To Catch a Predator

[Gunny]

First off, I think Chris Hanson is one of the smarmiest, self-sanctimonious asshats I've ever seen. Second, apparently, because I offended one certain chump who participates in the entrapment activities that he chose to destroy a message board in his unbridled hatred of my opposition. How's THAT for having power over someone?

For those not in the know, the premise of the show is that an internet group pretends to be 13-15 years olds and lures grown men to a specific address where they are exposed on camera (for later use by MSNBC), then hammered by cops once they try to leave.

Let's see if we can differentiate between Gunny's opinion here:

1. I'd as soon shoot a child molester as look at one. Matter of fact, I'd rather kick their asses ... more painful than a shooting.

2. However, I believe going onto the internet and posing as an under-age person and luring someone into a trap where they are arrested is entrapment. Originally, the police were not involved and the person(s) were just exposed. No problem.

However, I believe once you involve law enforcement, you cross the legal (not moral) line.

Tell me where I'm wrong (and not YOU ConHog -- you don't know shit).

[Missileman]

First off, I think Chris Hanson is one of the smarmiest, self-sanctimonious asshats I've ever seen. Second, apparently, because I offended one certain chump who participates in the entrapment activities that he chose to destroy a message board in his unbridled hatred of my opposition. How's THAT for having power over someone?

For those not in the know, the premise of the show is that an internet group pretends to be 13-15 years olds and lures grown men to a specific address where they are exposed on camera (for later use by MSNBC), then hammered by cops once they try to leave.

Let's see if we can differentiate between Gunny's opinion here:

1. I'd as soon shoot a child molester as look at one. Matter of fact, I'd rather kick their asses ... more painful than a shooting.

2. However, I believe going onto the internet and posing as an under-age person and luring someone into a trap where they are arrested is entrapment. Originally, the police were not involved and the person(s) were just exposed. No problem.

However, I believe once you involve law enforcement, you cross the legal (not moral) line.

Tell me where I'm wrong (and not YOU ConHog -- you don't know shit).

Whoa! Deja Vu

[ConHog]

First off, I think Chris Hanson is one of the smarmiest, self-sanctimonious asshats I've ever seen. Second, apparently, because I offended one certain chump who participates in the entrapment activities that he chose to destroy a message board in his unbridled hatred of my opposition. How's THAT for having power over someone?

For those not in the know, the premise of the show is that an internet group pretends to be 13-15 years olds and lures grown men to a specific address where they are exposed on camera (for later use by MSNBC), then hammered by cops once they try to leave.

Let's see if we can differentiate between Gunny's opinion here:

1. I'd as soon shoot a child molester as look at one. Matter of fact, I'd rather kick their asses ... more painful than a shooting.

2. However, I believe going onto the internet and posing as an under-age person and luring someone into a trap where they are arrested is entrapment. Originally, the police were not involved and the person(s) were just exposed. No problem.

However, I believe once you involve law enforcement, you cross the legal (not moral) line.

Tell me where I'm wrong (and not YOU ConHog -- you don't know shit).


Wanted or nor im going to give you conjoga facts. Ever see the show Bait Caar?

Serjously, the last time you started this thread i posted the three elements required for sometging to be police entraoment and showed that this show does meet the legal standards to not be entrapment.

Youre of course rntitled to your opinion but it means nothing in the face of court decisions that differ.

[Gunny]

Whoa! Deja Vu

How so?

[Gunny]

Wanted or nor im going to give you conjoga facts. Ever see the show Bait Caar?

Serjously, the last time you started this thread i posted the three elements required for sometging to be police entraoment and showed that this show does meet the legal standards to not be entrapment.

Youre of course rntitled to your opinion but it means nothing in the face of court decisions that differ.

My opinion seems to exceed your typing skills. Last time I posted this thread was on another board. I didn't agree with you then, nor do I agree with that reasoning now.

[Missileman]

How so?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33911-To-Catch-a-Predator&p=516088#post516088

[ConHog]

My opinion seems to exceed your typing skills. Last time I posted this thread was on another board. I didn't agree with you then, nor do I agree with that reasoning now.

