, 1980.As Amended Feb. 1, 1980


N. W. Whitley, Plaintiff-appellee, v. George Seibel, Individually and As a Police Officer of Thechicago Police Department, Defendant-appellant - 613 F.2d 682 - Justia US Court of Appeals Cases and Opinions
"The Constitution, it was stated, does not guarantee that only the guilty will be arrested nor that every conceivable step be taken at whatever cost to eliminate the possibility of convicting an innocent person. Id. at 2696. It was explained that the fourteenth amendment does not protect against all deprivations of liberty, but only those accomplished without due process of law......The sheriff executing the arrest warrant, it was held, was not required to investigate every claim of innocence because the ultimate determination of guilt lies with judge and jury. "

To the original poster, perhaps reading this case as an example can allow you to see some parallels between your case and this case in which the subject felt as though the case against him should have been investigated more thoroughly. Read the findings of the court and while you do not like the way your unfortunate situation played out, rest assured that as you have related it here, there was not neglect of due diligence nor were there any "determination of facts" for the reasons given above ........." .......because the ultimate determination of guilt lies with judge and jury." and not the investigating officers or district attorney.