re: EBRP Deputy shot on O'Neal lane.

I'm not disputing any of that. I realize there were pleas & reduced charges in those prior cases. I'm asking you if you know the specifics of the circumstances as to WHY there was a need for those pleas & reduced charges, rather than the standard pat & most of the time incorrect & inaccurate assumption that prosecutors were padding their conviction records & the DA wanted convictions by any means due to political reasons, regardless of the seriousness of the crimes. If you do know the circumstances surrounding the plea deals & reduced charges & have factual information concerning WHY there was a need for them such as those I described in my previous post, which are the most common reasons for deals & reduced charges, please elaborate.

As I said earlier, the prosecution has to go to trial with the evidence they've been given through the investigation, and if the case they've got is as good as it's going to get, even though it might be lacking in direct evidence (forensics), is mostly circumstantial which leaves room for a jury to hang their hat on 'reasonable' doubt if they're so inclined; has not so great witnesses due to credibility issues (most witnesses in these cases do not come from the convent or monastery & many have criminal records themselves & are proven liars); has a jury which is generally sympathetic to defendants & is anti-law enforcement/judicial system; and/or has a liberal judge who sides with the defense in every ruling, particularly in evidentiary matters which many times negates some of the prosecution's best evidence because the judge deems it inadmissible due to whatever technicality can be applied, "prejudicial" being a popular one, the DA/prosecutors many times decide it's better to at least get a felony conviction & prison sentence through a plea deal rather than take the chance of an acquittal, in which case there is no trying the perpetrator again.

Prosecutors only have one shot at trial, so if there was no plea bargaining, there would be a shite ton more serious violent criminals on the street. Most of the time, prosecutors must go with the shitty option of having to deal to be ensured of any conviction & prison sentence at all. No doubt, it is an undesirable option to allow criminals to plea to lesser charges with lighter sentences than are deserved/warranted, but if it is a choice between that & the criminal getting a walk, which is more likely these days than at any other time in judicial history due to many factors, one being juries these days practically demanding irrefutable DNA & video evidence, the prosecutors have to go with the lesser of two evils & make the deal, as shitty of an option it may be.

My point is that the vast majority of DA's offices & prosecutors make these decisions due to necessity, not as an attempt to gain more convictions at any cost due to politics. Prosecutors are the "voice" & advocates for the victims of violent crimes & their families; most of them don't take that lightly & try to get as much 'justice' for them as possible. And most of the time, particularly in violent crimes, if there is a plea, it is explained to the victims and/or their families whose opinions are taken into account when making the decision.