TexasCHLforum.com

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

b322da wrote:

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

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.

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

b322da wrote:

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 case," within the general meaning of the term.
Jim

You are correct. I was referring to when the Federal government brought criminal charges of Civil Rights violations against the LAPD officers after they were acquitted by the jury.

LEO's seem have a double-standard when it comes to dogs:

Shoot one of theirs, and you will be charged with something close to shooting a human officer.

If they shoot one of ours, who we also consider close to human, little recourse.