entrapment - what are your thoughts?


PDA






spacemanspiff
September 16, 2004, 04:26 PM
how do you view 'entrapment'? when it comes to our gun-culture, we are adamant about our belief that state and federal agencies should be using only constitutional means to catch criminals.

but does the type of crime involved affect the use of 'entrapment'?

can we really justify the use of entrapment by law enforcement on any type of crime?

i'll divulge more of my thought process once i've heard the opinions of some others, and discuss why i brought it up.

If you enjoyed reading about "entrapment - what are your thoughts?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tall Man
September 16, 2004, 04:28 PM
I'd like to see a THR member concensus on the practical defintion of entrapment, prior to discussing spiff's question.

TM

Gordon Fink
September 16, 2004, 04:37 PM
Inciting someone to commit a crime is a crime itself. As with all things, cops should not be above the law.

~G. Fink

Das Pferd
September 16, 2004, 04:40 PM
I view entrapment as (as well as the governments view I believe) getting someone to do something they would not normally do or normally think of doing.

Case in point with John DeLorean. The man had huge financial problems. He was then approached by government agents posing as drug dealers. They offered some large sum of money if he did this one thing knowing full well that many people who had never done anything wrong might take their offer because of their financial situation. He did not have this idea until the gov appraoched him and would not have done something similar if not approached. Thats entrapment.

JPL
September 16, 2004, 04:43 PM
How did the DeLorean case end up?

Was he convicted, or acquitted?

Archie
September 16, 2004, 04:44 PM
"Entrapment" is an affirmative defense to a crime.

The conditions are that the law enforcement agency or agent thereof must instigate the crime. The suspect would not have been involved bur for the actions of the LE agency or agent.

F'rinstance, a traffic cop cannot challange someone to a drag race and then cite that someone for excessive speed or reckeless driving, as a result of the race.

A vice cop cannot approach a woman, offer money for sex and then arrest for prostitution if she accepts.

"Entrapment" is different than 'setting a trap'. Setting up a surveillance on a commonly robbed store is a trap, but not entrapment. Walking down a street infamous for prostitutes and allowing a woman to offer sex for money is a trap, but not entrapment.

Okay, now what is the real question here? To what entrapment do you refer?

Standing Wolf
September 16, 2004, 04:45 PM
There's a world of difference in American law between the corrupt and the corruptible—or at least, there used to be.

Das Pferd
September 16, 2004, 04:50 PM
How did the DeLorean case end up?

"When John DeLorean, owner of the (then about to fail)
DeLorean Motor Company, was arrested and tried for selling cocaine, he
was found not guilty by reason of the defense of entrapment because,
the jury determined, the police took advantage of the fact that his
failing company made him a desperate individual. The police sent in an
undercover officer to offer him a bag of cocaine to sell to raise
money to save his company. The entire idea for the crime came from the
police; they provided the instrumentality (the coke); and John
DeLorean probably would never in his life have sold drugs to anybody
if the police hadn't shown up to offer him the drugs to sell at the
exact right time."

Its one of the first lessons of entrapment in most Criminal Justice classes.

spacemanspiff
September 16, 2004, 04:51 PM
i'd define it as the willful act of inciting or encouraging someone into doing something that is not their idea, for the purpose of charging them with a crime.

maybe i've read 'Unintended Consequences' one time too many, but have ATF agents ever tried to get people to commit the crime of discussing how to create a full auto firearm?

i know that up here one of the law enforcement agencies will employ minors to attempt to purchase alcohol without showing ID to a store clerk, and if the clerk asks them for it, they are instructed to try and talk the clerk into selling it to them anyways.
its been done with stores selling tobacco products as well.

