But, it just doesn't seem fair...If you were being bad, and you got jail time for it...then you're doing time! Like damn!
The only time I was sent to the corner was the first day of school. I was laughing too much and was distracting other children at lunch. I couldn't stop. I was endangering the welfare of other children at the table. Someone could have choked! I had to sit in my cubby for 5 minutes. I'm pretty sure I wasn't laughing then. And even though I was a model student after sentencing, I didn't get any time off from my time out. Why should people who did REALLY bad things get their time down for finally behaving while they're sent to their rooms?
Makes no damn sense
ALSO...The other day on the subway, I saw this drunk guy (middle of the day, too...smh) was being a little verbally belligerent to these two women. I couldn't really hear what they were saying (my headphones were on) but I heard snippets. I think the women were trying to laugh it off but the guy just got hostile. At one point, one of the women said that she will mace him if he keeps it up. He said "Go ahead! I'm a federal f*cking officer."
Who KNOWS if he really is a fed, but that got me thinking. What if she DID mace his drunk ass? So I asked around - law students, people that have dealt with the law, etc. And of course I consulted with the internet. Here is what I got:
ASSAULTING A FEDERAL OFFICER - 18 U.S.C. 111, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to forcibly assault a Federal officer while the officer is engaged in the performance of his official duties.
A person can be found guilty of the offense of assaulting a Federal officer only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the person forcibly assaulted the person described in the indictment; Second: That the person assaulted was a Federal officer as described above, then engaged in the performance of his official duty, as charged; and Third: That the person did such acts knowingly and willfully.
It is not necessary to show that the person knew the person being forcibly assaulted was, at that time, a Federal officer carrying out an official duty so long as it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was, in fact, a Federal officer acting in the course of his duty and that the person willfully committed a forcible assault upon him.
On the other hand, the person would not be guilty of a willful assault if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt concerning whether the person knew the victim to be a Federal officer and only acted as he did because of a reasonable, good faith belief that he needed to defend himself against an assault by a private citizen.
I'm still not sure what would happen if that case when to trial. I mean, the guy was drunk and HOPEFULLY off-duty if he was drunk like that. I feel the women had a right to mace him if they feel threatened. At the VERY least, I think the guy should have a mark on his record or something. If, as a fed, he's protected by the law on a higher level than anyone else regardless of whether he's on or off duty, I think he should be held accountable for his actions regardless of whether or not he's on or off duty.
I was a UGA (undergrad advisor...like an RA) at Dartmouth and was expected to keep the peace and keep my residents happy. At the same time, I was expected to hold myself to a higher standard, meaning I shouldn't have to be carried off to the infirmary for getting myself super drunk. I should set an example. Shouldn't a federal officer be thought of similarly?
What do you think? What do you think should happen if the women maced the guy?
Posts
If they assaulted him, they get off on the federal charge automatically unless he can prove that he was acting in his capacity as a federal officer.
ReplyDeleteIf they maced him while he was actually acting as a federal officer (let's pretend he was undercover), they'd get off assuming they have witnesses to corroborate their statements that:
They were acting in self-defense
His belligerent, drunken manner caused them to doubt that he was in fact a federal officer
He's not protected by the law on a higher level when he's on or off duty. He's protected on a higher level when he's acting as a federal official.
ReplyDeleteHe could be on-duty but not acting in his capacity as a police officer. If he hits on a woman, and she feels unsafe and maces him, the first argument she'd offer in her defense to have the federal case thrown out was that she didn't mace a police officer. She maced a guy who was being sexually aggressive. Hitting on women isn't part of the duties of an officer.
The other side of that is that he could be off-duty and see a robbery taking place. The moment he identifies himself as an officer (with the implication that he is acting in the role as a federal officer), any action taking against him would warrant federal charges UNLESS the assailants could prove that they had good reason to doubt him.