Sorry, was on my Droid, hard to edit on that.

And, no we discussed it on THIS board, as per the link MissileMan posted and in THAT thread I proved that it isn't police entrapment.

[Gunny]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33911-To-Catch-a-Predator&p=516088#post516088

Okay, well just pretend I'm a noob and started an abortion thread.:laugh:

I'll see if I can't combine the two.

[Gunny]

Sorry, was on my Droid, hard to edit on that.

And, no we discussed it on THIS board, as per the link MissileMan posted and in THAT thread I proved that it isn't police entrapment.

Damn. Too bad for you. That means you were wrong on USMB and twice here.

When you want to stop regurgitating the current misinterpretation and misuse of the law and address the misinterpreted INTENT of the law. let me know.

[ConHog]

Damn. Too bad for you. That means you were wrong on USMB and twice here.

When you want to stop regurgitating the current misinterpretation and misuse of the law and address the misinterpreted INTENT of the law. let me know.

I honestly have no recollection of discussing this topic on USMB, but you had me thinking I was crazy when you posted that you hadn't debated it on THIS board. :laugh2:

That being said, I posted the LEGAL standard for police entrapment, that show doesn't meet those standards. Now if you want to argue that the standards should be changed, well then by all means, argue that.

[SassyLady]

For every predator that was ''entrapped'' whether legal or not, is one less predator preying on our children.

[Noir]

For every predator that was ''entrapped'' whether legal or not, is one less predator preying on our children.

That there is a silly-slop sentence...

[SassyLady]

That there is a silly-slop sentence...
yep...sometimes I get lazy and don't correct myself, especially when not using computer.

[logroller]

Okay, well just pretend I'm a noob and started an abortion thread.:laugh:

I'll see if I can't combine the two.

Hmmmm. How bout a TV show that entices a pregnant 16 year old to get an abortion, and doesn't want her gay married dads to find out because they don't approve of having children out of wedlock? Maury Povich hosts.:laugh2:

[Gunny]

I honestly have no recollection of discussing this topic on USMB, but you had me thinking I was crazy when you posted that you hadn't debated it on THIS board. :laugh2:

That being said, I posted the LEGAL standard for police entrapment, that show doesn't meet those standards. Now if you want to argue that the standards should be changed, well then by all means, argue that.

Really. I thought the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution was the "legal standard". Your "legal standard" also does not jive with what used to be the "legal standard". So when did it change? What made it okay for law enforcement to engage in entrapping people?

[Gunny]

For every predator that was ''entrapped'' whether legal or not, is one less predator preying on our children.

You're saying the end justifies the means. What does that say for our legal system?

[Gunny]

I honestly have no recollection of discussing this topic on USMB, but you had me thinking I was crazy when you posted that you hadn't debated it on THIS board. :laugh2:

That being said, I posted the LEGAL standard for police entrapment, that show doesn't meet those standards. Now if you want to argue that the standards should be changed, well then by all means, argue that.

You're trying to talk around the topic. The "police standards" you keep trying to fall back on and the LAW are not the same things. It's acceptable for 6 cops to jump, scream at and beat down anyone they suspect of a crime. Does that make it right? Seems a clear over-abuse of force to me. And you can add that one to the show. Some fat, dumbass dude into teens who couldn't hurt himself, much less anyone gets swarmed by 5 cops, beat down, jerked around and hammered.

I'm here to tell you now, if for ANY reason, any cops think they're pulling on MY shoulder and/or knees like that, they're going to have to earn it. I may lose in the end, but a few of those bullies won't be sleeping well for a couple of nights.

[DragonStryk72]

I hate these fucking shows, with a god damned passion. Seriously, they are the more insidious form of fear mongering, making people think that pedos are waiting in every bush to pounce on your child the moment that you step away to check the mail. Our children are the thing we worry about the most, and this is where the Wizard's First Rule really shines: People will most often believe a lie, either because they think it to be true, or fear it might be. They use this fear to put us in a state of fear so that we'll keep watching.