41mag
September 16, 2004, 04:52 PM
I didn't care for the movie either.;)

Graystar
September 16, 2004, 04:53 PM
In legal terms.... That was my understanding as well. Essentially, the cops can’t commit a crime in order to affect some criminal liability upon a person.

dustind
September 16, 2004, 06:07 PM
can we really justify the use of entrapment by law enforcement on any type of crime? No.

spacemanspiff
September 16, 2004, 07:06 PM
suppose the crime is that of a heinous nature.

the reason i brought it up is that i know a person who is applying for a position with a states law enforcement agency, that would employ her to help capture sexual predators from internet communications, chat rooms, etc.

without going into the details of where, when, and how, the entire scenario struck me as being Entrapment. but its for a good cause, right? to help get the bad guys off the streets.

if entrapment is unconstitutional when its used against johns soliciting prostitutes, or against drug dealers, what makes it right to use against pedophiles?

edit - my position does not in any way shape or form sympathize with sexual predators. they deserve to be caught and deserve to be removed from society. but i feel like a hypocrite for thinking that unconstitutional means of catching sexual predators is alright when i believe that other types of crimes should never justify the use of entrapment as a tactic to catch the criminals committing those types of crimes.

Third_Rail
September 16, 2004, 07:15 PM
spiff, entrapment "for the children" is still entrapment, and it still shouldn't be done. IMO, anyway.

jnojr
September 16, 2004, 07:56 PM
suppose the crime is that of a heinous nature.

the reason i brought it up is that i know a person who is applying for a position with a states law enforcement agency, that would employ her to help capture sexual predators from internet communications, chat rooms, etc.

That isn't necessarily entrapment. Sounds like this person will go in chat rooms and pretend to be a minor. If some sicko who wants to bang kids sets up a meet, he'll get his 'nads hammered flat. Now, if she were to pretend to be a child and offer sex, that would be entrapment. But if the pervo offers, then all is well.

Hkmp5sd
September 16, 2004, 08:24 PM
I honestly don't see how someone can be "entrapped." If someone offers me $100 or an undercover LEO offers me $100,000 to convert a semi to full auto, it is still a crime if I do it. I know beforehand it is illegal. I might just want the money to buy a new toy or I may have some long sob story about needing it for a cancer operation, but it doesn't matter. Doing the conversion is illegal.

If you commit a crime of you own free will, it isn't entrapment. You did it because you wanted something and decided to take the chance of breaking the law and not getting caught. DeLorean needed money and chose to go for a drug deal. He knew what he was doing was illegal and did it anyway because of greed. He is no different than any other person that decides to smuggle drugs to make money.

Graystar
September 16, 2004, 08:34 PM
If you commit a crime of you own free will, it isn't entrapment. What if you don't know you're committing a crime?

Hawkmoon
September 16, 2004, 08:38 PM
There's a fine line, whether on the Internet or the street.

If an LEO apprioaches a suspected prostitute and offers her money for sex, that's entrapment. If the same LEO walks/drives down the same street and a woman approaches him and asks if he wants to ___, that's not entrapment.

I'm not sure how the Internet stuff will play out in court, but I often read newspaper accounts of LEOs who hang out on teenie bopper chat rooms pretending to be underage girls. IANAL but I'd guess that as long as they just play cutesy and wait for the alleged perv to make the first overture, it isn't entrapment.

Personally, I do not think entrapment is ever justified, for any reason, at any time, in any place. That does not mean, however, that I think the police should not be "patrolling" the chat rooms looking for the guys who want sex with underage girls (or, for that matter, underage boys). I'm all in favor of taking those people off the streets and off the Internet.

Wildalaska
September 16, 2004, 08:48 PM
Spiffy if she looks that good on a spenard street corner, shes a cop:D

WildoraguyAlaska

Bruce H
September 16, 2004, 08:49 PM
Law enforcement should not be going around trolling for somebody to commit a crime. There is enough actual crime committed that needs their attention. Asking a person to do something that is illegal on the chance they will do it is wrong. They do have a better case clearance rate when they already know who is going to do what though.

Hkmp5sd
September 16, 2004, 08:54 PM
What if you don't know you're committing a crime?
My interpretation doesn't match what the legal profession says on that. As far as I am concerned, it takes intent to commit a crime. For example, violating one of the arcane "rulings" ATF has declared simply because you didn't know it was "illegal" isn't a criminal offense. If some guy that has never heard of 922(r) buys a folding stock for his SKS at a gun show, big deal.

On the other hand, I believe the law says something to the effect, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

If an LEO apprioaches a suspected prostitute and offers her money for sex, that's entrapment. If the same LEO waks/drives down the same street and a woman approaches him and asks if he wants to ___, that's not entrapment.
I've always considered that semantics, not entrapment. If a LEO approaches a person he suspects to be a prostitute and through innuendo and body language makes the prostitute think he wants to pay for sex and gets her to agree, it is considered a good bust. If he simply walks up and makes a verbal offer to her and she agrees, it is entrapment.

