Graphic video illustrating gruesome police killings of African-American men in Louisiana and Minnesota has set off promises of a federal investigation, at least in the former case, but many are skeptical that it will lead to any prosecutions.
Police involved in even these high-profile cases of abuse have rarely faced successful indictments, let alone prosecutions.
However, at the federal level, a simple change to the law would make it more likely that abusive cops face punishment for their behavior.
Currently, police abuse is subject largely to one federal statute enacted in 1866: Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 242, which punishes anyone who “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.”
The problem is that the statute “has nothing to do on its face with police officers or police violence,” said former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights William Yeomans. “It’s about deprivation of rights. So what you’re actually proving in these cases is that the officer acted with the intent to [deny the victim rights].”
This willfulness standard makes it difficult to prosecute police officers. “The government has to show beyond a reasonable doubt the officer acted with willful attempt to deny the victim a right,” he said.
“The officer had to intend to use more force than was reasonably necessary,” he noted. “Most of these cases are situations where officers are reacting quickly to something, so it can be very difficult to sort out what appeared to be reasonable to the officer at the time.”
In other words, you’d have to prove to a jury what was going on inside of a police officer’s mind at the time — a high bar.
He suggested a solution. Congress could lower the intent standard to “something like if the officer acted with reckless disregard.” That way, “you don’t have to actually show that the officer intended to use more force than was necessary. … If the officer recklessly used more force than was necessary, he could then be prosecuted.”
Many in Congress have expressed their regret over cases of police abuse and police killings, but this simple change from willfulness to recklessness would make it easier for the federal government to actually prosecute them.
IT’S EVEN WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT.
What we’re seeing right now from Donald Trump is a full-on authoritarian takeover of the U.S. government.
This is not hyperbole.
Court orders are being ignored. MAGA loyalists have been put in charge of the military and federal law enforcement agencies. The Department of Government Efficiency has stripped Congress of its power of the purse. News outlets that challenge Trump have been banished or put under investigation.
Yet far too many are still covering Trump’s assault on democracy like politics as usual, with flattering headlines describing Trump as “unconventional,” “testing the boundaries,” and “aggressively flexing power.”
The Intercept has long covered authoritarian governments, billionaire oligarchs, and backsliding democracies around the world. We understand the challenge we face in Trump and the vital importance of press freedom in defending democracy.
We’re independent of corporate interests. Will you help us?
IT’S BEEN A DEVASTATING year for journalism — the worst in modern U.S. history.
We have a president with utter contempt for truth aggressively using the government’s full powers to dismantle the free press. Corporate news outlets have cowered, becoming accessories in Trump’s project to create a post-truth America. Right-wing billionaires have pounced, buying up media organizations and rebuilding the information environment to their liking.
In this most perilous moment for democracy, The Intercept is fighting back. But to do so effectively, we need to grow.
That’s where you come in. Will you help us expand our reporting capacity in time to hit the ground running in 2026?
We’re independent of corporate interests. Will you help us?
I’M BEN MUESSIG, The Intercept’s editor-in-chief. It’s been a devastating year for journalism — the worst in modern U.S. history.
We have a president with utter contempt for truth aggressively using the government’s full powers to dismantle the free press. Corporate news outlets have cowered, becoming accessories in Trump’s project to create a post-truth America. Right-wing billionaires have pounced, buying up media organizations and rebuilding the information environment to their liking.
In this most perilous moment for democracy, The Intercept is fighting back. But to do so effectively, we need to grow.
That’s where you come in. Will you help us expand our reporting capacity in time to hit the ground running in 2026?
We’re independent of corporate interests. Will you help us?
Latest Stories
Voices
The Backlash to “NAZA” Shows How Little Israeli Citizenship Really Means
By threatening the filmmakers, Netanyahu lays bare how fragile the notion of what it means to be Israeli is in the age of its genocide in Gaza.
The Intercept Briefing
The Blueprint for Democrats to Win Back Voters
After suffering major losses last election cycle, Justice Democrats resurrected itself, helping put democratic socialism on the map. So what changed?
Flock Wants the Most Detailed Map of Its Surveillance Cameras Taken Offline
A security researcher’s map revealed more locations of Flock devices than any other. Flock is trying to take it down.