You know what works better than telling your kid to never talk to strangers (unless they happen to wear a cop, firefighter, emt, or military uniform. Not like a criminal might think of wearing a costume as part of lure :rolleyes: )? It's to teach your kid to resist in every way possible if someone does grab them or try to take them somewhere against their will. Kick, bite, scratch, drop deadweight, and scream, and if he slaps a hand over your mouth, lick or bite his palm (Believe it or not, it works). Criminals don't want a scene to deal with, and if a kid is putting up too much of a fight, they're most likely to drop the kid and flee.

Alls this god damn show does is make everyone paranoid. They could do this same run without putting it on television, but no, let's make sure everyone sees a constant stream of pedos showing up, so that we can all share in the fear.

[ConHog]

Really. I thought the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution was the "legal standard". Your "legal standard" also does not jive with what used to be the "legal standard". So when did it change? What made it okay for law enforcement to engage in entrapping people?

The cotus doesnt address entrapment at all gunny. So in fact actual entrapment isnt unconstitutional.

[Gunny]

The cotus doesnt address entrapment at all gunny. So in fact actual entrapment isnt unconstitutional.

Try reading the 5th Amendment.

[ConHog]

Try reading the 5th Amendment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]


That doesn't address police entrapment at ALL. Not one single bit.

As a legal term police entrapment is a result of gasp judicial activism. The federal government didn't recognize police entrapment as being a valid defense until Woo Wai vs United States in 1915, when a judge agreed with the defendant and that has set case law, but there was no constitutional protection from police entrapment, and there still isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment#United_States

Do you even read the links I've been posting on this subject, or have you already made up you mind? That's not a flame, it's a real question, I won't bother posting links if you're not even considering them.

[Gunny]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]


That doesn't address police entrapment at ALL. Not one single bit.

As a legal term police entrapment is a result of gasp judicial activism. The federal government didn't recognize police entrapment as being a valid defense until Woo Wai vs United States in 1915, when a judge agreed with the defendant and that has set case law, but there was no constitutional protection from police entrapment, and there still isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment#United_States

Do you even read the links I've been posting on this subject, or have you already made up you mind? That's not a flame, it's a real question, I won't bother posting links if you're not even considering them.

Like I said, I don't need your input. It most certainly DOES address police entrapment since police entrapment requires one to incriminate oneself.

[ConHog]

Like I said, I don't need your input. It most certainly DOES address police entrapment since police entrapment requires one to incriminate oneself.

What? Gunny you DO realize that every single criminal actually incriminates themselves when they commit a crime, right? That's not the standard, the standard is that the don't have to TESTIFY against themselves, whether in police interrogation or in court.

[Missileman]

Really. I thought the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution was the "legal standard". Your "legal standard" also does not jive with what used to be the "legal standard". So when did it change? What made it okay for law enforcement to engage in entrapping people?


Do you honestly believe that the only reason these men arrived at the "bait" house was they were "steered" into doing something they wouldn't ordinarily do? I'm certain that there are strict rules followed as to who initiates the contact, who initiates any discussion about sex, and who initiates any discussion about meeting so that it's NOT entrapment.

Whatever takes place is solely the initiative of the perp.

There are apparently enough of these predators out there, that there's no need to create any.

[ConHog]

Do you honestly believe that the only reason these men arrived at the "bait" house was they were "steered" into doing something they wouldn't ordinarily do? I'm certain that there are strict rules followed as to who initiates the contact, who initiates any discussion about sex, and who initiates any discussion about meeting so that it's NOT entrapment.

Whatever takes place is solely the initiative of the perp.

There are apparently enough of these predators out there, that there's no need to create any.

Earlier in the thread I posted a link to the three elements required to be police entrapment, this show meets none of them. Gunny doesn't seem to care.

[fj1200]

Earlier in the thread I posted a link to the three elements required to be police entrapment, this show meets none of them. Gunny doesn't seem to care.

I believe Gunny is arguing the what should be not the what is. Two different arguments.

[ConHog]

I believe Gunny is arguing the what should be not the what is. Two different arguments.


I acknowledged that those are two different arguments earlier in the thread (actually the old thread) and welcomed him to petition to have the law changed. Unless and until that time, this show is currently not entrapment, that's all I'm saying.

