■

おそらくは職を失ってるので、それに加えてさらに行政的な罰を与える必要まであるのかどうかを踏まえて、不起訴になるのは腑に落ちる所です。

例えば自営業で、行政的な罰を与えたところで、職を失わないようなら罰金でもいいでしょうけど。

Since he is probably losing his job, it is a clear point of non-prosecution based on whether or not it is even necessary to give him further administrative punishment.

For example, if you are self-employed and you don't lose your job when you are administratively punished, a fine would be fine.

逮捕と起訴は全くの別ものでは？

法に違反しているか、していないか。

不起訴になるような逮捕は不要。
多くの人に迷惑がかかる、と感じる人が多いはず。

Isn't arrest and prosecution two completely different things?

Is the law being violated or not?

There is no need for an arrest to be indictable.
Many people would feel that it would be inconvenient for many people.

故意に轢いたと認めなかった？　目撃者の証言に証拠能力が乏しかった？
裁判で勝てないと見込まれる案件は起訴しないパターン？

逆に、故意に轢いたと認め、目撃者の証言も有効と認められていても、それでも不起訴ということはあり得るのかな？
鳩と和解が成立するはずもないなか。

タクシー運転手不足が影響した？　まさか。。

Did he not admit that he intentionally ran over the victim?　Witness testimony lacked probative value?
Is this a pattern of not prosecuting cases that are not expected to win at trial?

Conversely, is it possible to admit that you intentionally ran over someone and the witness' testimony is valid, but still not prosecute the case?
While there is no way that a settlement can be reached with the pigeons.

Was the shortage of cab drivers a factor?　No way.

ていうか警視庁も人ではなくて鳩を轢いたくらいで逮捕するとか起訴とかってよっぽど暇を持て余しているのか??
今までに同じくらいの事案あったのか??
不思議でならない。

I mean, does the Metropolitan Police Department have too much time on their hands to arrest and prosecute someone for running over a pigeon instead of a person?
Has there ever been a case of the same magnitude?
I can't help but wonder.

結局不起訴かよ。
警察が何かしら狙いがあって逮捕したものの、検察的には時間の無駄ってことだったのかな。

So the case was dropped after all.
I guess the police had some kind of aim in making the arrest, but from the prosecutor's point of view, it was a waste of time.

ド素人だけどあたり前田のなんとか、限界集落じゃなく場所は歌舞伎町なんかがある東京都の新宿、糞忙しいのに検察は何がやりたかったの？税金の無駄。

I know I'm an amateur, but what did the DA want to do in Shinjuku, Tokyo, not a marginalized area but a place where Kabukicho is located, and it's a busy shithole? Waste of taxpayer money.

この人が轢いたのは鳩だけど逮捕された。一方で上級国民なら人を轢き殺しても逮捕されない。
池袋の件では怪我をしていたからすぐに逮捕されないのは仕方ないと思っていた（結局は逮捕されなかった）けど、元首相親族の元アナウンサーの場合はどうなのかなと思っていた。
この不公平さは何なんだよと思う。

This person ran over a pigeon, but he was arrested. On the other hand, if you are a senior citizen, you can run over someone and not be arrested.
In the Ikebukuro case, I thought it was inevitable that he wasn't arrested right away because he was injured (he wasn't arrested after all), but I was wondering what about the case of the former announcer who is a relative of the former prime minister.
I wonder what this unfairness is.

人間が一番って人間が殆どだから、鳩くらいって事なんだろう。仕方ないが、故意に轢いても不起訴なら、これからもこういった事案が増えるかもね。
ムカついたから動物に危害加えるとかね。

Most people think humans are the best, so I guess that means they're just pigeons. It can't be helped, but if the prosecution is not filed even if the person intentionally ran over the animal, there will probably be more cases like this in the future.
People will be pissed off, so they will harm animals.

バス運転手です。この人は意図的に加速（しかもスピード違反）してハト轢いたのは事実みたいだが、最近の鳥はホント図々しいです。私なんか仕事中に出くわしたら、わざとマイクで「危ねーな、次会ったら焼き鳥にしてやる」と言ってます

Bus driver. It seems to be true that this person intentionally accelerated (and was speeding) and hit a pigeon, but birds these days are really brazen. If I run into one at work, I intentionally say into the microphone, "That was dangerous, next time I see you, I'm going to roast you.

見ていた人によると、多くの鳩がいるにもかかわらず、速度を落とすことなく突っ込んでいったとありました、何故不起訴なのかその訳を公表するべきだと思います。相手が動物である場合軽く見られる傾向があるようです。
呉市での、野良猫を捕獲し、解体して食べていた事件も不起訴になりました。何度も叩き、刺し痙攣している猫の動画を投稿していたにもかかわらずです。事件を知り直後に動画を見ましたが、最後まで見ることはできませんでした。何のために、法律があるのかと思います。警察の捜査が怠慢でないことの証明でもあります。不起訴の場合理由を公表すべき。

According to a person who was watching the incident, the driver ran into the pigeon without slowing down in spite of the many pigeons present. It seems that people tend to take animals lightly.
The case in Kure City, where a stray cat was captured, dismembered, and eaten, was also not prosecuted. This was despite the fact that he had posted a video of a cat that had been repeatedly beaten, stabbed, and convulsed. I watched the video shortly after learning of the incident, but could not watch it all the way through. I wonder what the law is for. It proves that the police are not negligent in their investigation. If the case is not prosecuted, the reasons should be made public.

