Maddox 1

Jacob Maddox

Professor Thomas

Writing and the Law

October 9, 2017

How Police Shootings Can Be Simultaneously Legal And Wrong

[This essay is written as for Vox.com, an online news publication. Their readership demographic
is politically left-leaning and college-educated. Most of their articles are a combination of news
reporting, analysis, and argument. They also have primers and explainers on relevant news
topics.]

On August 9, 2014, Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

Darren Wilson is white. Michael Brown was black. Wilson was an armed police officer. Brown

was an unarmed civilian. And Wilson was never charged of a crime, despite admitting to firing

the shots that killed Michael Brown. The prosecutor, Bob McCulloch, brought the case before a

grand jury. In November 2014, the grand jury decided not to indict Wilson, dropping the case

without filing any charges. The decision sparked further protests, and revitalized a national

dialogue on race and police brutality in America. But within this dialogue has been a relative

inattention to the legal issues allowing such police brutality to continue unabated, and untried in

court.

Some legal background is needed in order to understand this controversial decision. The

usual standard of proof for criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt." To secure a

conviction, prosecutors must demonstrate during trial that a defendant is guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt. In other words, prosecutors must prove guilt such that no reasonable person

would be left with reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. This is a tough standard of proof

for any prosecutor to reach. But there are additional legal guidelines governing the prosecution
 Maddox 2

of police officers. Of crucial note is 18 U.S. Code 242, the federal statute outlining the limits

on law enforcement officer's use of force, which states:

Whoever, under color of any law [. . .] willfully subjects any person [. . .] to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States [shall be guilty of a crime].1

The key phrase here is "willfully subjects." (Being "under color of any law" is simply an archaic

formulation meaning to act in the capacity of a law enforcement officer). Guilt arises not only

from depriving an individual of their rights, but doing so willfully. A prosecutor must determine

whether there is enough evidence to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an officer

willfully deprived a citizen of their rights.

And how do the courts define willfulness? In an infamous 1945 decision, Screws v.

United States, the Court determined that the statute should be interpreted "as requiring a specific

intent to deprive [someone] of a right."2 In other words, an officer must have specifically

intended to deprive someone of a right, to be guilty. And a prosecutor must demonstrate beyond

a reasonable doubt that this intention existed. Demonstrating intentions is difficult in any

criminal case. A prosecutor must find explicit statements of intentthe suspect telling friends

that they plan to harm someonewritten evidence, or some other form. Such evidence is often

rare. And it's rarer still in the case of law enforcement officers, often using force with strangers

whom they have no prior history. Police shootings overwhelmingly involve quick decisions for

which the only evidence of an officer's intentions is their own words after the fact. The

prosecutor must practically climb an evidentiary Mount Everest to demonstrate an officer's guilt

after Screws.

1
18 U.S. Code 242 (1948).
2
Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1948), 2.