[Gunny]

I believe Gunny is arguing the what should be not the what is. Two different arguments.

BINGO! DING! DING! DING!

I'm asking for opinions. Not some judge's ruling. An idiot with Google can regurgitate some judge's misinterpretation of the law.

IMO, it is wrong, and goes against the spririt of the Constitution to entrap people. Whatever law enforcement chooses to call these "stings", it amounts to the same thing in the end. Law enforcement, IMO, should not be allowed to dangle the proverbial carrot on a stick. Minus that, who knows what decision might have been made?

[ConHog]

BINGO! DING! DING! DING!

I'm asking for opinions. Not some judge's ruling. An idiot with Google can regurgitate some judge's misinterpretation of the law.

IMO, it is wrong, and goes against the spririt of the Constitution to entrap people. Whatever law enforcement chooses to call these "stings", it amounts to the same thing in the end. Law enforcement, IMO, should not be allowed to dangle the proverbial carrot on a stick. Minus that, who knows what decision might have been made?

What misinterpretation? And please stop flaming. No one is calling you an idiot for having a wrong opinion.

In order to show that something is unconstitutional you MUST show where it prohibited in the COTUS. You just keep saying "fifth amendment" but you fail to show where in the fifth amendment police entrapment is mentioned at all. The FACT is Gunny police entrapment is an idea introduced into US Law by those slimy lawyers and activist judges you so oft gripe about. It is NOT in the COTUS at all.

[fj1200]

I'm asking for opinions. Not some judge's ruling. An idiot with Google can regurgitate some judge's misinterpretation of the law.

IMO, it is wrong, and goes against the spririt of the Constitution to entrap people. Whatever law enforcement chooses to call these "stings", it amounts to the same thing in the end. Law enforcement, IMO, should not be allowed to dangle the proverbial carrot on a stick. Minus that, who knows what decision might have been made?

I'm not sure about the Constitutionality of entrapment but I would argue that the police should have some latitude in regards to pedophiles. Kids do not have the ability to defend themselves against predators and if there is a way to address potential predators without running afoul of entrapment then I think the police should have that tool. An officer posing as a child, on an internet forum for example, without "looking for it" is not entrapping anyone. I think in that scenario they are not "dangling the carrot," the predator is enticing the minor.

[darin]

CH - Gunny isn't debating the constitution or legality. He's saying "He hates the entrapment he sees" - you are countering him for probably a couple reasons - yet using your perspective on definitions and legalities against his opinion.

[ConHog]

I'm not sure about the Constitutionality of entrapment but I would argue that the police should have some latitude in regards to pedophiles. Kids do not have the ability to defend themselves against predators and if there is a way to address potential predators without running afoul of entrapment then I think the police should have that tool. An officer posing as a child, on an internet forum for example, without "looking for it" is not entrapping anyone. I think in that scenario they are not "dangling the carrot," the predator is enticing the minor.

One could even make the argument that Predator isn't acting as an agent of the police and therefor even if they ARE entrapping people tough shit.

[fj1200]

^I wasn't addressing the show.

[ConHog]

CH - Gunny isn't debating the constitution or legality. He's saying "He hates the entrapment he sees" - you are countering him for probably a couple reasons - yet using your perspective on definitions and legalities against his opinion.

But he IS arguing the constitutionality of it DMP he has SEVERAL times in this thread said that what Predator does violates the COTUS. Those are HIS words, not mine. If that's not arguing that it is unconstitutional, I don't know what it is.

[ConHog]

^I wasn't addressing the show.

Understood, I was just relating what you said to the circumstances of the show.

[Gunny]

What misinterpretation? And please stop flaming. No one is calling you an idiot for having a wrong opinion.

In order to show that something is unconstitutional you MUST show where it prohibited in the COTUS. You just keep saying "fifth amendment" but you fail to show where in the fifth amendment police entrapment is mentioned at all. The FACT is Gunny police entrapment is an idea introduced into US Law by those slimy lawyers and activist judges you so oft gripe about. It is NOT in the COTUS at all.

Please stop trying to play victim and seeing "flaming" where none exists.