As a side note, anyone living in my area that is seeking the services of a prostitute, a good rule of thumb is that if she is good looking, she is an undercover LEO. :)

zahc
September 16, 2004, 09:52 PM
I honestly don't see how someone can be "entrapped." If someone offers me $100 or an undercover LEO offers me $100,000 to convert a semi to full auto, it is still a crime if I do it. I know beforehand it is illegal. I might just want the money to buy a new toy or I may have some long sob story about needing it for a cancer operation, but it doesn't matter. Doing the conversion is illegal.

but see, the cops are coercing the person into committing the crime. The person would not have done the crime if they hadn't been coerced. It's kind of like forcing someone to sign something under threat of force.... if you coerced them then it's not legit, and i say if you coerced them into commiting the crime then the crime is not legit.....

mercedesrules
September 16, 2004, 10:15 PM
I sure as heck don't want to pay them to promote crime and vice. :mad:

Remember, Ruby Ridge was an entrapment to saw off a shotgun barrel .5 in. below the almighty limit. Several deaths. :rolleyes:

To question: No, of course not - even in the internet example.

sendec
September 16, 2004, 11:27 PM
A common law operating definition of entrapment is to induce an innocent person to commit an offense they would not otherwise commit, and as such is always wrong. Making an offer of money in exchange for sex is not entrapment because the person would decline if not predisposed to prostitution.

On another note, the chat room example sounds a little hinky - typically the 13 year old blond haired blue eyed girl chattin up the pervs on the 'net are in actuality middle age overweight guys in Value City suits - been there done that. I've never heard of a female being hired just to run chatrooms, it actually sounds like some sort of reverse sting.

The word coercion has been bandied about, and it too is a bright line bad thing. Offering somebody money or anything of value to break a law is not coercive - they can always say no, as could have Randy Weaver.

DMF
September 17, 2004, 12:17 AM
Entrapment is a legal defense, but it is unique in that it is an affirmative defense. Also, what one jury will consider entrapment, another may not.

It's also important to remember that the entrapment defense requires the defendant to admit to committing the crime, and then PROVE that the only reason he committed the crime was that the government gave him unreasonable incentive to commit the crime. The key is unreasonable. The government is allowed to provide a reasonable incentive, and create an opportunity for someone to commit a crime. However, they cannot provide an incentives that would convince an otherwise law abiding citizen to break the law.

AskJeeves turns up a decent brief explanation: "In jurisprudence, entrapment is a procedural defense by which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they were induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit said acts. For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime. However, when a person is predisposed to commit a crime, offering opportunities to commit the crime is not entrapment."

It's a gamble for a defendant, because it requires they confess, and then shifts the burden of proof to the defense to show that the government acted improperly.

A practical example is a drug deal in which a person offers to buy drugs at a price much higher than what would normally be expected. For example a UC offers to buy 100 pills of X at $20 per pill, and the local price is $15-$25. If the suspect refuses the deal, but the UC counters with $50 per pill, and the suspect affects, that case MAY be a good candidate for an entrapment defense, because it was such an unreasonable price that an otherwise innocent person may take that one deal to make quick cash. However, to attempt that defense the person will need to confess, and then prove that the government was unreasonable in their incentive. Big gamble for a defendant.

However, real cases are not that clear cut because LE agents are not looking to create criminals, they are looking to catch real criminals. In addition most half way intelligent ( and most are only half way) won't accept outrageous deals because they will get suspicious.

So no entrapment is not acceptable, and LE agencies do not attempt to entrap suspects because that creates a defense.

DMF
September 17, 2004, 12:25 AM
Remember, Ruby Ridge was an entrapment to saw off a shotgun barrel .5 in. below the almighty limit. Several deaths.Huge oversimplification of the Weaver case.

As stated previously Weaver could have said no. However, reference my previous post about convincing a jury. They can sometimes be very unpredictable, and even sympathetic to a defendant. Even a rascist freak. Weaver got much sympathy because his wife and son were dead, and he also benefitted from the fact that his own illegal acts (failure to appear to participate in his Constitutionally assured due process), thrust him into the national spotlight. That media attention got him the legal services of Gerry Spence.

