RW>The government through a LE agency takes your property
  >because they THINK you committed a crime.  Now how is
  >that a civil preceding?
RW>But as I said I don't get it.
CH> Civil seizures are made every day of the week and do not
CH> implicate the protections normally afforded criminal
How can a government agency, specifically a law
enforcement agency, make a civil seizure? 
RW>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.
CH> Now you are attempting to carry zt into the
CH> courtroom....that doesn't fly Rich.  When a person gets
Sure it does.  Ever heard of. . .rats what's the term.
. .where a judge has no say in the sentence?  What is
that but ZT?  The politicians have taken the judges out
of the loop the same way they have taken the police
out.
CH> arrested, the very first thing that has to be proven is that
CH> a crime has been committed.  Secondly, it must be proven
It was, a weapon was found in the passenger compartment
of a vehicle. 
CH> that the person charged committed that crime.  Third; and of
Isn't the driver of the car responsible for what is in
the car?  If you find two pounds of cocaine in the
trunk you usually arrest the driver.
CH> equal importance, (except in cases which do not require a
CH> mens rea because of specific statute language) it must be
CH> proven that the person intended to commit the crime. (a
Sure in a perfect world but there's no way you can say
that mens rea has been 'over looked' in a trial.
Especially a trial where the DA is trying to make
political points before an election.  As I have said ZT
is a political beast that feeds on poll numbers.
RW>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.
CH> Hey; I wasn't at Ruby Ridge so I don't know what really
CH> happened.  But I can tell you that of all the officers I
CH> know they all loathe having to shoot someone,....let alone
From everything I have read, there is evidence that a
shoot on site order was given to the sniper(s) and it
was carried out.  Even the sniper admitted that he was
firing on the two men as they were running for cover.
Hard to make a case that a running man is posing an
immediate threat.
CH> killing someone.  Really, Rich; it's not something that they
CH> run down to the coffee shop to brag about. 
Anyone who has had to even shoot AT another person
doesn't run down to the coffee shop to brag about it.
But snipers are a lot different then line officers.
When a line officer fires his weapon it is, usually, a
split second decision.  A sniper, usually, has quite a
while to think about it before he is given the green
light.  Very few people could sit there and know that
in the next second he may have to kill this person and
still be able to do it.
RW>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.
CH> That may be true; but if the FBI internal affairs had
CH> reached a  conclusion that Horuchi had carried out an
CH> "illegal order" he probably  would have been handled
But they, or the Congressional investigation, found
proof that evidence had been destroyed.  But if he
wasn't carrying out an illegal order he was still
violating FBI rules, if not federal law, by shooting at
a person who did not pose an immediate threat.
You'll also notice how fast they went to the federal
judge after the state said that it was going to bring
the shooter up on state charges.  Does make a person
go; Hum. . .
Its incidents such as this that makes people wonder
just who's side law enforcement is on. 
                      Remember:  Freedom isn't Free!
--- timEd-B11
(1:379/301.1)
--- Squish v1.01
---------------