Last I checked, the 5th Amendment addresses one's Right to not self-incriminate. Sorry if that doesn't jive with your response. Entrapment is being purposefully lured by law enforcement into self-incrimination. Simple math.

[Gunny]

I'm not sure about the Constitutionality of entrapment but I would argue that the police should have some latitude in regards to pedophiles. Kids do not have the ability to defend themselves against predators and if there is a way to address potential predators without running afoul of entrapment then I think the police should have that tool. An officer posing as a child, on an internet forum for example, without "looking for it" is not entrapping anyone. I think in that scenario they are not "dangling the carrot," the predator is enticing the minor.

As was pointed out via the show ....

Going after under age children and pedophilia are two different animals. I didn't know that. Pedophilia is going after pre-pubescent kids, and considered separate from going after under age kids. Go figure, but that was the cop's statement.

Otherwise, you make a valid point. Thank you.

[ConHog]

Please stop trying to play victim and seeing "flaming" where none exists.

Last I checked, the 5th Amendment addresses one's Right to not self-incriminate. Sorry if that doesn't jive with your response. Entrapment is being purposefully lured by law enforcement into self-incrimination. Simple math.

Calling someone an idiot IS flaming.

Be that as it may, here you are absolutely arguing that this show is unconstitutional. You're WRONG. This isn't up for question. It's a fact. You are WRONG.

Entrapment has NOTHING to do with self incrimination. Not one SINGLE thing. As far as that goes, you are self incriminating yourself any time you commit a crime Gunny. You can't be incriminated unless you actually COMMIT the crime. Entrapment is when the police INTICE you to commit a crime you otherwise wouldn't have committed.

And THAT is if you can eve prove that this show is acting as an agent of the police. Which I believe you probably could make that case; but it's not a given.

For example, if you and I were hanging out and I tried to talk you into robbing a bank, and you were like "rob a bank?" and I talked you into it and then we got arrested, you couldn't claim entrapment. Because I'm not an agent of the police.

[Gunny]

Calling someone an idiot IS flaming.

Be that as it may, here you are absolutely arguing that this show is unconstitutional. You're WRONG. This isn't up for question. It's a fact. You are WRONG.

Entrapment has NOTHING to do with self incrimination. Not one SINGLE thing. As far as that goes, you are self incriminating yourself any time you commit a crime Gunny. You can't be incriminated unless you actually COMMIT the crime. Entrapment is when the police INTICE you to commit a crime you otherwise wouldn't have committed.

And THAT is if you can eve prove that this show is acting as an agent of the police. Which I believe you probably could make that case; but it's not a given.

For example, if you and I were hanging out and I tried to talk you into robbing a bank, and you were like "rob a bank?" and I talked you into it and then we got arrested, you couldn't claim entrapment. Because I'm not an agent of the police.

Really. And her eI thought it was calling a stone a stone.

I'm not wrong, douchenoodle. Try thinking for yourself instead of doing nothing more than regurgitating case law. Fuck off. I asked a question to people that can think. Not people who just think quoting some bullshit decision makes them right. Hell, I can look up the stupid decision.

Feel free to try www.sesamestreet.com where you can post with your equals.

[ConHog]

Really. And her eI thought it was calling a stone a stone.

I'm not wrong, douchenoodle. Try thinking for yourself instead of doing nothing more than regurgitating case law. Fuck off. I asked a question to people that can think. Not people who just think quoting some bullshit decision makes them right. Hell, I can look up the stupid decision.

Feel free to try www.sesamestreet.com where you can post with your equals.

More flaming and deflecting from you?

Notice I'm not doing either. I'm addressing THE ISSUE. which is this Is Predator entrapment? It is NOT, that isn't a question. It's a statement of fact.

Legal terms have meanings and definitions, entrapment included, and Predator meets none of those.

[darin]

jeezus aich kryst.

[Gunny]

More flaming and deflecting from you?

Notice I'm not doing either. I'm addressing THE ISSUE. which is this Is Predator entrapment? It is NOT, that isn't a question. It's a statement of fact.

