Slightly tangential:

> He initially wanted to press charges because Granger’s act “violates the sanctity of the gallery,” but changed his mind

> Left: Graham Granger after his arraignment outside the court building

I was beginning to think "pressing charges" was a myth (popularised by TV shows like Law & Order) and this article didn't exactly change my mind about that.

Do US state attorneys actually give two shits about what the victim wants? Is it someone's job to read an email inbox and systematically approve/reject citizens' pressed charges? Do they even pretend to?

Ultimately there are some types of cases where if the victim does not want to cooperate, it isn't going to succeed.

Also, government attorneys can be elected officials. Spending time achieving nothing against a bunch of uncooperative screwball artists isn't going to be something to brag about on the campaign trail.

Usually the attorneys who handle this are not state level but county or city level. In general they have so many cases to handle that victims who don't want the case pursued will cause them to drop the case.

You don’t wanna leave it up to the victim all the time because that opens up for pressuring victims into dropping the charges and some victims will just drop charges because they are scared (people assaulted by their partner, mob-victims etc)

Participation of the victim makes prosecution easier. That's all pressing charges means, even if it isn't what many people understand it to be.