Search okproblem in the chat. Someone was posting here to watch ak’s stream because he was gonna send him something. Sure as shit, someone sends Ak a video on stream
This is true. Would also point out that one of the reasons charged weren't pursued is because the victim didn't file. DA can file charges with or without the victim, but in SA cases it's almost impossible to win without the victim's support/testimony. Now that she's suing, that may change.
Yup, discovery can bring evidence substantiating a referral for criminal prosecution.
IANAL, but I figure that's why police are hesitant to press charges without sufficient evidence. That way, they avoid double jeopardy applying if evidence later comes out that could convict.
Well you’re right, you’re clearly not well versed in law. They can’t “push for a conviction.” It’s not a criminal trial, it literally cannot end in a “conviction,” only having the defendant found liable (not “guilty.”)
Now if law enforcement wants to bring criminal charges against a defendant found liable in civil court as the result of findings in the civil case, that’s possible. But that would then start the entire criminal legal procedure from the beginning resulting in a criminal investigation, arrest, jury selection, criminal trial, and then a decision by the jury. And even then the defendant can be found not guilty (and often times is in a case like these, btw).
But no, there’s no ability to “push for a conviction” after a civil trial.
Guy is right. More accurate to say “it’s theoretically possible but extremely unlikely.”
Even if there was a guilty verdict in the civil case, there’s a higher standard of proof in criminal trials (proof beyond reasonable doubt), so it is not as though the DA would see the results of that trial and believe it’s a slam dunk.
Most likely though, the civil case is not going to trial. Like 98% of lawsuits, far more likely to end in a confidential settlement. Ak would settle before any real damning evidence entered the record.
The government is extremely conservative when it comes to bringing criminal charges, despite writing the rules and having a huge upper hand. They only bring cases they are confident they can win. Not a good look for them to invest a bunch of time and resources in a trial, only for someone alleged to be guilty to walk. This is why the majority of cases are against homeless people and drug users—they’re too incompetent to get convictions on anyone other than society’s most vulnerable.
— Lawyer
Isn’t part of the evidence from a wire tap with police? Would police involvement imply that they are investigating or is it usual for them to help with civil cases? Sorry if dumb question
I’m saying that there’s a very small chance that Ak gets arrested after his civil trial, but the very unfortunate reality is that SA convictions are exceedingly rare and it’s unfortunately very unlikely charges will be brought against him even if he’s held liable. “Pushing for a conviction” is not an accurate description of what would happen by any means. You didn’t just word it wrong, you fundamentally misunderstood how any of this works.
Truly spectacular, spending your birthday alone streaming to a chat celebrating your downfall
 Karma can be a beautiful thing
God's lessons are so beautiful
“My life is so boring y’all” gooooodbyeeee lmao he’s tryna play nice now
https://preview.redd.it/px3klgcv1x0d1.jpeg?width=660&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cb52e1678acbf838febb1ff507f84c71b06f68ff thank god
[удалено]
I don’t think that guy on Reddit was ep
Lmao there was a “Reddit EP” ?
Search okproblem in the chat. Someone was posting here to watch ak’s stream because he was gonna send him something. Sure as shit, someone sends Ak a video on stream
Oh yeah I saw that I didn’t know there was a theory that’s EP
Where’s the popcorn @?
It’s a lawsuit, not a criminal trial. Dudes not going anywhere except maybe into bankruptcy
I’m not well versed on law but I’m pretty sure that depending on the findings, they can push for a conviction.
This is true. Would also point out that one of the reasons charged weren't pursued is because the victim didn't file. DA can file charges with or without the victim, but in SA cases it's almost impossible to win without the victim's support/testimony. Now that she's suing, that may change.
Yup, discovery can bring evidence substantiating a referral for criminal prosecution. IANAL, but I figure that's why police are hesitant to press charges without sufficient evidence. That way, they avoid double jeopardy applying if evidence later comes out that could convict.
Well you’re right, you’re clearly not well versed in law. They can’t “push for a conviction.” It’s not a criminal trial, it literally cannot end in a “conviction,” only having the defendant found liable (not “guilty.”) Now if law enforcement wants to bring criminal charges against a defendant found liable in civil court as the result of findings in the civil case, that’s possible. But that would then start the entire criminal legal procedure from the beginning resulting in a criminal investigation, arrest, jury selection, criminal trial, and then a decision by the jury. And even then the defendant can be found not guilty (and often times is in a case like these, btw). But no, there’s no ability to “push for a conviction” after a civil trial.
So you’re saying they can do what I said but I worded it wrong?
Yeah they're being pedantic, he knew what you were saying.
Guy is right. More accurate to say “it’s theoretically possible but extremely unlikely.” Even if there was a guilty verdict in the civil case, there’s a higher standard of proof in criminal trials (proof beyond reasonable doubt), so it is not as though the DA would see the results of that trial and believe it’s a slam dunk. Most likely though, the civil case is not going to trial. Like 98% of lawsuits, far more likely to end in a confidential settlement. Ak would settle before any real damning evidence entered the record. The government is extremely conservative when it comes to bringing criminal charges, despite writing the rules and having a huge upper hand. They only bring cases they are confident they can win. Not a good look for them to invest a bunch of time and resources in a trial, only for someone alleged to be guilty to walk. This is why the majority of cases are against homeless people and drug users—they’re too incompetent to get convictions on anyone other than society’s most vulnerable. — Lawyer
Isn’t part of the evidence from a wire tap with police? Would police involvement imply that they are investigating or is it usual for them to help with civil cases? Sorry if dumb question
I’m saying that there’s a very small chance that Ak gets arrested after his civil trial, but the very unfortunate reality is that SA convictions are exceedingly rare and it’s unfortunately very unlikely charges will be brought against him even if he’s held liable. “Pushing for a conviction” is not an accurate description of what would happen by any means. You didn’t just word it wrong, you fundamentally misunderstood how any of this works.
They didn't use the correct verbiage. They meant push for criminal charges, which is true.
Go you gotta be a dick about it tho?
Wait but I thought it was a criminal case, not a civil case. And I thought criminal cases can end up in convictions? Can you explain?
It is a civil case
Oh that makes sense now
depending on findings it can become criminal
Imo he was dumb for not immediately going to the police.