It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
(Emphasis by me)
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Source: FBI Civil Rights Statutes as Enforced
Remember, the authority of a private security guard is derived from the rights of the property owner on his own property. The property owner has a right to keep watch over his property and to deny entrance to people that he doesn’t want to be on the property. He can exercise that authority himself, or he can delegate it to trusted individuals.
Originally posted by parkwoods21
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
This should settle that.edit on 14-7-2013 by parkwoods21 because: (no reason given)
a family that his father has described as "multiracial;" his father is a white American of German descent and his mother is Peruvian with some black ancestry through her Afro-Peruvian maternal grandfather.
After the riots, the United States Department of Justice reinstated the investigation and obtained an indictment of violations of federal civil rights against the four officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The federal trial focused more on the evidence as to the training of officers instead of just relying on the videotape of the incident. On March 9 of the 1993 trial, King took the witness stand and described to the jury the events as he remembered them. The jury found Officer Laurence Powell and Sergeant Stacey Koon guilty, and they were subsequently sentenced to 32 months in prison, while Timothy Wind and Theodore Briseno were acquitted of all charges.
During the three-hour sentencing hearing, the Federal trial judge, John Davies, accepted much of the defense version of the beating. He strongly criticized King, who he said provoked the officers' initial actions.
Judge Davies stated that only the final six or so baton blows by Powell were unlawful. The first 55 seconds of the videotaped portion of the incident, during which the vast majority of the blows were delivered, was within the law because the officers were attempting to subdue a suspect who was resisting efforts to take him into custody.
King's provocative behavior began with his "remarkable consumption of alcoholic beverage" and continued through a high-speed chase, refusal to submit to police orders and an aggressive charge toward Powell.
Davies made several findings in support of the officers' version of events. He concluded that Officer Powell never intentionally struck King in the head, and "Powell's baton blow that broke King's leg was not illegal because King was still resisting and rolling around on the ground, and breaking bones in resisting suspects is permissible under police policy."
Mitigation cited by the judge in determining the length of the prison sentence included the suffering the officers had undergone because of the extensive publicity their case had received, the impending loss of their careers as police officers, their vulnerability to abuse in prison and their having been subjected to two trials.
The judge acknowledged that having two such trials did not legally constitute double jeopardy, but nonetheless it "raised the specter of unfairness."
“In general, the Justice Department does not investigate civil rights violations committed by one individual against another unless that individual works for the state or federal government,” Dershowitz said.
Dershowitz continued that “George Zimmerman can’t really alone violate the civil rights of an individual even if he were to be guilty of the crime.”
After interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, records released Thursday show.
Even the lead detective in the case, Sanford Det. Chris Serino, told agents that he thought Zimmerman profiled Trayvon because of his attire and the circumstances — but not his race.
Originally posted by NickDC202
reply to post by Ameilia
...Whether I agree or disagree with the verdict is irrelevant and has no bearing on the fact that if Federal charges are brought against Zimmerman, a very dangerous precedent will be set by the justice system and this slippery slope has far reaching implications.
...
...According to Constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz
“In general, the Justice Department does not investigate civil rights violations committed by one individual against another unless that individual works for the state or federal government,” Dershowitz said.
...Dershowitz continued that “George Zimmerman can’t really alone violate the civil rights of an individual even if he were to be guilty of the crime.”