[Video]

[beenwaitinglong]

[Diego is sitting at his desk at the prosecutor's office. There is a large stack of paperwork in front of him. He picks up the top sheet, casually sipping his coffee with his other hand.]

Thirteen suspects. Let's add it up.

One hundred and thirty counts of willful destruction of property. Twenty-six counts of arson. Ninety-one counts of assault, twenty-six counts of assault with a deadly weapon and thirteen counts of assault by misuse of powers. And last but certainly not least, fifty-two counts of manslaughter.

[A long sip of coffee.]

Now all I need is names.

Comments

[beenwaitinglong]

That's the job of the police, not a gang of thugs charging in and wreaking havoc.

A job that's been made more difficult now, I might add, because of the fallout from this.

[ofthursday]

The police failed to act to prevent the second hunt. You can't expect those here not to protect themselves when no one else will.

[beenwaitinglong]

If I could make the investigations move faster or more easily, I would. I don't expect us to lie back and take it. But I do expect us to behave like the rational, law-abiding citizens we want to be treated as.

I had several witnesses pending for the previous hunting case, ready to turn the others in. Two of them were killed in the riot. Now, any justice for the victims of the hunt gets to fly around in the wind in tatters until the police and the prosecutor's office can dig up enough information to patch it up, if we ever can.

[ofthursday]

Expecting all newcomers to operate under the same set of laws is unrealistic to begin with, but that is another issue. However what more evidence could have been needed beyond the identification of the one responsible by the victims? Why was someone known to be killing people allowed to continue doing so?

And your witnesses, I presume, were hunters, and if they were at the grounds when it was attacked then surely they were participating in this hunt. Now they can no longer, rather than whatever deal they might have been given for their cooperation.

[beenwaitinglong]

Unrealistic? Maybe. But necessary, if we're ever going to get fair and equal protection under the laws of this city.

The law doesn't move as quickly as anyone would like it. But that's the price we pay for fairness, and for the thoroughness of not clapping everyone ever accused of anything in irons the instant they're accused.

[ofthursday]

Why are we defaulting to playing by their rules?

Were he accused by only one person, I might agree. But he weren't, and as I understand this is actually the third of these hunts, rather than the second. There is a line to walk between affording due process and allowing people to be killed.

[beenwaitinglong]

If we afford due process for our own, we have to afford it for them, too. We can't choose when we do and do not apply the law.

I see your point. I even understand those who did this and why they did it. But I'm a city prosecutor, and I cannot let this go.

[ofthursday]

It seems to be picked and chosen when to be applied to the natives. If newcomers hunted and killed natives, action would have been taken immediately.

That is understood. However, it is still your choice; it is your decision whether your job is of import to you to keep when it asks you to do something that might be wrong.

[beenwaitinglong]

What is wrong about charging those who break the law? I can't pick and choose whether or not to charge those whose names cross my desk-- natives or Newcomers, it doesn't matter.

As far as charging those who may very well be justified or innocent-- that's not my job. I am not a judge of the guilty or the innocent. I press charges. Between prosecutors and defense attorneys, the truth is revealed.

[ofthursday]

As I understand, prosecutors have discretion in filing charges, but I am not extremely well versed in human legal systems.

[beenwaitinglong]

You're right. I do have discretion.

But I cannot justify what happened at the hunting grounds the other night. I can't excuse those who were involved, and I can't go easy on them just because they're Newcomers-- even if I agree with their cause, at its root.

I'm one of two Newcomer prosecutors working for the city right now. The moment they suspect I'm biased towards them, I lose my credibility, and I lose my power to be involved in the process in any way, including ways that can help our own.

[ofthursday]

Can you not remove yourself for conflict of interest?

[He's not that well versed on that aspect of law either, but he's heard of something like that. He can't argue with the first part of Diego's comment, though he finds it irritating that this seems to have more priority than the investigation regarding the hunt had.]