How can they force people to walk around and tell all the neighbours that you are a &quot;registered sex offender&quot;? I've heard that people who are convicted as a "sex offender" (which is still very vague and cryptic to me) in the USA have to walk around and knock/ring on the doors of all their neighbours (it's unclear how "wide" it applies), and the same thing whenever they move, and wait for them to open and then say to them that they are a "convicted sex offender". That seems to be an invitation to get punched in the face or face more subtle harassment "down the line". Can they really force people to do that? How do they know that they actually do it? Do they take their word for it? Do the cops stand behind them looking dangerous, as to prevent immediate physical danger for the "sex offender"? Do they randomly call some the neighbours a week later to check if the guy has been there and said that? I just cannot imagine ever doing this myself, unless I have a gun pointed to my head or something. Yet it's said so casually like it's a "minor slap on the wrist" or something, when in reality, it's an extremely dangerous (not just humiliating) thing to be forced to do. Especially if this still must be done after a prison sentence, it seems like pure sadism to me.
The "how" part is, get the legislature to pass a law. LA. REV. STAT. ANN 15:542.1 says Any adult residing in this state who has pled guilty to, has been convicted of, or where adjudication has been deferred or withheld for the perpetration or attempted perpetration of, or conspiracy to commit, a sex offense as defined in R.S. 15:541 or a criminal offense against a minor as defined in R.S. 15:541 shall be required to provide the following notifications (1) Give notice of the crime for which he was convicted, his name, residential address, a description of his physical characteristics as provided in R.S. 15:542(C)(1), and a photograph or copy thereof to all of the following: (a) At least one person in every residence or business within a one-mile radius in a rural area and a three-tenths of a mile radius in an urban or suburban area of the address of the residence where the offender will reside upon release, including all adults residing in the residence of the offender Also, school superintendents, landlords, park superintendents. The law does not require ringing doorbells. The police do not actually follow convicts to make sure they do it. You would have to contact police and convicts who have some experience with this to know how it works practically: the law is what it is.
The General Rule: The Prosecutor And Not The Crime Victim Decides You are correct that this is mostly wrong. Pressing charges is something that happens. But, this simply consists of making a report to law enforcement about an incident and asking that the prosecutor either directly, or indirectly through a request directed to the law enforcement officer to whom a report is made, to pursue criminal charges in the case. But, this request has no binding or legal effect, even though many law enforcement agencies and prosecutors offices have a formal or informal unwritten policy of honoring a crime reporting victim's wishes whenever possible. In the United States, a prosecutor can commence a criminal case against someone without consulting a victim of a crime, or over the objections of the victim of the crime, and can even (and sometimes does) incarcerate the victim of the crime to force the victim to testify against a criminal defendant (this most often happens in cases of statutory rape, domestic violence and cases involving organized crime or gangs). Likewise, a prosecutor (in the United States) can choose to decline to prosecute a criminal case despite irrefutable evidence tied up with a bow and the pleas of the victim and lots of other members of the general public. (Not all countries are like this. For example, in Germany, some crimes can only be prosecuted with the victim's consent, and within reason a prosecutor is required to prosecute every case in which there is clear evidence that a crime was committed and the victim's consent, if necessary, is present. While Germany is something of an extreme case, it is much closer to the norm than the U.S. is in countries that do not have a common law legal tradition, while the U.S., while an extreme case, is closer to the norm of countries in the common law tradition of British law.) A crime victim's wishes aren't entirely irrelevant in practice. Many states have a &quot;victim's bill of rights&quot; that requires a prosecutor to confer with a victim when possible over whether a criminal case will be commenced against a defendant, and in practice, many prosecutors in ordinary type cases come to think of the victims of crimes, rather than &quot;the People&quot; as their client, even though that isn't technically correct from a legal perspective. Most of the time, a crime victim's wishes will be respected by prosecutors whether conveyed directly to a prosecutor, or indirectly through a law enforcement officer. But, nothing requires either a law enforcement officer or a prosecutor to do so. Law enforcement officers in some ways have even more discretion than prosecutors do and simply don't pass