crimes against police

September 5, 2025

Law Enforcement Accountability

Are police accountable when misconduct occurs? Police have difficult jobs, there is no question about it. They deal with dangerous criminals and have to make weighty decisions in the blink of an eye. Monday-morning quarterbacking their decisions has become a national pastime for some, and they know they can expect cell phone footage to accompany effectively any police action. The gravity for good cops to serve and protect is phenomenal. But what about cops who are not-so-good? Anyone paying attention in the past five years or more has seen the videos and heard the tales of officers who brutalize their fellow citizens, often with little or no consequence for their actions. Why do so many cops, local and federal, get away with mishandling people with mental health disorders, people of color, juveniles, and other individuals who pose only minimal risk to the community or the officer? Many specialists on the subject believe that immunity and modern politics play a significant role.

Financial Accountability?

Officers sometimes face civil penalties for their actions. But one study demonstrated that more than 99% of the damages forked over to plaintiffs in lawsuits going back to the 1990s were not paid by the officers themselves, but by the government—meaning your tax dollars were at work protecting known rogue officers. Even in situations where officers were fired or were otherwise disciplined for misconduct, this is the case. Financial culpability is just not a reality for officers when they are found guilty of engaging in wrongful conduct, and history shows that to be true in cases ranging from obstruction of justice to actual murder charges. That is largely because of indemnity policies protecting officers.

July 25, 2017

New GOP Bill Would Make it Virtually Impossible to Sue the Police

by David M. Boertje

In the latest of the terrifying bills that have come out of our current Congress, Republicans in the House and Senate recently introduced two companion bills they are calling the Back the Blue Act of 2017, to keep up with the Trump Administration’s rhetoric of “law and order.” S.1134 was introduced by John Cornyn (R-Tex.), and is co-sponsored by 15 senators, all Republicans. H.R.2437 as introduced by Ted Poe (R-Tex.), and includes five co-sponsors, also all Republicans.

What the Bills do

The bills would create a new category of federal crimes for killing or attempting to kill a state or local law enforcement officer who works for a police agency that receives federal funding. It in effect treats all local police agencies as federal agencies because nearly all police agencies already receive some sort of federal funding. The bill would also allow for the federal death penalty in such cases, and it would impose limits on the ability of defendants to file habeas petitions in federal court after they have exhausted their appeals.

The bill would also make it a federal crime to “assault” any police officer, bringing a federal mandatory prison sentence of two to 10 years.

Additionally, the bills would allow a district attorney to overrule local officials if he or she did not like the way those officials were handling a case involving a police death. As it stands, the language of the proposed legislation explicitly authorizes federal prosecutions in cases where “the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively un-vindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.”

Qualified Immunity

It has always been the case that police actions are covered under qualified immunity, which means that in order for a victim’s lawsuit to proceed, the plaintiff in a civil rights lawsuit must show that not only were his or her rights violated, but also that a reasonable police officer should have known that the actions in question were a violation of the Constitution (essentially that the police intentionally violated his or her rights).

Under the language of this proposed bill, police would only be liable for out-of-pocket expenses and not statutory punitive damages, such as in instances of Section 1983 lawsuits under the Civil Rights Act. Lastly, the bills would bar plaintiffs from recovering attorneys fees under Section 1988 of the Civil Rights Act.

The bills are being opposed by civil rights and accountability groups nation-wide. Continue reading

July 13, 2016

The First ‘Blue Lives Matter’ Law Enacted in the US

by David M. Boertje

As a reaction to the “Black Lives Matter” movement, the state of Louisiana has just enacted a controversial “Blue Lives Matter” law (HB 953), which would make police officers and other ‘public safety’ workers a special protected class under hate-crime law. In other words, it is now a ‘hate crime’ to target police officers. The state is the first to enact such a law, and likely will not be the last. As of June 7th, the state of Tennessee is already wanting to jump on the bandwagon of enacting its own ‘Blue Lives Matter’ law. Congress has already proposed a bill along similar grounds.

Traditionally, hate-crime statutes provide for additional criminal penalties for those convicted of crimes who targeted victims on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion. The new law moves away from the traditional legal principles of focusing on immutable characteristics and into occupations, which are a choice.

The law has come under much criticism. Critics say that those who argue that it is actually police who are under assault are furthering animosity towards police. The New Orleans chapter of activist group Black Youth Project 100 stated that “Including ‘police’ as a protected class in hate crime legislation would serve to provide more protection to an institution that is statistically proven to be racist in action, policy, and impact.”