Only took them 3 years to decide there was insufficient proof to charge the officer with violating Crawford's civil rights. A interesting opinion by a law professor in the article involving what constitutes violating someone's civil rights are in a shooting case, not just whether a particular LEO shot for some racially motivated reason.
Investigators said they focused on if they could prove Officer Williams willfully denied Crawford of a constitutional right.
“To establish willfulness, federal authorities would be required to show that the officer acted with the deliberate and specific intent to do something the law forbids. This is one of the highest standards of intent imposed by law,” the federal statement read. “Mistake, misperception, negligence, necessity, or poor judgment are not sufficient to establish a federal criminal civil rights violation.”
In addition, the lawyer for the Crawford family is saying now that Sessions is the AG, there will be less investigations of civil rights violations.University of Dayton law professor Thomas Hagel disagreed with the DOJ’s conclusion. He said the case should have hinged on whether it was “necessary” to kill Crawford in that situation.
“Frankly, I don’t believe it was,” he said.
He also said someone acting negligently would be sufficient to prove their actions unreasonable.
“There is more than enough facts here to justify putting this before a jury,” Hagel said.
Wright met with DOJ officials in the fall, but he said the length of the investigation and the appointment of Jeff Sessions as U.S. attorney general eroded his hopes that the DOJ would seek charges.
“Going from Loretta Lynch to Jeff Sessions will significantly decrease the amount of civil rights cases that will be brought by the office,” he said. “This will not be a priority for the administration.”