Legal terms have meanings and definitions, entrapment included, and Predator meets none of those.


jeezus aich kryst.

Done wrecking the thread and crying like the whiny bitch you are? If you had a damned clue someone might listen to you. Haven't seen THAT happen in 3+ years.

Darin, please put this in the cage. I won't mod my own threads unless I have to. Obviously an adult conversation on the topic is not to be had.

[ConHog]

Done wrecking the thread and crying like the whiny bitch you are? If you had a damned clue someone might listen to you. Haven't seen THAT happen in 3+ years.

Darin, please put this in the cage. I won't mod my own threads unless I have to. Obviously an adult conversation on the topic is not to be had.

Asking you to stop flaming and stick with the topic is NOT whinging Gunny.

Topic.

Is Predator entrapment?

Answer

No

See that I managed to stay on topic, you should give it a try.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm not sure about the Constitutionality of entrapment but I would argue that the police should have some latitude in regards to pedophiles. Kids do not have the ability to defend themselves against predators and if there is a way to address potential predators without running afoul of entrapment then I think the police should have that tool. An officer posing as a child, on an internet forum for example, without "looking for it" is not entrapping anyone. I think in that scenario they are not "dangling the carrot," the predator is enticing the minor.


As was pointed out via the show ....

Going after under age children and pedophilia are two different animals. I didn't know that. Pedophilia is going after pre-pubescent kids, and considered separate from going after under age kids. Go figure, but that was the cop's statement.

Otherwise, you make a valid point. Thank you.

People often confuse pedophilia with 'sex with an underage kid;
AS stated, pedo is on very young kids, 12 year olds are in varying states of puberty, I remember some chicks in the 6th and 7th grade that were already well developed, a true pedo would consider them too old.

That said, if a person is on the internet, I dont see how that could be dangling a carrot. I mean, the attraction is physical, unless pics are involved, to do something you normally wouldnt would pretty much require that a guy SEES THE KID AND THEN LOSES HIS 'CONTROL' to say no, so to speak.
There are alot of guys who wouldnt be interested in sex with underage kids unless confronted in a situation where the person is physically present.

I think guys who respond to the chat rooms are set solid on underage kids, and wouldnt be there for any other reason. They also have plenty of time to reconsider once they are on their way, not to mention its virtually impossible that all of those guys have never done it before.

Pedos are dead set predators, there is no wiggle room, its not like, oh, I want to get laid tonight, should I go to the bar and look for an adult, or go online and hunt for some 6 yr old victim. They simply cant be entrapped.

IM SURPRISED THAT MANY GUYS ARE THAT STUPID TO FALL FOR IT, ONE GUY EVEN GOT CAUGHT TWO DAYS IN A ROW. DUHHHHHH

Its not like the guys havent had plenty of time and opportunities to change their mind. Its not like a whore sticking her boobs in some guys face, then luring him into a room and having sex. Hell, I picked up a cop working as a street walker one time, I didnt realize she was either, she just told me to pull over and she went her merry way, it took me a little while to figure out what happened.

[ConHog]

What I find REALLY odd about Gunny's stance is that there is a thread about the show Bait Car running right now, he's participated in, and not one has he said that THAT is entrapment.

Just weird.

[LuvRPgrl]

What I find REALLY odd about Gunny's stance is that there is a thread about the show Bait Car running right now, he's participated in, and not one has he said that THAT is entrapment.

Just weird.

MY opinion is that bait car is much more of an entrapment than to catch a pred.

[ConHog]

MY opinion is that bait car is much more of an entrapment than to catch a pred.

That's what I was getting at. I'm not sure why he started two threads about this show calling it entrapment and never uttered the word in the Bait Car thread.

[LuvRPgrl]

That's what I was getting at. I'm not sure why he started two threads about this show calling it entrapment and never uttered the word in the Bait Car thread.

Maybe he doesnt give a crap about those young punks getting caught for GTA, but if some of those guys in the predator show really are innocent, man, its still gonna destroy their lives.

[ConHog]

Maybe he doesnt give a crap about those young punks getting caught for GTA, but if some of those guys in the predator show really are innocent, man, its still gonna destroy their lives.