Again, you oversimplify the Weaver case. The ATF made a good case, and was able to pass muster with the AUSA, and get an arrest warrant signed by the magistrate. Everyone glosses over Weavers violent resist to the original arrest. They also gloss over his failure to appear in court, as required if he wanted to present the affirmative defense of entrapment.

For a decent synopsis of the Weaver incident to include the initial case, through his acquittal, check this link: http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/1.html?sect=18

Can't say I agree with everything, but on the whole it's a decent analysis of that incident.

alan
September 17, 2004, 12:28 AM
DeLorean was acquitted. I do not know about entrapment in that case, I think that the jury might well have felt that he was guilty. I also think that they were put off by government tactics, to the point that they opted to "punish" the government, just my surmise.

So far as I underestand, entrapment has been grounds for dismissal of charges and or reversal of convictions on appeal.

DMF
September 17, 2004, 01:01 AM
So far as I underestand, entrapment has been grounds for dismissal of charges and or reversal of convictions on appeal. Entrapment would be unlikely to a viable means of obtaining an appeal. An appeal requires that the defendant show there was some legal error in the original trial that would warrant review by a higher court. Introducing a completely new defense would not be a reason for an appeal.

Also, if the defendant could get a new trial, it would again be difficult to use entrapment as a defense. If in the original trial the defendant plead not guilty, but did not present an entrapment defense, then it is unlikely that in a new trial he would admit to the crime (which is necessary for the new defense strategy) as the information from the testimony of defense witnesses of the original trail, will be admissable in the new trial. If the previous strategy was to present a case that the defendant did not commit the crime, it would problematic to convince a jury that the despite the previous testimony the defense now wants to admit that the defendant did in fact commit the crime, but only because the government tricked him into it. Switching defense strategies that way would make the defendant look like a liar.

M1911Owner
September 17, 2004, 03:30 AM
Let's see... "Entrapment." Isn't that what Gwyneth Paltrow did to get herself a hubby?

Sungun09
September 17, 2004, 11:50 AM
I don't think its as clear as you say DMF.

First - Was the shotgun sawed off before or after the ATF got it.

Second - I understand the date for Weaver's hearing was changed by the .gov who kindly enough didn't notify him..

finally - When does it take 400 !!!! agents of the .gov to chase down one family ? What were they afraid off ? Saddam's WMDs ??

And one more point... Weaver was a separatist NOT a white supremacist. Nothing wrong with wanting some seclusion..

WT
September 17, 2004, 12:09 PM
I've seen DeLorean a couple of times at the Somerville Circle Diner. Homeless people dress better than him.

mercedesrules
September 17, 2004, 12:26 PM
(sendec) The word coercion has been bandied about, and it too is a bright line bad thing. Offering somebody money or anything of value to break a law is not coercive - they can always say no, as could have Randy Weaver.

Are you sticking up for the BATFE? I didn't mention "coercion". Weaver turned the agents down several times before finally giving in to get rid of them. Plus, it's a bogus law. :mad: :mad: :mad:

mercedesrules
September 17, 2004, 12:31 PM
(DMF) The ATF made a good case,
You're obviously an "enforce the gun laws that are on the books" type of guy. It's a bogus law. Anyone that sides with the fedgov believes in gun control.

mercedesrules
September 17, 2004, 12:42 PM
(Sungun09) I don't think its as clear as you say DMF.
Right.

First - Was the shotgun sawed off before or after the ATF got it.
Who cares? It's a stupid law.

Second - I understand the date for Weaver's hearing was changed by the .gov who kindly enough didn't notify him..
Correct.

finally - When does it take 400 !!!! agents of the .gov to chase down one family ? What were they afraid off ? Saddam's WMDs ??
Haha!

And one more point... Weaver was a separatist NOT a white supremacist. Nothing wrong with wanting some seclusion..
Nothing criminal about being a peaceful white supremacist. Weaver harmed no one.

Hawkmoon
September 17, 2004, 10:03 PM
I notice that a couple of posts stated (or suggested) that entrapment somehow involves the gummint "coercing" the victim to commit a crime. Wrong.

