Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW 18 USC 242

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.htm

    Summary:
    • Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
      The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
    TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
    • Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, 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 kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

  2. #2
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Yup, this has been bantied about for a little while now over on the Washington State forum. The fbi.gov version of it is now in my documents that I carry while carrying.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    It is perhaps more significant here since we WI cannot carry without risking harassment, extra-legal and under color of law.

    But I can't see the FBI getting involved, not least for them being sited in Milwaukee and working with State government to keep the natives quiet.

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Folks - criminal prosecutions are at the disretion of the government - rarely will this be done except under unusual circumstances, like after the failure of the Calif. authorities to get a conviction against the police officers who beat up Rodney King some years ago.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Somewhere I recently saw an analysis, on a .gov site, indicating that the civil rights prosecution of an individual might be criminal but that the prosecution of an organization would be civil.

    I'll trackback and maybe edit it in...

    ETA: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/faq.htm

    U.S. Department of Justice
    Civil Rights Division
    Criminal Section Frequently Asked Questions
    What are the differences between a civil and a criminal civil rights violation?
    If there is no violence or threat of violence, whom should I contact?
    What do I do when my civil rights have been violated, and can I make a complaint on behalf of someone else? Must it be in writing?
    Is there a cost involved in making a complaint?
    What help can I receive if I am a victim whose civil rights have been violated?
    Can a victim receive monetary compensation as the result of a criminal case?
    Will the federal government represent me in a lawsuit against the defendant?
    Do all federal criminal civil rights violations require racial, religious, or ethnic hatred? If not, what does "color of law" mean?
    Q. What are the differences between a civil and a criminal civil rights violation?
    A. A criminal violation requires the use or threat of force. Other distinctions between criminal and civil cases brought by the Government are:
    CRIMINAL CIVIL Who is charged: Accused person Usually an organization Standard of proof: Beyond a reasonable doubt Preponderance of evidence Fact finder: Jury Judge Victim: Identified individuals Individuals and/or representatives of a group or class Remedy sought: Prison, fine, restitution, community service Correct policies and practices, relief for individuals Govt's right to appeal: Very limited Yes
    Criminal cases are investigated and prosecuted differently from civil cases. More and stronger evidence is needed to obtain a criminal conviction than to win a civil suit. Should the defendant be acquitted, the Government has no right of appeal. A federal criminal conviction also requires a unanimous decision by 12 jurors (or by a judge only if the defendant chooses not to have a jury). Civil cases are usually heard by a judge, but occasionally a jury will decide the case. Both criminal and civil cases can be resolved without a trial where both sides agree and with the concurrence of the judge; this is done by a plea agreement in a criminal case and by a consent decree in a civil suit. In criminal cases, judges must use the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in determining the defendant's punishment, whereas judges in civil suits may or may not adopt remedies as recommended by the Government when it wins.

    It didn't cut and paste well. Follow the links above.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    As the old saying goes "your rights end where someone elses rights begin". You can walk around swinging your fists if you want to, but it is only illegal when your fist unjustly meets the face of another person.

    I don't think that private businesses should be able to tell people that they can't carry a gun on their property since it is a clear violation of the gun owners rights.

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    You may be wanting to check out Title 42 USC Section 1983: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...2&sec=1983

    Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
    Code:
          Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
    regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
    District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
    citizen of the United States or other person within the
    jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
    or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
    to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
    proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
    against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
    officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
    unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
    unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
    applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
    considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.


  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Or...you can walk around being as offensive (swinging fists) as you will but it is only wrong ('illegal') when you offend another person (his nose)? Private property rights trumps another's. What other sort of business (other than 'private business') is there.

    An antonym of 'private' is 'public.' What is a 'public' business and what rights might be in play there?

    Another antonym of 'private' is 'open'.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    A 'judicial officer' is a judge and not a 'law enforcement officer.' An LEO is an 'officer of the court' over which a judge may preside.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    A 'judicial officer' is a judge and not a 'law enforcement officer.' An LEO is an 'officer of the court' over which a judge may preside.
    Correct, judicial officers have absolute immunity, and officers of the court have qualified immunity.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •