DK, you're arguing so completely out of context that I'm having a very hard time believing that you've missed the basic tripping point of your arguement. You're far too intelligent to miss something this fundamental. Let's start this again.
The federal government brought the charges. To me, that fact in and of itself completely negates your arguement for the existance of a police state. If we were in a police state on a national level, as you posit throughout this thread, then the fact that the feds are bringing up charges AT ALL against an officer is hard evidence that there is no such police state. In my first post, I never referred to the officer as the "government" - that referrence was for the prosecution.
If you read the decision, I would love to know what other evidence, statements and testimony you are privy to that would allow you to say that the judge took them "out of context". Clearly you have hard evidence to the contrary, and I'd love to know what it is and why it wasn't used in court. If you have no such evidence or transcripts of the proceedings, then stating that he took anything out of context is a strawman.
Here's my favorite part of your post:
Quote:
|
This LEO, as an individual, authorized, bought, and transferred, without the express authority of the ISP department, a machinegun. If a civilian tried that, it would result in his immediate arrest.
|
The judge's entire arguement centers around the fact that Vest did in fact have proper authorization.
Quote:
During the hearing, when
discussing whether a supervisor could have properly granted Vest the authority to
legally possess the machine gun, his attorneys asked, “Where does [Vest’s supervisor]
get the evidence that he has the authority to grant it when there’s no definition of
what constitutes authority?” (Doc. 84 - Transcript, 25:17-19). This inquiry dovetails
with the previous discussion regarding the apparent ambiguity and vagueness of the
“by or under” phrase of the law enforcement exception.
|
It seems abudantly clear to me.
Seriously, what purpose would it serve for a police state to levy accusations of this sort against members of the police?
Let me also point out that there is no execution inference in my post, and your statement that I implied anything of the sort just goes to show that you've completely missed the boat on this one.