None of those idiots on Predator are innocent.

[Intense]

You're trying to talk around the topic. The "police standards" you keep trying to fall back on and the LAW are not the same things. It's acceptable for 6 cops to jump, scream at and beat down anyone they suspect of a crime. Does that make it right? Seems a clear over-abuse of force to me. And you can add that one to the show. Some fat, dumbass dude into teens who couldn't hurt himself, much less anyone gets swarmed by 5 cops, beat down, jerked around and hammered.

I'm here to tell you now, if for ANY reason, any cops think they're pulling on MY shoulder and/or knees like that, they're going to have to earn it. I may lose in the end, but a few of those bullies won't be sleeping well for a couple of nights.

Cop's lying to you in questioning regarding any charge, is legal, regardless of how much it sucks. The best thing you can do or advise others to do is keep your mouth shut, let your Lawyer do the talking. Even the most innocent comments can be used against you. In relation to Mistaken Identity, or You being set up even as a Scape Goat, what you say can be used to convict you. A lazy Prosecutor or DA, is looking for a Conviction, not necessarily Justice. In regards to the shows that set Anyone Up, I have no interest in them. Their interest is Ratings, spin often used to achieve their goals. I don't like Sexual Predators, I don't like Human Trafficking. Those are Rightly Police Matters, not Entertainment.

[Intense]

I acknowledged that those are two different arguments earlier in the thread (actually the old thread) and welcomed him to petition to have the law changed. Unless and until that time, this show is currently not entrapment, that's all I'm saying.

I think the Technical reason it is not entrapment is because the Staff of the Show are not Police. I don't watch it because I plainly view it as disturbing. It feeds off of human misery, in short I find no entertainment value in it. Does it help or hurt society? There are allot of things to consider here.

From a different perspective, I'm in Major Appliance Repair. I was approached once to help a Network News Crew set up a Sting for Dishonest Repair Companies. I've studied many of the Sting Operations on TV. Some are legitimate and thorough. Some are Ratings scams, or Promo's to push people to GE or Frigidaire, using the sky is falling, we are all going to die fear tactics. Competence is important here, running these stings. There are always unanticipated factors in a set up.

In my case I refereed the Network to the President of Our Association, Somehow, the Network ended up with a Super Rip-Off Company with many cut throat Technicians, to work their set up. Clearly, fox running the egg distribution in the hen house. Pretty ironic. A couple of good companies got hurt, a couple were not paying enough attention to detail, running on probability, not diagnosis, did not take the time to verify. There is competence, there is distraction, there is how far someone is willing to go with limited compensation, before you cut your losses. There are also symptoms that defy logic, in that they would not commonly happen like breaking something physically that a consumer would not have access to, or disconnecting wires, no one should be able to get at. So creating a scenario that would not normally occur would steer a Technician off base and off guard. Now, an honest Technician would upon discovery, notify you and adjust his charge. You may walk into a sting and find legitimate problems that were overlooked. Say, in a sting, you put a sock in an 8 year old Whirlpool front load washer, One would check the bearing on the Pump Motor, and if it's worn, it would still be advisable to replace it. There may be other issues. In all things, there is honesty, dishonesty, Integrity, even mistake. Error is not criminal intent, at least not always. Let's distinguish here between the well informed and Novices making judgement calls.

[WayInstain]

3313

[ConHog]

I think the Technical reason it is not entrapment is because the Staff of the Show are not Police. I don't watch it because I plainly view it as disturbing. It feeds off of human misery, in short I find no entertainment value in it. Does it help or hurt society? There are allot of things to consider here.

From a different perspective, I'm in Major Appliance Repair. I was approached once to help a Network News Crew set up a Sting for Dishonest Repair Companies. I've studied many of the Sting Operations on TV. Some are legitimate and thorough. Some are Ratings scams, or Promo's to push people to GE or Frigidaire, using the sky is falling, we are all going to die fear tactics. Competence is important here, running these stings. There are always unanticipated factors in a set up.