To coerce means to force, to require by means or threat of force. Entrapment does not involve coersion, it involves deception. Tricking or bribing someone to do something is not coersion. It is (or can be) entrapment, but the two are mutually exclusive. If I am coerced into doing something, I am doing it against my will under threat of force. If I am entrapped into doing something, I am doing it willingly, but as a result of someone else convincing me I should do it rather than because it was my own bright idea from the get-go.

spacemanspiff
September 18, 2004, 12:06 AM
theres another aspect of why i brought this up.
the person i spoke of, has a tendancy to create sexual tension with men she meets. she has a flirtacious personality, but claims it is unintentional.

granted, if this person gets the job, it might be handled differently, and she might use a different personality in her job duties.

as its been said before, if the criminal makes the first step without any help from the UC, it isnt entrapment. but possibly using a flirtacious UC, it looks like a grey area to me. granted, its not like these criminals are going to be dragged kicking and screaming to commit their crimes.

DMF
September 18, 2004, 12:33 AM
Sungun, I never said it was simple. In fact read my post. I described the post I quoted from mercedesrules as an oversimplification, and then provided a 20 page analysis of the incident from the Court TV website.Sungun09 said:
First - Was the shotgun sawed off before or after the ATF got it.Weaver cut it down, that was established in court as that was central to his entrapment defense. Read my first post, which explains how the entrapment defense works.Second - I understand the date for Weaver's hearing was changed by the .gov who kindly enough didn't notify him..Sure did. The court fouled that one up. However, they told him the court date was in March, the actual court date was in February. It is important to note that the Weaver's son and Harris killed the US Marshals 6 months later in August. Weaver never intended to so up in court, he didn't show up in March, and therefore the error on the letter informing him of his court date is irrelevant. You might have an argument if the Marshals went after him before the court date Weaver was given, but not when it all went down months later.finally - When does it take 400 !!!! agents of the .gov to chase down one family ? What were they afraid off ? Saddam's WMDs ??Read that link I provided. Weaver and his wife violently resisted the initial arrest by ATF, and Vicki Weaver attempted to get a gun to shoot at the agents. Then when the US Marshals went up to Ruby Ridge in August they only took a handful of Deputies (IIRC it was 4). It wasn't until Deputy US Marshal Degan was killed in the shootout, and the Weaver's and Harris barricaded themselves in the cabin that the large numbers of law enforcement arrived.And one more point... Weaver was a separatist NOT a white supremacist. Nothing wrong with wanting some seclusion... No, he was a racist that like to play semantics games. Weaver was adamant that he be called a "white separatist" not a "white supremacist." His exact words were, "I'm not a white supremacist. I'm a white separatist." Supremacist or separatist, it doesn't matter he is still a racist. He didn't insist on seclusion, except from non-whites.

Again, do some research.

UnintendedConsequences
September 18, 2004, 01:43 AM
Why is a rifle with a 16 inch barrel legal and a shotgun with an 18 inch barrel legal, but if for some reason it is a 1/16 of an inch shorter (or even just a tad more) , it is illegal without a special tax stamp? I mean, why is a short barrel on a rifle or shotgun evil or bad? Is it just because a law says so or is there an actual reason? Just like the special tax stamp on a full-auto firearm, is there something necessarily bad about it that we have to legislate the dickens out of it? Yes, I comply with the laws, but I have to ask if there is really something besides an arbitrary law that makes something verboten.

Why is someone bad if they don't want to live around non-white people (if they are white) or non-black people (if they are black) or non-hispanic people (if they are hispanic), etc. so long as they live peacefully and aren't bothering other people?

As for entrapment, if someone keeps pestering you over and over and over to do something you wouldn't normally do, and you are in a situation where you are under stress already (debt, severe illness, etc.) where you are not able to think clearly, it would seem that taking advantage of that is underhanded to say the least.

It seems that while there are actual criminals who break the law and do cause harm, it also seems there are people who are harming no one, yet are singled out for something as minor as having a tube of metal too short or having a firearm that fires more than one cartridge with one pull of a trigger and are harming no one with either.

And then there are those who wish to live away from people who are of a different skin tone than they are. If they were a minority, society wouldn't even blink about that, but if they are white, we make a big deal. Racism and discrimination is not an affliction of the caucasian persuasion alone.

