RW>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> Sentencing guidelines as zt?  No, I don't think so.
Not guidelines, mandatory sentences. 
RW>It was, a weapon was found in the passenger compartment
  >of a vehicle.
CH> Not neccessarily.  Possesion of the weapon without more does
CH> not constitute a crime, unless of course it was determined
Having a firearm in the passenger compartment of a car
is a crime in several states.  In some states a
misdemeanor in others I do believe it is a felony.
CH> to be stolen. Finding you in possession of a weapon, the
CH> first thing that an officer has to do is determine whether
CH> or not you have a permit or other  justification to have
In some places (e.g.; D.C., Chicago) that isn't true.
The first thing he does is place you under arrest for
illegally carrying a weapon.
In others, such as around here, the odds are they'd do
just what you said and let you go.  As long as it was
stolen.  After a small speech on the proper way to
transport a weapon.
CH> that weapon. He can do that by asking you if you have a
CH> permit or by a simple records check.  Probable cause, Rich. 
PC is set by the fact that an illegal act has been
committed.
RW>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> Sometimes.  Sometimes the owner of the vehicle depending on
CH> the circumstances of the case.
In very few cases would the driver, assuming that he is
the only adult in the car, not be arrested.
RW>Sure in a perfect world but there's no way you can say
  >that mens rea has been 'over looked' in a trial.
CH> Mens rea is essential in most prosecutions; and it's one  of
CH> the first things to be determined regardless of the agenda
CH> of the DA.
So you are saying that you have never seen a case where
the case never should have been prosecuted, for what
ever reason, just because the DA wanted to make
political points?
RW>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> I don't have a problem with that.
HUH?  You have no problem with giving orders to shoot
someone even though he is posing no immediate threat? 
RW>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. . .
CH> It went to federal court pursuant to federal statute.
The feds only got interested when the state decided to
take action.  That is the part that should make you go
hum. . .
                      Remember:  Freedom isn't Free!
--- timEd-B11
---------------