One line in a federal law from 1866 makes it basically impossible to prosecute killer cops


#1

[Read the post]


#2

I think this is one scenario where I feel like the NRA logic is actually correct: laws don’t let cops off scot free, people do.

Prosecutors work with police, so they don’t want to make their own lives more difficult, much less find themselves pulled over every time they leave the house. Often times, prosecutors are related to cops. Prior to the advent of plentiful cameras in the hands of bystanders, the only witnesses to many police atrocities were other cops who won’t testify against their partners and brothers in arms.

The rare cases in which cops get prosecuted these days are when the available evidence is clear and damning to the point that the police can’t viably defend the officer. If there’s much of any doubt due to the camera not being pointed at the murder when it occurred or the suspect having shown any questionable behavior, the cops walk free, usually without trial, but they often beat charges if they’re presented.


#3

What amazes me is that more people don’t make killer cops lives unbearable. I know that it sounds very adversarial, wedge, us-vs-them, etc, but there are a lot more of us than there are of them. Be a real public servant and protect people, and we’ll probably let you be a cop. Murder people in our name, and you will certainly regret it. Seems fair to me!


#4

1866? Um, Ok…


#5

This is absolute nonsense, it has nothing to do with “prosecuting cops who murder people in the course of their duties.” If they murder someone, that’s a particular crime with particular elements and if they meet those elements you can prosecute for them. 18 USC 242 has nothing do do with the crime of murder, and doesn’t even have anything to do with cops; you could violate this statute by pretending to be a law-enforcement official, or pretending to have legal authority you actually don’t.

"A single amendment – changing the standard to “reckless disregard"
instead of “intent” – would put killer cops on the same footing as
anyone else who commits murder in the USA.”

Again, this is utter nonsense. Anyone else who commits murder in the USA can be charged with committing murder. When a cop commits murder, he can be charged with committing murder. That has nothing whatsoever to do with 18 USC 242.


#6

Isn’t this basically meaningless since these matters, such as murder charges are handled at the state level, not Federal level?


#7

Yes, this is about civil rights prosecutions, not murder charges. Federal civil rights charges are held to a higher standard of proof, not just for cops, but for everyone. An argument could be made that that’s unfair, but it would help to be clear what you were actually arguing about.


#8

Police forces that are predatory as a culture, as opposed to normal police forces that have some assholes like any other workforce, tend to function in historically proven patterns of aggression towards maligned and disenfranchised groups and living in somewhat isolated communities.

These techniques have been working since “Big Man” was the most common form of government. They will most likely continue to work in some form or other to some extent or other, gradually diminishing over time.

Ever see the film “Copland”? The premise isn’t fictitious, just the events and characters.


#9

The law doesn’t make it impossible, or even difficult, to prosecute cops who murder people under color of law. All laws concerning assault, injury, murder in any degree, etc., are still available to the prosecutor. The only thing you can’t do easily is prosecute for depriving the victim of their civil rights.


#11

I don’t care. Prosecute and convict.

If that law is a problem, lets take it out.


#12

Amendments are sacred*

*Except the 1st, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 15th


#13

Last night, those of us in Dallas saw the results of this lack of accountability, seeming disregard for the people, and the violence the police use with impunity. Eventually, the fringe will fight back in the only way available to them.


#14

#15

These days, it seems like it’s all the union concessions and organizational protectiveness that shields bad cops (and prosecutors, judges, etc) from facing justice in these situations.

BOTH body cameras in the Louisiana shooting “fell off”…AYFKM?

Cops, and cops involved in shootings, have an insane amount of leeway compared to the average citizen.

The scrutiny should be higher, not lower.


#16

Is that what’s being said? Do you have a link for that? Anecdotally, I heard that a large percentage of the Chicago PD’s bodycams have been disabled in one fashion or another, and this strikes me as a really easy thing to correct as the technology is either functional or it’s not.


#17

Here’s an article about the body cam issues.


#18

While I don’t disagree with the theme of your post or the message of that image, can we keep in mind that we still don’t know who the Dallas shooters were?

I’ve seen one witness claim that they heard cries of “white power!” during the attack.


#19

What does this have to do with the color of the shooter or their fringe affiliation? The fact is police were targeted and it doesn’t take much effort to understand why.


#20

If the shooters were white supremacists, the timing and location of the attack would suggest that the primary political target was the African-American community rather than the direct victims. And their motivation isn’t driven by “unaccountable police”, it’s driven by “unenslaved black people”.

Wait a few more hours before making assumptions about the shooter’s motivations; that’s all I’m asking.


#21

What a load of B.S. 12 cops shot 2 bystanders wounded with minor injuries. I’d call it a stretch of the imagination to say the target was the crowd. They fired from elevated locations and could have emptied in the the crowd if they wanted. It’s clear here that the police were the target and the recent murders committed by police as well as police around the nation being given a pass makes the reasoning abundantly clear to anyone not pushing false narratives.