Things are not black and white...they are technicolor.

hammer4nc
September 18, 2004, 01:43 AM
DNF posted:
Weaver cut it down, that was established in court as that was central to his entrapment defense. Read my first post, which explains how the entrapment defense works.

This statement is in direct contradiction to the court TV link that DNF himself posted! Whats up with that?

What Randy did not know was that Guss Magisono was actually an informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) named Kenneth Fadeley. The ATF had previously arrested Fadeley for gunrunning and had offered him clemency in exchange for becoming an undercover informant for the Bureau. What happened next is still in dispute. On October 24, 1989, Randy met with Fadeley at a park in Sandpoint, Idaho, where he supposedly sold him two sawed-off shotguns. What is not known was the exact condition of the guns at the time the exchange was made. Following the sale, Fadeley reported that the guns were sawed-off, however Randy later argued that he had suspected Fadeley of being an undercover agent and that both guns were of legal barrel length at the time of the sale. Randy accused Fadeley of sawing the barrels off later.

One revealing point, on which this case got started...it was largely based on the uncorroborated testimony of a criminal UC agent (Fadeley). Sound Familiar?

The salient points to remember in the sad Weaver case: Both Weaver and Harris were threatened with possible execution for murder; yet were found innocent by a jury (without calling a single witness!). The federal prosecutor (Howen) in the trial was censured for lying and withholding evidence; and apparently suffered a nervous breakdown during closing arguments, when his duplicity was fully recognized. In conclusion, .gov paid out $3.1 million to the Weaver family, to settle a civil lawsuit and avoid further publicity of their tactics. And apologists still try to spin the incident as a model for federal law enforcement in action.

What's Lon Horiuchi been up to lately? He's ...uh...been maintaining something of a low profile?

2nd Amendment
September 18, 2004, 02:16 AM
Boy am I gonna go out on a limb here...

You see no difference between Separatist and Supremacist, DMF? Let me fill you in: A Supremacist wants to beat down, destroy, eliminate other races because he feels he(his race) is superior to them. At the very least he seeks total control of their actions and lives. He either works towards the goal or at least spends his time swilling bear and mouthing off about what he'd like to do.

A Separitist simply doesn't want to live in the conflict. And they have a damn good case that the mixing of races always seems to lead to anger and violence and ugly words, at least. We could go into a great discourse an WHY this is the case. Personally I'd lay most of it at the feet of manipulative government and leadership. But that's probably simplistic since mankind has been killing itself based on race or creed since day one. Regardless, it's very tough to fault someone who just doesn't care to be involved in it. It's even more difficult to try and lump the two, Supremacist and Separitist, together and be taken seriously.

As for the case made against Weaver, it was a joke. So far as I know we don't even know the shotguns were actually below the legal limit. That limit itself is an absurd arbitrary measurement that, at the very least, should come with a caveat stating "roughly this length". Hell, I can pull out three different tape measures and get a half inch difference in the same measurement(unless they say Stanley, then we can get an inch difference :) ). Add in the media circus, the date changes, the dog shooting, the back shooting, the Horiuchi Miracle Shot ad infinitum, ad nauseum and the government had no case.

But hey, I'm just a thoughtless LEO basher so what do I know.

DMF
September 18, 2004, 02:38 AM
This statement is in direct contradiction to the court TV link that DNF himself posted! Whats up with that? Well I, DMF (not N) will tell you. If you read my original post with the Court TV link, I said: "Can't say I agree with everything, but on the whole it's a decent analysis of that incident."

-----------
With regard to Weaver being a racist; separatist or supremacist, it doesn't matter the label you choose he was a racist. Remember the original meeting with Weaver and the informant was at an Aryan Nation meeting. Those meetings weren't for people who innocently wanted to be left alone, they were for those that had a hatred for anyone that was not white.

