If you don't agree with a law, then all of the enforcement of it can be classified as political, by definition.
I know you were being flip, but that is simply not true. The law is the law. That's how we roll. But even with the many unwise laws we do have, there is a second layer of the police or prosecutors or regulators using technicalities or perceptions to claim a law has been violated to seek a prosecution, a fine, injunctive relief, or far more insideous, a plea bargain or concession contrary to your true belief because the stakes of losing are not limited to being found liable for the issue you object to, but a far larger and more painful one.
One recent example in the news is the guy who claimed self defense, and the "popular media" was alleging for several days he was not even injured and his story should thus not be believed. Then thank goodness, a contemporaneous photo taken moments after the incident became public, which verified the original story. He is on trial for 2nd degree murder and that prosecution is pretty widely believed to not only be overcharged, but unsubstantiated in full.
Another example is this Ted Nugent bear hunting issue. He did a bear hunting show where he and his crew filmed a bow and arrow hunt of a black bear. There is a one bear kill per hunter limit. He shot at one and missed. The arrow stuck in the ground. According to witness accounts the arrow touched the bear and "probably" broke the skin but there was no blood trail and a search for the bear resulted in not finding itr. This is a crew of people dedicated to "getting the shot".
The way it was represented by the authorities is the 1st Bear was possibly mortally wounded or otherwise considered hit. The 2nd bear was hit and killed and taken for processing as the law requires. The law is intended to make sure you don't leave dead or mortally wounded animals when you miss and simply go after another one. Fine. But #1 was for all practical purposes just fine. #2 was taken back for processing as the law allows.
So one would think this would be a state issue in any case because it happened in AK. Nope. The Feds charged it as a Felony, defined as any charge which could involve a year or more, which the charge they made was.
They charged him with transporting a bear when more than one (two) would not be "utilized". Now I may not be a genius or anything, but #1 was for all practical purposes just fine. #2 was "utilized". The transport was legal. But the threat of being charged with a felony could have meant this gun zealot and hunting lover would lose that right forever.
He was put into a position by overcharging to enter a plea bargain (state term), or in the parlance of federal law, entered a plea of guilty to a lesser charge. But even that was not the end of it. Because he is a celebrity he was unfairly exposed to the further humiliation of doing PSA's and paying for them on his hunting program, who knows at what cost, but I am guessing that exceeds the $10,000 statutory maximum fine for this federal charge.
These strong-arm and over-charge tactics are now dominant in our lives and in all police and prosecutor cultures. Shi*tyPig noted with glee that Federal prosecutors have an over 80% conviction rate which I have no problem believing since everyone they come into contact with are tactically and financially challenged.
Local prosecutors around here typically have conviction rates over 95%. I have read the Federalist Papers and it was the intent of the framers that 10 guilty people go free before 1 innocent person be convicted. That's why the standards of justice, like for search, evidence, and role of the officials were so stiff. It has been turned on its head as lawyers like to say. We have our prisons at 300% capacity. People routinely forsake trials and true justice because the stakes are allowed by judges and the system to be impossibly extreme if you seek a trial and only very inconvenient if you plea. The only way a plea negotiation could ever be fair is if there was a motion in limine to rule the maximum penalty based on the facts ALREADY IN EVIDENCE.
All criminal cases should be required to have a trial and should require the state pay for all defense costs by the best lawyers available.
Rocketman
"He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out of their Substance." - Thomas Jefferson, July 4, 1776
