It’s becoming more and more difficult to sit on the sidelines and not believe that Michael Jackson is anything but the victim of an attempted high-tech lynching. Take for instance a comment by Sherriff Jim Anderson reported in a CBS News story today…

Anderson said that he was taking Jackson’s complaint of abuse as a formal citizen’s complaint. If Jackson’s claims are found to be untrue by a state investigation, Anderson said, he would file a complaint against Jackson for making a groundless accusation against an officer.

The first thing that’s wrong with this picture is that there is a difference between the things someone might say in public — even on public television — and “a formal citizen’s complaint.” Anderson may wish to “tak[e] Jackson’s complaint of abuse as a formal citizen’s complaint,” but California Penal Code § 148.5, which covers such an offense, allows for prosecution only when the formal complaint is known by the maker to be false and has been made to a peace officer, any employee properly designated by law and procedure and assigned to receive such reports, or to a grand jury. To make things even clearer, California Penal Code § 148.5(b)(2) requires that as to peace officers, “the person providing the false information knows or should have known that the person receiving the information is a peace officer” while California Penal Code § 148.5(c)(2) requires that, as to employees properly designated by law and procedure and assigned to receive such reports, “the person providing the false information knows or should have known that the person receiving the information is an agency employee engaged in the performance of the duties described in this subdivision.”

Bill O’Reilly, et al, notwithstanding, reporters are not yet peace officers, employees assigned to receive reports constituting formal complaints and — although frequently working hard towards a pre-trial indictment (and conviction) — they do not constitute grand juries. Therefore, Jackson could not have known that the reporter to whom he was speaking was either a police officer or a proper agent to receive such reports: he wasn’t.

Since Jackson has apparently not satisfied the requirements for filing a formal complaint, the only way Anderson can treat Jackson’s comments as a formal complaint is for Anderson to formally file it as such — but then it’s Anderson’s formal complaint; not Jackson’s. And, presumably, Anderson would then be chargeable for knowingly filing a false complaint.

As if this weren’t enough, California Penal Code § 148.6(a)(2) states:

Any law enforcement agency accepting an allegation of misconduct against a peace officer shall require the complainant to read and sign the following advisory, all in boldface type:

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER FOR ANY IMPROPER POLICE CONDUCT. CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES THIS AGENCY TO HAVE A PROCEDURE TO INVESTIGATE CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF THIS PROCEDURE. THIS AGENCY MAY FIND AFTER INVESTIGATION THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO WARRANT ACTION ON YOUR COMPLAINT; EVEN IF THAT IS THE CASE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE COMPLAINT AND HAVE IT INVESTIGATED IF YOU BELIEVE AN OFFICER BEHAVED IMPROPERLY. CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AND ANY REPORTS OR FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLAINTS MUST BE RETAINED BY THIS AGENCY FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO MAKE A COMPLAINT THAT YOU KNOW TO BE FALSE. IF YOU MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST AN OFFICER KNOWING THAT IT IS FALSE, YOU CAN BE PROSECUTED ON A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE.

I have read and understood the above statement.

______________________________________________
Complainant

Supposing that 60 Minutes Correspondent Ed Bradley could somehow be considered as “an employee assigned to accept reports from citizens, either directly or by telephone and [that Ed Bradley] is employed by a state or local agency [designated in the relevant California Penal Code sections],” did he remember to get Jackson to sign this statement? Somehow, I doubt it.

It’s perfectly understandable that if Jackson is making an unfounded complaint, the Sheriff may wish to cleanse the record. This, however, can easily be done using the same methodology that the sheriff and District Attorney Tom Sneddon have always used in an apparent attempt to poison any potential jury pool: Argue the case to the press.

But imagine that Anderson himself were to attempt to file the formal complaint, and ignore the fact that this makes Anderson and not Jackson subject to California Penal Code § 148.5. Who is going to testify as to the veracity of Jackson’s experience? And who is going to investigate it?

The answer, of course, is that Jackson and the sheriff’s own personnel will be the only ones who could testify, since presumably the sheriff’s department did not manhandle Jackson in public. Furthermore, if the Sheriff did have a “feces-smeared restroom” and Jackson was locked in it for any length of time, this would likely not have been in a public square or on the stage of one of the local theaters — or the O’Reilly Factor where it would simply blend in with the surroundings. Again, any witnesses to this event would be Jackson and the Sheriff’s own personnel.

In a best-case scenario, what we’ll end up with is a “he said, he said” situation. It would more likely be a “he said, they said” situation, where “they” are Nottingham’s — er, the Sheriff’s — own people. The fact that it will be a “he said, they said” might make a normal fact-finder inclined to believe the larger group. I would hope not. When it comes down to it, the “larger group” is composed of fungible elements — it’s to be expected that they would speak with a common voice, however false (or true, to be fair) it may be.

In addition, there’s no small amount of subjectivity involved with Jackson’s statement itself. If Michael Jackson believes he was “manhandled,” this may very well be because Michael Jackson is not used to being handled in the fashion that the sheriff’s deputies used in handling a black man whom they believe (rightly or wrongly; let’s remember there’s been no conviction here) to be a pedophile. Threatening to charge a man with a crime because of a mistaken belief that he had been handled more roughly than he thought he should have been is something more than ridiculous.

Even Jackson’s claim that his shoulders were “literally” dislocated does not justify such charges. It was plain to nearly anyone who viewed the 60 Minutes interview in which the statements were made that this was not the case. The CBS bylineless story itself states,

Jackson demonstrated what he claimed was limited arm movement, stretching his arm and saying, “See this arm? This is as far as I can reach it. Same with this side over here.”

But elsewhere in the interview, Jackson reaches up and scratches his forehead without any apparent discomfort.

Should the District Attorney demonstrate how desperately he is “not” intending to legally manhandle Jackson by prosecuting him for using hyperbole during an interview with a reporter? If justice is the goal of the District Attorney, the answer is clearly “no.” If, on the other hand, we just want — come hell, high water, or abrogation of common sense — to get Jacko, then it makes perfect sense.

If they work hard enough, they may even be able to nail him for jaywalking while they’re at it.