on information about myriad crimes that they have knowledge of and could prove, every day. But, prosecutors can choose to disagree with a law enforcement officer's exercise of discretion when they do know about an incident, either by declining to prosecute a crime, or by prosecuting a crime that law enforcement officers didn't want to prosecute. And, law enforcement officers as a matter of practical reality can be forced by prosecutors to execute search warrants and arrest warrants. Also, it is true that when neither law enforcement or prosecutors know a crime has been committed that they can't prosecute it, and usually, the way that they learn of a crime is that a crime victim reports the crime to law enforcement. The decision to report or not report a crime not known to law enforcement is, in practice, what &quot;pressing charges&quot; or &quot;not pressing charges&quot; usually means and this does, in practice, constitute a veto power over further criminal proceedings arising from an incident, even though the language used implies a more formal step in a legal process than it does. Exceptions To The General Rule N.B. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there are a few exceptions to the general rule. A handful of U.S. states, so far as I know, all on the East Coast (and also England and South Africa), allow individuals who are crime victims to directly commence the prosecution of minor crimes in a court of law without the intervention of law enforcement or a prosecutor, or grand jury, often without an attorney. Usually, if this is done, the prosecuting attorney's office can take over the case from the private individual litigant if they choose to do so. A discussion of the historical practice with case citations can be found here. In the roughly half of U.S. states and in the federal system, where felony criminal charges must be brought via a grand jury indictment before they can be tried, a so called &quot;runaway grand jury&quot; can bring criminal charges that the prosecutor has a duty to make a good faith effort to prosecute, without the request of the prosecutor convening the grand jury. For example, in a recent Alabama case, prosecutors went to a grand jury seeking felony charges against someone who shot a pregnant woman, and the grand jury decided to indict the woman who was shot for manslaughter on the theory that she caused the death of her unborn child by starting a fight that led to the shooting. The prosecutor's office once it had control of the case, and had observed the public outrage over the decision, then dismissed those charges. There are a few states where a crime victim who is dissatisfied with a prosecutor or law enforcement officer's exercise of discretion can apply to a court to have a disinterested and uninvolved attorney appointed as a special prosecutor to review the facts of an alleged crime and decide independently regarding whether criminal charges should be pressed in a case where law enforcement and the prosecutor's office declined to do so. This is most frequently invoked when the alleged perpetrator of the crime is connected to law enforcement or the prosecutor's office. Also, just become a prosecutor declines to bring a criminal case despite a crime victim's desire to &quot;press charges&quot;, this doesn't mean that the victim can't sue the person who committed the crime for money damages (including punitive damages in many cases) from the same conduct that constituted the crime. In big dollar cases involving fraud or theft from a small number of affluent victims (a kind of case I frequently handle in my law practice), this happens all the time.
There is, in most countries at least, no law requiring a business to treat a customer fairly. In general, a business may refuse to serve a would-be customer for any reason or none, provided that the reason is not membership in a protected class (racial, religious, ethnic, or sexual bias, mostly). Exactly which classes are protected depends on the local law (in the US, there can be such laws at all of federal, state, and municipal levels). If a customer is asked to leave and does not do so, s/he could be charged with defiant trespass (or local equivalent). More likely, security, or the police, could simply escort the customer out of the business, using as much force as is reasonably needed for that purpose. Unless there are grounds for action not mentioned, I see no basis for a successful suit by the customer.
Your question is very broad, but yes, there innumerable ways that the actions of a victim/complainant can result in a not-guilty verdict. I'll list some. Contemporaneous consent to contact. If the victim/complainant consented to the contact, then the offence of assault or sexual assault will not have been committed. Self-defence. If the victim gave the accused reasonable grounds to believe that the victim was about to use force against the accused, then depending on the circumstances, it might not be an offence for the accused to take certain actions against the victim for the purpose of defending themself (the accused). The provocation defence that is based on conduct of the victim. See Criminal Code, s. 232, which can result in a not-guilty verdict for murder.
