A Diamondhead man who shot an off-duty police officer in the shoulder after the officer tried to stop his wife for a possible traffic violation won’t face charges, the Garland County prosecuting attorney said. [More]You mean he was following official free citizens protocol and got away with it?
There's got to be a lot more to this story--it sounds like a case of out-of-control road rage from someone used to having his "authoritah" instantly produce cringing obeisance.
It also sounds like, if they rejected the "Only One's" story and did not prosecute the citizen, that he lied to an official police investigation.
It sounds like he should not only be fired, he should be prosecuted.
Unless what we're seeing is another example of that old double standard...
[Via Harvey]
4 comments:
Entsminger worked part time for the gated community’s police department.
A security guard, in other words, sworn or not, off-duty and in plain clothes and his unmarked personal vehicle. If he was so troubled, he should have called the local police. And that goes for real police officers in similar circumstances too. Nobody needs to be "on the job" every hour of their life.
Very encouraging that the citizen dealing with an apparent threat isn't being jammed.
Interesting quote from the article about why Officer Ensminger won't be prosecuted:
(Prosecutor Steve) Oliver also noted Ensminger wouldn’t be charged because he “acted with the belief he was justified under the color of the law.”
Hmm . . . "under color of the law."
So a police officer violating citzens' rights (and violating them badly enough that shooting him is seen, even by the "authoritahs," as justified) isn't illegal if he's acting under the color of the law?
I kinda thought that the whole point of the term "color of the law" is to describe an abuse of laws, and an illegal deprivation of rights.
Wikipedia seems to agree:
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law. For example, though a police officer acts with the "color of law" authority to arrest someone, if such an arrest is made without probable cause the arrest may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the 'color of law', that does not mean that the action was lawful. When police act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the United States Constitution to construct laws regulating the actions of the law enforcement community. Under 'color of law', it is a crime for one or more persons using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, state or federal), to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Enforcement of 'color of law' does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed. Criminal acts under color of law include acts within and beyond the bounds or limits of lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may also be covered if official status is asserted in some manner. Color of law may include forced vaccinations for school aged children under threat of expulsion or placing the childs' parents under arrest where no law exists to do so. Color of law may include public officials and non-governmental employees who are not law enforcement officers such as judges, prosecutors, and private security guards. Furthermore, in many states it is unlawful to falsely impersonate a police officer, a federal officer or employee, or any other public official or to use equipment used by law enforcement officers, such as flashing lights or a fake police badge. "Possession of a firearm also can enhance the penalty for false impersonation of a police officer."
Interesting quote from the article about why Officer Ensminger won't be prosecuted:
(Prosecutor Steve) Oliver also noted Ensminger wouldn’t be charged because he “acted with the belief he was justified under the color of the law.”
Hmm . . . "under color of the law."
So a police officer violating citzens' rights (and violating them badly enough that shooting him is seen, even by the "authoritahs," as justified) isn't illegal if he's acting under the color of the law?
I kinda thought that the whole point of the term "color of the law" is to describe an abuse of laws, and an illegal deprivation of rights.
Wikipedia seems to agree:
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law. For example, though a police officer acts with the "color of law" authority to arrest someone, if such an arrest is made without probable cause the arrest may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the 'color of law', that does not mean that the action was lawful. When police act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating.
There's more at the link. I wonder if the FBI is on this . . . (I don't really wonder that--I doubt it's a blip on their radar screen).
45superman makes a very interesting point.
I'm simply flabbergasted, quite pleasantly, that the defender wasn't charged, let alone summarily gunned down.
If righteous self defense was used, against a cop, and the other cops aren't pursuing charges against the defender, doesn't that necessitate assault charges against the cop? After all, most states don't consider lethal force justifiable as a defender unless in fear of immediate loss of life (or limb, etc.)
Post a Comment