RW>He would have PC, the fact that I am carrying an
  >unidentified medication.
CH> Not neccessarily; and especially not in states that do not
CH> require a label on medications.
Ok and how does the officer know that the med is legal?
RW>But that's not the point.  All charges maybe dropped
  >innocence. not the point.  All charges maybe dropped
  >but I would still be charged or at least 'arrested' by
  >the officer because he would have no choice because of
  >the ZT rules.  It would then be up to me to PROVE my
  >innocence.
CH> 
CH> ZT does not mean that the requirement for probable cause is
CH> suspended.  As for you having to "Prove" your innocence that
CH> is not the way it works.  The burden of proof is on the
CH> state and the officer.
Really?  So the state is going to call each and every
pharmacy and/or doctor in the US to see if the medicine
I have is legal and has been prescribed to me?  Or are
they going to assume that it is illegal until I provide
them with evidence to the contrary?
RW>Now if I had been in a weapons ZT area I would have
  >been arrested, charged and convicted and would have
  >never passed, or had a he!! of a time, passing any type
  >of security clearance.  As it was I "got away" with two
  >clear violations; speeding and the weapon charge.
CH> OK, you had an officer in a good mood who cut you a break;
CH> but obviously you WERE in violation of the law, ZT or no ZT.
Never said I wasn't.  The point is the officer had the
option of enforcing the law or not.  If there had been
a ZT policy in effect he would not have had that
option.  Look at mandatory sentences as a ZT policy for
judges.  If the person is convicted of the crime the
judge has no option but to give the sentence.  It
doesn't matter if he thinks its too harsh or whatever.
RW>Did the trooper make a bad decision and endanger the
  >public by letting me go?  Would have things turned out
  >better if the trooper had no choice but to arrest me
  >because some politicians wanted to make PR points by
  >having a ZT on crimes involving weapons?
CH> If the area you were in was a problem area as far as
CH> speeding or weapons violations, I fail to see anything wrong
CH> with law enforcement concentrating on violations in that
So you would have no problem with having NO option but
to follow orders?  Even if that meant arresting some
poor mom who had three kids in the car just because her
husband had forgot to take the handgun in its case out
of the car after getting home from a shooting
competition at 3 am the night before?  After all she
had a weapon in the car and it IS a ZT area, lock her
up and call CPS to get the kids.  Heck maybe CPS should
start a full investigation on the family, after all
only some criminal mother carries an illegal weapon in
the car with her kids.
See where blindly following the rules can lead?
CH> area.  You have heard of bad luck haven't you Rich? 
If it weren't for it I'd have very little luck at all .
RW>One of my biggest complaints about ZT policies is the
  >fact that they remove the enforcer of the rules from
  >the system.
CH> Please elaborate on what you mean, Rich.
Simple the enforcer becomes nothing but a machine that
follows orders.  He is not allowed to use his gut
instincts to lead him.  I deliberately haven't
mentioned this before because it is so inflammatory but
if you think about it weren't the people in the German
army and police force just enforcing the ZT on Jews in
the early 40's?  They had no option, either enforce the
rules/laws or be shot as a trader.  That, IMNSHO, is
where blindly following orders leads, to people who
stop questioning if those orders are legal or not.
Now before you, or anyone else, starts jumping on me
about how Germany and the US are so different remember
that the anniversary of a "small incident" in Vietnam
involving US troops is upon us.  Ever read the history
of My Lai?
                      Remember:  Freedom isn't Free!
--- timEd-B11
---------------