Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(108,423 posts)
Tue Jul 28, 2020, 10:00 PM Jul 2020

States must protect their residents from criminals -- even ones wearing federal uniforms

Can federal officers be prosecuted under state law?

That question has been raised by Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, who threatened to bring charges against federal officers if they come to his city and use tactics like those recently seen in Portland. That raises an important constitutional question about federal-state relations. Federal law is supreme over state law. The Constitution says so. But it turns out that Krasner is right. If federal troops continue to behave as they have, they could and should end up in state prison.

Federal officials normally cannot be blocked by state law from carrying out their duties. But there are exceptions. If an Internal Revenue Service agent, walking down the sidewalk, sees someone he hates and empties a gun into him, his status as a federal employee doesn't immunize him from prosecution.

he interesting question today is whether that hypothetical case can be distinguished from some of the actions of federal troops in Portland.

The Supreme Court addressed this issue in the 1890 case In re Neagle, in which a federal marshal, Neagle, killed a California man in defense of Justice Field, who was a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. The man, who had previously threatened the judge, reached into his breast pocket. The marshal, fearing that the man had a weapon, shot him. The man turned out to be unarmed, and Neagle was prosecuted under state law. The court released Neagle, holding that a federal officer is immune from state prosecution if he is performing an act that federal law authorized him to perform, and his actions were necessary and proper to fulfilling his federal duties. The reading of the second prong most generous to federal immunity holds that the officer is immune if he reasonably believed his actions were necessary, even if he was mistaken.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/states-must-protect-their-residents-from-criminals-even-ones-wearing-federal-uniforms/ar-BB17ikaS?li=BBnbfcQ&ocid=DELLDHP

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
States must protect their residents from criminals -- even ones wearing federal uniforms (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jul 2020 OP
This message was self-deleted by its author Freelancer Jul 2020 #1
This message was self-deleted by its author Freelancer Jul 2020 #2

Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»States must protect their...