TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote: Is this the law used in the Rodney King civil trial? I seem to remember that the prosecutor had to show that more than one officer was involved.

I'm not all that familiar with the ins and outs of that case, WildBill. In the federal civil rights case only two of the four LEO defendants were convicted, and this may well have been the statute involved, accounting for the split verdict. But I really do not know for sure.

As a collateral matter, you would be correct if you were to assume that it is generally easier to convict of a conspiracy charge than of the completed offense.

If when you use the words "civil trial" you mean the civil case King brought against LA County, as contrasted with the prior criminal case, the answer to your question would be, I would think, in the negative. That is, the criminal trial was not a "civil trial," within the general meaning of that term.
Jim

WildBill wrote: This is interesting. So it would be legal for one person to injure, oppress, etc. ?

Incorrect, WildBill, but a good question, leading to a little more analysis of the law.

As an example of a federal statute apparently applicable to the situation described by TAM I have offered a "conspiracy" statute. In general, one does not conspire with himself. TAM had more than one bad cop involved in this shocking situation. One need not succeed in the object of a criminal conspiracy in order to be guilty of the conspiracy itself.

Had the homeowner sent the LEOs on their way, then to have had them follow through with their unlawful threats at a later date, we would have been faced with a whole new criminal law ballgame.

Jim

AM,

Sorry I am late, but I have been rather sickly lately.

Looks like you finally got responsive replies, but I had to go to the end of the thread to find them. Perhaps I might be a bit more responsive by citing a specific federal statute prohibiting conduct like this. I am no longer an LEO, but I was for many years, and I have been exposed to the criminal law, including the particular statute, in other employment for most of my life.

Gross police misconduct like this in my opinion amounts at least to violation of 18 U. S. Code , Sec. 241:

"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

Of course the right secured to that homeowner is the 4th Amendment to our Constitution. I would think that the prospective punishment under the quoted statute would give a good lesson to other bullies with badges and their entire departments.

I will further observe that if we strictly limit ourselves to the facts as you originally stated them, any idea that hot pursuit might justify this conduct has been generated out of whole cloth. Contrary to some suggestions, I would suggest that this conduct is clearly unlawful. Lastly, any suggestion that the 4th Amendment protects a lawyer but not a drug dealer is the kind of thinking which so often leads to police misconduct.

Jim