Far too often the DOJ prosecutes based on outcome and political pressure, not because of some injustice against someone’s rights.

The fact of the matter is that police are prosecuted far less than citizens for the same crimes. Police are given special rights that are not enjoyed by other citizens when it comes to investigations. Everything from not being named in a shooting, cooling off times, union representation in interviews, no public information being released, etc are all privileges the police enjoy and the common citizen does not.

You say above that protesters are not prosecuted because the groups are “powerful politically.” That may or may not be true, but there is no doubt that police are “powerful politically” and they use that power to create bills such as this one.

If police, their unions, and their backers pushed to hold police to the same standards of an ordinary citizen and worked to get rid of bad and rogue cops instead of protecting them, this bill might have merit. (And that is a huge “might.”) As it is, all it does is set the police above the general public and duplicates laws already on the books.

Mike

As examples, almost every political riot in past year. Police have been attacked both directly and with projectiles – including biological weapons [that’s what a balloon full of human waste is]. There is video and eyewitness evidence. And there are very few, if any prosecutions, because mobs [of certain political affiliations] are very powerful politically.

It’s not. Which is why the DOJ drags out federal civil-rights prosecutions when they feel the locals have let things slide. This bill would provide the same weapon for assault on LEOs.

” Where does “self-defense” of the arrestee come into play?”

It doesn’t.

“What about an allegation of the violation of state law by the cop?”

Doesn’t matter, you still don’t get to defend yourself against a cop, ever.

“And how would the federal criminal apparatus deal with cops lying?”

Likely the same way federal courts treat it now. Unquestioning belief unless there is incontrovertible proof that the cop is lying and even then they will usually believe the cop anyway.

As political actors, those prosecutors may allow personal and local political considerations to influence the degree of enforcement of those laws.

And how is that different than any other law on the books where a prosecutor exercises discretion?

Bob

“if the locals refuse to act?” Are there many jurisdictions where prosecutors are soft on assaulting police? Are there many prominent examples where police officers have been brutally attacked and prosecutors just shrugged? It’s hard for me to imagine anywhere that this happens.

A federal layer could not reduce local enforcement, but could certainly engender prosecution if the locals refuse to act. Of course, in certain circles, that is a flaw, not a feature.