Federal criminal civil rights laws impose criminal penalties for the deprivation of certain federal rights, privileges, or immunities. Most of these laws prohibit violent and intimidating acts motivated by animus based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious beliefs, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. While some of these laws require a discriminatory motivation, others—such as those regarding human trafficking, conspiracy against rights, and deprivation of rights under "color of law —do not. Although the FBI has authority to investigate criminal civil rights violations, the Attorney General, acting through the various U.S. Attorneys' offices and with the assistance of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, has the discretion to initiate a federal prosecution. Such a decision is dependent upon several factors, including resource availability and a sufficiency of evidence to convince a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 18 U.S.C. §241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to "injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any persons of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States (or because of his/her having exercised the same)." Punishment for violations includes a fine and/or imprisonment for a maximum of 10 years. The law provides greater punishment to violators if their acts result in death (or an attempt to kill) or include kidnapping (or an attempt to kidnap) or aggravated sexual abuse (or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse). Under such heightened circumstances, offenders may face life imprisonment or the death penalty. Federal civil rights prosecutions against state actors (e.g., law enforcement) are usually conducted pursuant to 18 U.S.C §242, which makes it a crime for "any person acting under color of any law, statute, ordinance regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S." There are four elements to establish offenses under this section: (1) the victim must have been an inhabitant of a U.S. state, district, or territory when the alleged violation occurred; (2) defendant acted under color of any law; (3) the defendant's conduct deprived the victim of some right secured or protected by the U.S. Constitution; and (4) the defendant acted willfully, that is, with specific intent to violate the protected constitutional right. In Screws v. U.S. , the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the predecessor of Section 242, 18 U.S.C. §52, and upheld its constitutionality against a due process challenge that alleged that the statute was vague and lacked the specificity constitutionally mandated for criminal statutes. In reaching its decision, the Court examined the legislative history and noted the section's origins as an "anti-discrimination measure" that was later extended to prohibit the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities" guaranteed by federal law. The Court concluded that the legislative history indicated a desire to reduce the section's severity. To express this reduction in severity, Congress created a special requirement of intent to violate federal rights, rather than just a generalized "bad purpose." This strict interpretation has been uniformly followed by federal courts. For example, in U.S. v. Shaffer , a case involving the shooting of unarmed students by the Ohio National Guard, an Ohio district court found that there was insufficient evidence that defendants possessed the specific intent to deprive any of the students of their constitutional rights. Analogizing Screws , the Shaffer court concluded that the evidence presented "would support a finding that the amount of force used by defendants was excessive and unjustified; that they intended to harm or frighten at least some of the demonstrators; and that they fired without being ordered to do so." The court noted, however, that such a finding failed to meet the stringent test articulated in Screws and thus warranted a judgment of acquittal for all defendants. Arguably, the specific intent requirement established in Screws makes prosecution more difficult, especially in cases of police conduct that involve the use of force during the performance of an officer's duties. For a conviction under this provision, not only must the prosecution show an intent to violate federal rights, but also that the action was done under "color of law" and that the force was unreasonable, unnecessary, and unprovoked. The U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner set the prevailing standards for determining if law enforcement's use of force impermissibly deprives an individual of a constitutional right. In Graham , the Court held that determining the objective reasonableness of a particular seizure under the Fourth Amendment "requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake." As such, the inquiry requires analyzing the totality of the circumstances from the officer's prospective. Specifically, the Court stated: The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. The test of reasonableness is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application. In Garner , the Court set forth instances in which an officer's use of deadly force is reasonable: (1) when threatened with a deadly weapon; (2) when the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses an imminent threat of serious harm or death to the officer or to others; or (3) when probable cause exists that the suspect has committed a crime involving threatened or actual serious physical harm or death to another. For example, in Plumhoff v. Rickard , the Supreme Court found that the police officers acted reasonably in using deadly force during a high-speed chase. The officer stopped a vehicle due to an inoperable headlight. After the officer noticed damage to the vehicle, he asked the driver to exit the car. Instead of getting out of the car, the driver sped off. Officers gave chase and surrounded the driver in a parking lot. When the driver attempted to flee again, the officers fired shots into the vehicle, killing the driver and passenger. The event was captured on video. Looking at the totality of the circumstances, the Court concluded that the officers acted reasonably as the driver's reckless driving posed a grave public safety risk. According to the Court, "a reasonable officer could have concluded that [the driver] was intent on resuming his flight and that, if he was allowed to do so, he would once again pose a deadly threat to others." The Court went on to find that the firing of 15 shots was not excessive. The Court noted that if the officers are justified in firing at a suspect to end a severe threat to public safety, then the officers can continue shooting until the threat ends. Relevant to the Court's analysis was the fact that even after the 15 shots were fired, the driver continued to flee until he crashed the vehicle. Therefore, the Court concluded that the officers acted reasonably. Punishment for violations includes a fine and/or imprisonment for a maximum of one year. In the case of bodily injury or the use of a dangerous weapon the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. The law provides greater punishment to violators if their acts cause death (or an attempt to kill) or include kidnapping (or an attempt to kidnap) or aggravated sexual abuse (or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse). Under such circumstances, offenders may face life imprisonment or the death penalty. The FBI has the authority to investigate allegations of 18 U.S.C. §242 violations. The Attorney General, acting though the various U.S. Attorneys' offices and with the assistance of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, has the discretion to initiate a federal prosecution. Whether a prosecutor elects to do so depends upon a number of factors, not the least of which is whether there is evidence sufficient to convince a jury that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This statute prohibits certain interferences of federally protected activities regardless of discriminatory intent. Protected activities include voting or qualifying to vote; participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States; applying for or enjoying employment by any U.S. agency; serving as a grand or petit juror in any court of the United States; or participating in or enjoying the benefits of any program receiving federal financial assistance. Moreover, individuals are prohibited from willfully injuring, intimidating, or interfering with any person because of that person's race, color, religion, or national origin, and because of the individual's activity in one of the following: enrolling or attending a public school or college; participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by a state or local government; applying for or enjoying employment, or using a labor organization or employment agency whether privately or publically run; serving any state court as a juror; travelling in or using a facility of interstate commerce or common carrier; or enjoying the goods, services, and/or facilities of any establishment which provides lodging, food, beverages, gasoline, or entertainment to patrons. This statute also prohibits willful interference, by force or threat of force, with a person because the individual is or was participating in, aiding, or encouraging other persons to participate in any of the aforementioned benefits or activities without discrimination as to race, color, religion, or national origin.