2nd Amendment
September 18, 2004, 02:40 AM
If memory serves you need to read up on Weaver's "involvement" with the AN.

joab
September 18, 2004, 03:11 AM
typically the 13 year old blond haired blue eyed girl chattin up the pervs on the 'net are in actuality middle age overweight guys in Value City suits - been there done that. I've never heard of a female being hired just to run chatrooms, it actually sounds like some sort of reverse sting.
About two years ago a friend was thinking of ending his marriage as a result of an on-line "affair" he was having with a woman on his brand new first time computer. Anybody with any sense or that could think through their testosterone induced fantasies was a phony.
To prove to him that you could be any thing you want to be on the net I went on some Yahoo chat lines as a 16 year old Japanese girl from Honggai city, SwEEtSuSHi16
With in hours I was being hit on by perverted old men the first mesage was always ASL?.
I picked one guy to string along for a couple of weeks I never at anytime came off as promiscuous or looking for goodtime but was consistaently messaged by him trying to get to know me better.
I played the coy little virgin girl where ever he led I meekly followed.
I believe that this is how the cops do it also.so that there can be no entrapment claims.

When I got tired of the game I sent him one last e-mail

Dude I'm a 16 year old girl from Japan, new to America.
Has it ever crossed your feeble mind that I communicate not only in perfect English but in Southern English.
Have you never even looked into why a girl raised in Japan would be from a city in Vietnam.

dustind
September 18, 2004, 05:00 AM
If an LEO apprioaches a suspected prostitute and offers her money for sex, that's entrapment. If the same LEO walks/drives down the same street and a woman approaches him and asks if he wants to ___, that's not entrapment. That makes perfect sense and is the way it should be. Except for victimless crimes being illegal. With regard to Weaver being a racist; separatist or supremacist ... If you know the difference you should use it.

I would say there is a huge difference between those who would violate other's rights (with or without the help of the government), and those who would not.

For the record I am a strait, white, athiest who has nothing against any race, religion, or anyconcievable sexual orientation or preference. The only people I do not like are those who feel they can and should violate others rights, and those who lie or cheat.

The Real Mad Max
September 18, 2004, 07:35 AM
Ain't entrapment unless you are stupid enough to be trapped. And if you are that stupid, you deserve it.

mercedesrules
September 18, 2004, 01:39 PM
(Hawkmoon) Tricking or bribing someone to do something is not coersion.
This reminds me to mention that I don't think law enforcement should be allowed to lie on the job. Martha Stewart is doing time for lying but police, detectives and other LEs are allowed to lie to suspects. This is not due process or rule of law. No citizen should have special "rights" to lie, etc.

Standing on a corner posing as a prostitute, posing as an internet buddy or posing as a white supremacist are all examples of behaviors LEs shouldn't be allowed to perform. Any such action performed by them should be an instant signal that they have abandoned civilized behavior and are no longer deserving of the "rights" they are violating. In other words, if someone lies to me, I have no further obligation to tell him the truth.

Since entrapment necessitates lying, it is not civilized behavior. Anyone that does it is a savage.

Muzzleflash
September 19, 2004, 03:42 PM
It's really fun to mess with female vice squad officers on the corner.

"Excuse me officer, do you have the time?" spoken clearly and loudly right when a man is walking up to her- priceless. I do reccomend wearing good running shoes when doing this, though.

JohnBT
September 19, 2004, 04:52 PM
"Since entrapment necessitates lying, it is not civilized behavior. Anyone that does it is a savage."

You wouldn't make a very good poker player.

Speaking of poker, I was getting out of my car one morning at 5 a.m. after a game and a guy pulled up in the middle of the street with some sob story about being from out of town and needing gas money to get to his elderly mother's house. He claimed his Visa card wouldn't work at the 7-11. Rather than tell him I'd won almost $700 but wasn't giving him any of it, I told him I'd lost everything. Good thing he believed my lie because I was behind my car and had my hand on a gun.

GASP !!!!! I LIED. Oh, I'm a'going to hell in a handbasket I am. Yup.

And speaking of entrapment, I think some folks need to consult a good lawyer about how the world really works.

John

Graystar
September 19, 2004, 06:33 PM
Ain't entrapment unless you are stupid enough to be trapped. And if you are that stupid, you deserve it. Blaming the victim. What are you...a democrat?

It's entrapment if the police commit a crime while attempting to make you criminally libel. It doesn't matter if you actually commit a crime or not...it's still entrapment.

sendec
September 19, 2004, 07:15 PM
OK, no more lying on the job.

