[grey_whiskers]

To prove a violation of § 242, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant deprived a victim of a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, (2) that the defendant acted willfully, and (3) that the defendant was acting under color of law. A violation of § 242 is a felony if one of the following conditions is met: the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use a dangerous weapon, explosive or fire; the victim suffered bodily injury; the defendant's actions included attempted murder, kidnapping or attempted kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or attempted aggravated sexual abuse, or the crime resulted in death. Otherwise, the violation is a misdemeanor.

Establishing the intent behind a Constitutional violation requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the law enforcement officer knew what he/she was doing was wrong and against the law and decided to do it anyway. Therefore, even if the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual's Constitutional right was violated, § 242 requires that the government prove that the law enforcement officer intended to engage in the unlawful conduct and that he/she did so knowing that it was wrong or unlawful. See Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 101-107 (1945). Mistake, fear, misperception, or even poor judgment does not constitute willful conduct prosecutable under the statute.

Uh huh. Nice.

Too bad he's been nailed on murder 3 and going down for that.

Qualified immunity doctrine does not protect you from a separate homicide rap.

Liar.

[woodpusher]

[grey_whiskers #269 to #267] Qualified immunity doctrine does not protect you from a separate homicide rap.

Liar.

You appear confused.

[grey_whiskers #262] And that is a question of "qualified immunity" -- everyone knows, and I've pointed it out myself on FR, that if you call 911, the police have zero, none, nada, duty whatsoever to respond in a timely fashion, or even to respond at all.

[Woodpusher #267] Madness. Qualified immunity only applies to CIVIL actions. We have not been discussing a George Floyd CIVIL action. Whatever you're babbling about is irrelevant to a criminal case. You do not know what you are talking about. "qualified immunity. (1877) Immunity from civil liability for a public official who is performing a discretionary function, as long as the conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights." Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed. Before slinging legal terminology around, look it up in a legal dictionary so you have a clue about what it means.

Qualified immunity does not protect anyone from any criminal charge. It protects against CIVIL liability, you cranky old fool.

From my #268 to which you purport to respond.

"qualified immunity. (1877) Immunity from civil liability for a public official who is performing a discretionary function, as long as the conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights." Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.

Does large print help with your condition?