不起訴処分ということは、逮捕はしたものの故意だったという客観的な証拠がなく(又は乏しく)有罪にできない。
もしくは、現行の法律的には微罪にも関わらず名前まで報道され既に社会的制裁を十分受けているので、裁判になっても情状酌量で量刑が減刑され無罪扱いとなる可能性が高いから、というところでしょうか。

The indictment means that although the arrest was made, there is no (or little) objective evidence that the arrest was intentional, and therefore the person cannot be convicted.
Or, the suspect's name has already been reported and he/she has already been socially sanctioned, even though it is a minor offense under the current law, so even if the case goes to trial, there is a high possibility that the sentence will be reduced due to extenuating circumstances and the suspect will be found not guilty.

これ、通報した人も大げさっていうと変な言い方になっちゃうが、どんだけ動物に対して神経質なんだろうなぁ。鳩ははっきり言って「害鳥」だよ。増えすぎて糞の被害とかたまったものじゃない。不起訴になったことはひとまず安堵だろうが、顔までテレビで晒されちゃっているからなぁ。気の毒なところも正直ある。鳩の増えすぎはエサやりしているほうが問題だろう。そういう人をどうにかすべきだと私は思う。

It sounds strange to say that the person who reported this is overreacting, but I wonder how nervous they are about animals. Pigeons are clearly a "harmful bird". The number of pigeons has increased to such an extent that they cause a lot of fecal damage. I guess it's a relief that the case was dropped, but his face was even shown on TV. To be honest, I feel sorry for him. The problem with an overabundance of pigeons is the people feeding them. I think something should be done about those people.

コレが起訴されたらそれこそもうこの世が終わりな気がするよ。避けて事故でも起訴、鳩轢いても起訴なんて地獄だ。待ってて後ろから追突される危険性もあるからなぁ。運転手に救いがある事を祈ります。

If this is prosecuted, I think it will be the end of the world. I'll be prosecuted even if I avoid an accident, and even if I run over a pigeon. I hope the driver will be saved. I hope the driver will be saved.

当たり前に感じるとか言ってるけど根本的に仕組みわかってないですよね？
起訴か不起訴は警察じゃなく検察の判断

警察が判断するのは検察に送検するかしないか

送検したということは警察の判断は罪に問うべきとの結論を出している

じゃあ何で検察が起訴しないかって言うとこれが不起訴理由で誤認逮捕（嫌疑なし）、そもそも罪に問えなかったり（罪とならず）黒だけど警察や検察で調べた証拠が裁判で有効とならない判断から有罪にできない場合（嫌疑不十分）や罪には問えるが軽すぎて裁判をやる必要性がない場合（起訴猶予）

この中で歴が残らないのは嫌疑なしと罪とならずで残りは逮捕含めて前歴として残ります。

嫌疑なしとかはよく目にすると思いますが不起訴理由を公表しないのはだいたい嫌疑なしとか誤認逮捕への警察への配慮でもあります。

You say it feels obvious, but you fundamentally don't understand how it works, do you?
Prosecution or non-prosecution is a decision made by the prosecutors, not the police.

The police decide whether to send the case to the prosecutor or not.

The police's decision to refer the case to the prosecutors means that the police have concluded that the case should be prosecuted.

The reason why the prosecutors don't prosecute is because they can't charge the accused with a crime (no suspicion), or they can't charge him with a crime in the first place (no crime), or he is black but the evidence examined by the police and prosecutors is not valid enough to convict him in a trial (insufficient suspicion), or he is chargeable but too minor to require a trial (deferred prosecution). (Deferred prosecution)

The remaining cases, including arrests, remain as prior convictions.

The rest of the record, including arrests, will remain. You may often see "no suspicion," but the reason for not announcing the reason for not filing charges is usually a consideration for the police in case of a false arrest or no suspicion.

動物愛護の観点からは確かに轢き殺すのは残酷ですが、刑事立件にまで及ぶような事案だったのでしょうか？時間と労力を掛けて不起訴処分なら、そもそも逮捕までする必要自体無かったのでは。

From an animal welfare standpoint, it is certainly cruel to run someone over, but was it a case that would have led to criminal charges? If the case was not prosecuted after all the time and effort, there would have been no need to arrest him in the first place.

証拠はドラレコに残ってるだろうけど、ひき殺す意思があったかどうかのところなのかな
逮捕時の自供では意思があった言っていても、法廷では一転ひき殺す意思はなかった、たまたまだ、を貫き通せばこうなるような気はする

I'm sure the evidence is still on the video camera, but I'm not sure if he intended to hit and kill the driver.
I think this is what would happen if he says he had the intention when he was arrested, but in court he says he didn't intend to hit and kill the driver, it was just a coincidence.