"Your spouse just died a horrific death and was probably alive when he started inhaling the superheated gases from the fire. His eyeballs burst from the heat, but I am guessing that the pain of having his lower extremities charred to the bone distracted him, plus his ears were burned off so he probably didnt hear them pop"

"I know you molested that little boy, and you know you molested that little boy, but I have no physical evidence and you're gonna hire a megabuck lawyer to convince a jury of people too stupid to get out of jury duty that it was no doubt a figment of the kid's imagination, so we'll just credit this one to your account"

How many of us are married? How long would are marriages last without a little creative articulation?

mercedesrules
September 19, 2004, 10:35 PM
My marriage is not a job, sendec. I'm referring to the state lying to deprive people of their liberty, not husbands lying that their wife's butt is not the size of a beanbag chair.

If I wasn't clear: if state officials are allowed to lie, citizens should have the same rights. One shouldn't do time for what cops often do.

In your examples:
To the widow:
"Regrettably, your husband died in the fire. The coroner's report is available at the station." Tact.
Molester:
"I'll be watching you; stop this behavior now."

Comparing entrapment to good manners is specious.

joab
September 19, 2004, 10:51 PM
Sedec
" Hello heavily painted and scantily clad woman on the street corner. Can I interest you in a business proposition"

Street Corner Sally
" Are you associated with any local law enforcement agency"

Sendec
"Yes ma'am I am. And I feel I should tell you that if you accept my offer, I will arrest you for soliticitation. And any other drug paraphernalia chrges I think that I can make stick."

Street Corner Sally
" OK officer fair enough. That'll be $50 for straight up, a little more if you're nasty.

See sendec you and all your lying cop friends don't get it.
If you are honest with the crooks they we be honest with you.

Muzzleflash
September 19, 2004, 11:07 PM
50$ for streetwalker FS? Where do you live, Joab?

Normally (although price varies accross the country) a figure between 15-20$ gets the cheapest thing you can buy, and it's 75$ to 150$ for half and half or full service. Also I suggest you avoid street cruising, it can be a real thrill but the risks are really too much. Stick with an incall/outcall operation with good reviews.

DMF
September 19, 2004, 11:08 PM
mercedesrules, you miss the point entirely.

A ruse to illicit a confession from a child molester, is NOT the same thing as lying in an official statement, or in testimony.

You see cops can't lie in official statements or in testimony. They are held to the exact same standard as Martha Stewart, and the rest of the world. She wasn't fibbing to test a suspect, she was lying in an official statement for the record.

You see when I testify I will tell the whole truth, including any trick I used in the interview of the suspect. Martha couldn't grasp that concept.

"I'll be watching you, stop this behavior now." You think that will stop a pedophile? What world do you live in? I've had to sit in a room with pedophiles for hours, being nice, pretending to be their pal, all in hopes that they will confess, thereby decreasing the chance that the victim will be traumatized again by testifying in court. I guess from now on, I'll tell the victims you say it's not nice to trick criminals into confessing. Where can they send the thank you notes?

mercedesrules
September 19, 2004, 11:20 PM
Martha couldn't grasp that concept.

That's because it's BS, statist hair-splitting.

DMF
September 19, 2004, 11:25 PM
Not hair splitting at all. If I were to lie in an official statement, or testimony, I would be subject to the exact same penalties as Martha. She knew her choices were to tell the truth or saying nothing. She went for door number three, commit a crime an lie in an official statement.

Still waiting to here where I'm supposed to have my victims send their thank you notes.

joab
September 19, 2004, 11:47 PM
Normally (although price varies accross the country) a figure between 15-20$ gets the cheapest thing you can buy, and it's 75$ to 150$ for half and half or full service. Also I suggest you avoid street cruising, it can be a real thrill but the risks are really too much. Stick with an incall/outcall operation with good reviews. You have obviously not been on The Trail in Orlando. $50 would be extremely generous

Muzzleflash
September 20, 2004, 03:29 AM
Well, I'm referring to ones that are actually attractive.

Shame that the AMPs that provided service have vanished so much, eh?

Before anyone gets their feminine dainties in a twisted wad, I don't actually pick up hookers. :p

mercedesrules
September 20, 2004, 10:38 AM
Still waiting to here where I'm supposed to have my victims send their thank you notes.

I'm tempted to tell you. :)

If you enjoyed reading about "entrapment - what are your thoughts?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!