3 ms·

Per the DOJ, there's also this: >An officer who purposefully allows a fellow officer to violate a victim's Constitutional rights may be prosecuted for failure

Per the DOJ, there's also this: >An officer who purposefully allows a fellow officer to violate a victim's Constitutional rights may be prosecuted for failure to intervene to stop the Constitutional violation. >To prosecute such an officer, the government must show that the defendant officer was aware of the Constitutional violation, had an opportunity to intervene, and chose not to do so.

direwolf20 9mo ago
Who represents the government in these cases?
- mothballed 9mo ago
  The government prosecutes the government and is judged by the government and a jury screened under voir dire by two government lawyers? Kind of like when a robber comes to your house, you have him arrested, and when you go to court you look up and he is the one swinging the gavel. Of course, interesting the cop has to know there is a constitution violation. Somehow ignorance of the law is always an excuse for the cops but the citizenry must know all 190,000 pages of federal regulations and 300,000+ laws and by god if they forgot one they are fucked.
- cogman10 9mo ago
  Generally speaking, the way it's supposed to work is the local prosecutors will start the process. That, unfortunately, isn't something they like to do because they have to work with police departments. If they fail to do their job, theoretically the next step is that the FBI gets involved. But, doesn't seem like today's FBI is doing much beyond prosecuting Trump's political enemies. This is the reason why I've long believed we need a check both federal and local to police that is completely divorced from regular prosecution. We need lawyers/investigators whose sole purpose is investigating and prosecuting police at pretty much all levels of the government. The federal government theoretically has that with the office of inspectors general.
jshier 9mo ago
Unfortunately the courts have repeated ruled that "aware of the Constitutional violation" means knowing that the exact action being observed had previously been ruled a violation of Constitutional rights. It's essentially impossible to prove, which is one of the reasons we don't see that offense prosecuted.
- JasonADrury 9mo ago
  In the Chauvin case all three of the bystanders were sent to prison by federal courts specifically for civil rights violations stemming from their failure to intervene as Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd in front of them.
  - jshier 9mo ago
    Exception that proves that rule. It took national protests over months, during COVID, to drive that case through to conviction.
  - alistairSH 9mo ago
    QI applies to civil cases. IIRC, Chauvin didn’t face a civil case and was not made to pay damages for violations of anybody’s rights. Nor did the other officers. If a cop violates your rights, you just have to pray the DA will prosecute criminal charges. But you still won’t get an monetary damages from the cop. You might talk the state into settling.
    - komali2 9mo ago
      > you just have to pray the DA will prosecute criminal charges. Cynically this probably only happened in the Chauvin case because the state would have been burned to the ground otherwise. Maybe folks need to get in the street more...

direwolf20 9mo ago

Who represents the government in these cases?

mothballed 9mo ago
The government prosecutes the government and is judged by the government and a jury screened under voir dire by two government lawyers? Kind of like when a robber comes to your house, you have him arrested, and when you go to court you look up and he is the one swinging the gavel. Of course, interesting the cop has to know there is a constitution violation. Somehow ignorance of the law is always an excuse for the cops but the citizenry must know all 190,000 pages of federal regulations and 300,000+ laws and by god if they forgot one they are fucked.
cogman10 9mo ago
Generally speaking, the way it's supposed to work is the local prosecutors will start the process. That, unfortunately, isn't something they like to do because they have to work with police departments. If they fail to do their job, theoretically the next step is that the FBI gets involved. But, doesn't seem like today's FBI is doing much beyond prosecuting Trump's political enemies. This is the reason why I've long believed we need a check both federal and local to police that is completely divorced from regular prosecution. We need lawyers/investigators whose sole purpose is investigating and prosecuting police at pretty much all levels of the government. The federal government theoretically has that with the office of inspectors general.

jshier 9mo ago

Unfortunately the courts have repeated ruled that "aware of the Constitutional violation" means knowing that the exact action being observed had previously been ruled a violation of Constitutional rights. It's essentially impossible to prove, which is one of the reasons we don't see that offense prosecuted.

JasonADrury 9mo ago
In the Chauvin case all three of the bystanders were sent to prison by federal courts specifically for civil rights violations stemming from their failure to intervene as Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd in front of them.
- jshier 9mo ago
  Exception that proves that rule. It took national protests over months, during COVID, to drive that case through to conviction.
- alistairSH 9mo ago
  QI applies to civil cases. IIRC, Chauvin didn’t face a civil case and was not made to pay damages for violations of anybody’s rights. Nor did the other officers. If a cop violates your rights, you just have to pray the DA will prosecute criminal charges. But you still won’t get an monetary damages from the cop. You might talk the state into settling.
  - komali2 9mo ago
    > you just have to pray the DA will prosecute criminal charges. Cynically this probably only happened in the Chauvin case because the state would have been burned to the ground otherwise. Maybe folks need to get in the street more...