RW>Not always.  Look into confiscation of property THOUGHT
  >to be drug profits.  It is up to YOU to prove it isn't
  >and to get the property you have to post a bond equal
  >to the value of the property.
CH> Not really, Rich.  The way such property is confiscated is
CH> more  CIVIL in nature and not subject to the same
CH> limitations as criminal proceedings.  We were talking about
CH> initiating a criminal prosecution and establishing probable
CH> cause..........criminal prosecution against a person; and
CH> not a civil seizure of property pursuant to statute. I will
CH> concede though that I am not happy with the confiscations. 
You, sir, are about to be honored. 
I don't get it, could you explain it to me?
The government through a LE agency takes your property
because they THINK you committed a crime.  Now how is
that a civil preceding?
Also I don't see how it is even Constitutional with the
14th amendment.
AMENDMENT XIV  (1868)
SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, . . .nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; . . .
But as I said I don't get it.
CH> true....... she really is only technically in violation of
CH> the law and probably innocent by reason of no criminal
CH> intent (depending on the wording of the statute.
RW>But yet you are comfortable arresting her?  Putting a
  >felony arrest and conviction on her record.  And
  >because of the ZT there would probably be a minimum
  >sentence so now you have a technically guilty but
  >really innocent in jail.
CH> No, Rich.  The scenario you depicted doesn't really
CH> neccessitate a conclusion that there is probable cause to
CH> believe that she committed a crime.  It's that old "mens
CH> rea" thing again, Rich.,
Sure someone can always get off but are you saying that
you have never seen a case where a DA brought a case
and got a conviction where that old "mens rea" thing
wasn't met?  Remember we are talking about a case that
came about due to a ZT policy.  ZT is a political beast
designed to make the politicians look good and a DA is
a politician.  I'm sure you have seen cases where a DA
became 'overly enthusiastic' prosecuting cases when
election time gets close.
So she MIGHT get off but she would still have to be
arrested and ran through the process and have that
felony arrest on her record.  And she might decide to
not take the chance and plea to a lesser charge.
Have you ever been through the arrest process?
CH> Selective enforcement for the sake of being selective
CH> against a certain group of people because of their race or
CH> religion is unconstitutional. So much for that.
RW>The race/sex/religion has nothing to do with the point.
  >The point is they were "just following orders".
CH> Orders probably "illegal on their face" and which any
CH> responsible  officer should be loathe to carry out.
Loathe to carry out but still carry them out, right?
Such as the FBI sniper at Ruby Ridge?  Given an illegal
shoot on sight order, which he might or might not have
loathed, carried it out.
In the military, which I have some knowledge, any
person that caries out an illegal order to kill someone
face the UCMJ.  In the FBI anyone carrying out an
illegal order he can relax in the thought that the feds
won't charge him and will make sure that any case the
state or local LE brings is put into the federal
system.
                      Remember:  Freedom isn't Free!
--- timEd-B11
---------------