Considering that the US legal system is more or less similar in practice to the English Courts, yes it is possible to plea bargian a deal. I'm linking to the wikipedia article on the matter with a specific link to the England and Wales for guidence. Normally, I'd explain, but I'm an American and the differences between Magistrate and Crown courts are big enough differences that I can't tell you what the differences in the case is. I should point out this is a legal area where America differences with much of the world. 90% of the United States criminal cases (and a good number of civil cases, which are settled privately before discovery phase) are plea bargained to lesser sentences. Additionally remorse has nothing to do with the plea bargain. You might only be sorry that you got caught breaking the law and can still plea. The lighter sentence is sort of a "thank you" for saving the state money in not having to build their case against you. It is also used to coerce cooperation with the police, as they may have the accused dead to rights and can prosecute him successfully, but he's a little fish who can give intel to a big fish (this usually comes with the caveat of it being a sworn statement, so they can still prosecute you for something if you're lying... OR that the deal holds on condition that everything is factually true. If evidence contradicts you, you're charged as if you never made a deal). It's also important to note that the police will not honor their deals made for your confession... but they will offer you deals (In the United States, police are allowed to lie to you and do it all the time). However, the prosecutor will honor their deals. Another thing to be aware of is that a prosecutor who offers a plea could be doing so because they have a weak case. If you are absolutely sure the prosecutor has the wrong guy, it may be to your benefit to go to trial and have them prove it. Innocent people do go to jail all the time because they think there is something worse on them than the plea deal and its hard to fight off as you cannot appeal a plea deal as easily as a court conviction. Finally, most jurisdictions allow the judge final say at sentencing, so if the prosecutor does honor the deal and advises the sentence, don't get upset if the judge is tougher and gives you a harsher sentence on the crime, or rejects your plea outright (expect him to scold the prosecutor for wasting his time with a horrible deal, too. Watch the Law and Order SVU episode Raw for a particularly wonderful instance of this rare event occurring). As a part of US federalism, the rules about this change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so make sure you understand this. Another thing to be aware of is that a prosecutor who offers a plea could be doing so because they have a weak case. If you are absolutely sure the prosecutor has the wrong guy, it may be to your benefit to go to trial and have them prove it. Innocent people do go to jail all the time because they think there is something worse on them than the plea deal and its hard to fight off as you cannot appeal a plea deal as easily as a court conviction. I would definitely do some leg work into the English Legal system's opinions on plea bargains. Just because they have it does not mean the state lawyers like employing it and many jurisdictions see it as full on corruption in other parts of the world, even the Common Law jurisdictions.
Police officers are authorized to use force regardless of what they are wearing, to effect an arrest. One issue will be whether the defendants should know that they were under arrest, but there is no requirement to utter particular phrases when dealing with a combative lawbreaker. There will be an internal investigation at some level to determine whether the officers violated any department policy, and no doubt the video and testimony of those in the are would be relevant. There probably is some policy to the effect that you have to distinguish yourself from a street vigilante (you have to state your authority), though I can't find any specific online publicly-available department rules. There is no law that requires an officer to say that he is one, or to show his badge, before starting an arrest.
The first thing it depends on is where you live. The US has no law requiring niceness, but perhaps niceness-enforcement exists somewhere in the world. The second thing it depends on is exactly what he does, where and how. If he comes into people's houses uninvited and starts harassing them, that is generally a crime. If he makes nasty remarks to people walking down the street, you can't even sue him. If the person commits in a crime, you can report him anonymously. However, for there to be any prosecution, someone will have to testify in court: anonymous criminal testimony is inadmissible in the US. If there is no crime, just a potential civil action, the part would hire an attorney to file a complaint, etc. and that party would be named (not anonymous), would have to testify, and would also have to have been harmed. The police will not get involved in a civil dispute. Based just on what you have said here, your attorney would very likely say that there is no case to be pursued, and your only solution is to ignore him.
There is pretty much never a right to retaliate against harm to oneself, even blatantly unlawful harm. There is a right to defend oneself and others. One can use force to stop someone from inflicting unlawful or unjustified harm, or to prevent someone from inflicting such harm when the harm is imminent. One is not permitted to use more force than is "reasonably required" under the actual circumstances. This is true in pretty much every jurisdiction that i know of. The details on how much force will be considered "reasonable" will vary. In some jurisdictions there is, under some circumstances, a s"duty to retreat". This generally means that if a person attacked can avoid the harm by fleeing with reasonable safety, that person must do so rather than using force in self-defense. In some jurisdictions this "duty to retreat" applies id the victim is attacked in public, but not in the victim's own home. The right to self defense does not apply when the "attacker" is an agent of the state acting lawfully. For example, a prison guard taking a condemned prisoner to a death sentence cannot be attacked on the grounds that the prisoner is engaging in self defense. In theory a police officer engaging an excessive force, particularly unjustified deadly force, may be resisted in self-defense. But courts are quite reluctant to find such resistance justified in practice. There generally must be very clear evidence of egregious misconduct for the court to rule for the non-police person in such a case. Note that "self" defense can equally be defense of another person. Pretty much all the same rules apply. Self defense applies no matter who the attacker is, but that force is reasonable may vary depending on the attacker. Only such force as is reasonably required to stop or prevent the harm may be used with a justification of self-defense.