{1/6/2020 | GWRUSS] - Detective TAFFEE Decision: DENIED The Kalamazoo County Prosecuting Attorney's Office declined to authorize criminal charges against this suspect for the following reason(s): Testimony and circumstances Insufficient to establish 2 necessary element of crime. POPS has completed their investigation which included interviews of the accused, his mother and an inteview by Vicksburg PD of the person that the accused sent the video in question to originally. The video has been watched repeatedly by individuals at the OPA and POPS. PDPS has conducted a search of the accused's school issued Chrome notebook for any evidence that would assist in determining the accused's intent behind the video, Any and all firearms (including the Airsoft pistol used in the video) have been tured over by the accused's mother to POPS. A search warrant submitted to a judicial official requesting the authorization of a search warrant of the accused personal electronic devices incluidng a phone was denied by the judicial official There is no question that the video contains offensive language involving racial slurs and that a gun is pointed at the camera, The accused hes admitted to sending the video to a small group of friends and that the video was to be deleted by those individuals. Defendant and the witness interviewd have both indicated there was no cirminal intent behind the video, no threats towards any one individual or educational institution were intended behind the video, In reviewing the charging request the following charges were requested by POPS: (1) Ethnic Intimidation, MCL 750.1478 and (2) Schools-Intentional Threat, MCL 750.235B1. In addition to those ‘two requested charges, the OPA also looked at Cyberbullying, MCL 750.411x. The statutes regarding the three crimes and any connecting statutes were reviewed. Case faw regarding Ethnic intimidation was reviewed, Jury instructions which provide the trier of fact with the law were reviewed. No case law was found regarding Schools—Intentional Threat or Cyberbullying. ‘The cases involving Ethnic Intimidation reviewed were People v Richards, 202 Mich App 377 (2005), People v Stevens, 230 Mich App 502 (2005) and Peopie v Schutter, 265 Mich App 423 (2005). All three of those cases involved individuals to whom racial slurs were directed as well as physical attacks or ‘threats against those particular individuals.‘The three possible charges mentioned above all require a threat against a person. The evidence resented in this case shows that the accused did not name any one individual in his statements. Nor does the accused in his statements target or threaten any particular educational institution. The accused denied that his statements were intended to be a ‘threat intentionally made! (Schools-~ Intentional Threat) or ‘that he intended his message or statement to place the other person in fear of bodily harm or death’ (Cyberbullying). The accused and the one person who the accused has mentioned sending the statement or message to have both indicated there was no intent to communicate a threat or with the knowledge that it would be viewed as a threat. ‘The statement or message contains offensive language involving racial slurs and the presentation of a firearm or an item that could be reasonably viewed asa firearm. However, those words and actions in this situation as presented for review do not constitute criminal behavior under any of the possible charges reviewed by the OPA. There is no reasonable probability of conviction,