In my case I refereed the Network to the President of Our Association, Somehow, the Network ended up with a Super Rip-Off Company with many cut throat Technicians, to work their set up. Clearly, fox running the egg distribution in the hen house. Pretty ironic. A couple of good companies got hurt, a couple were not paying enough attention to detail, running on probability, not diagnosis, did not take the time to verify. There is competence, there is distraction, there is how far someone is willing to go with limited compensation, before you cut your losses. There are also symptoms that defy logic, in that they would not commonly happen like breaking something physically that a consumer would not have access to, or disconnecting wires, no one should be able to get at. So creating a scenario that would not normally occur would steer a Technician off base and off guard. Now, an honest Technician would upon discovery, notify you and adjust his charge. You may walk into a sting and find legitimate problems that were overlooked. Say, in a sting, you put a sock in an 8 year old Whirlpool front load washer, One would check the bearing on the Pump Motor, and if it's worn, it would still be advisable to replace it. There may be other issues. In all things, there is honesty, dishonesty, Integrity, even mistake. Error is not criminal intent, at least not always. Let's distinguish here between the well informed and Novices making judgement calls.

Well , one of the three standards is that the person MUST be acting as an agent of the police, but I think it actually fits that definition. I don't however think that they are enticing anyone to do anything they didn't already want to do, which is another element.

[LuvRPgrl]

None of those idiots on Predator are innocent.

YOU dont know that

[ConHog]

YOU dont know that

So when did your episode air?

[Intense]

Well , one of the three standards is that the person MUST be acting as an agent of the police, but I think it actually fits that definition. I don't however think that they are enticing anyone to do anything they didn't already want to do, which is another element.
That is true.

[Gunny]

For every predator that was ''entrapped'' whether legal or not, is one less predator preying on our children.

The end justifies the means, huh?

If the law wasn't so selective and hypocritcal about it, it might not be an issue. When those who are chosen to UPHOLD THE LAW are violating the law, you don't see a problem?


Hmmmm. How bout a TV show that entices a pregnant 16 year old to get an abortion, and doesn't want her gay married dads to find out because they don't approve of having children out of wedlock? Maury Povich hosts.:laugh2:

Sorry, I'm lost. Never seen the show. However, I would say Maury Povich is hardly "instructional" programming. He's sensationalizing an issue.

I'm against abortion. I'm not against educating pregnant females on their legal options and moral obligations.


The cotus doesnt address entrapment at all gunny. So in fact actual entrapment isnt unconstitutional.

I just pointed out where it does, without specific use of the word "entrapment". You're backpeddaling and trying to address a single word instead of the issue.


Do you honestly believe that the only reason these men arrived at the "bait" house was they were "steered" into doing something they wouldn't ordinarily do? I'm certain that there are strict rules followed as to who initiates the contact, who initiates any discussion about sex, and who initiates any discussion about meeting so that it's NOT entrapment.

Whatever takes place is solely the initiative of the perp.

There are apparently enough of these predators out there, that there's no need to create any.

I asked a question. Try reading what I post, not what you assume I post.

What takes place is NOT solely the initiative of the perps. A group goes online and pretends to be something they are not. Who's to say had they not been lured what some of these people would do? Fish tht don't have bait dangled in front of them don't end up dangling on a line.

Luring someone to commit a crime IS entrapment anywhere I've lived the last 52 years.


What I find REALLY odd about Gunny's stance is that there is a thread about the show Bait Car running right now, he's participated in, and not one has he said that THAT is entrapment.

Just weird.

Do you EVER just shut up? You aren't contributing a damned thing to this thread.

Your thread addresses the show. As far as I know, you did not address entrapment. I only mentioned some of the stupid crap the perps do.

Since I already HAVE a thread on entrapment, why should I follow your lead in degrading yet another thread into one that resembles every other?

FYI, I consider bait cars entrapment. No car -- no theft.

[ConHog]

I asked a question. Try reading what I post, not what you assume I post.

What takes place is NOT solely the initiative of the perps. A group goes online and pretends to be something they are not. Who's to say had they not been lured what some of these people would do? Fish tht don't have bait dangled in front of them don't end up dangling on a line.

Luring someone to commit a crime IS entrapment anywhere I've lived the last 52 years.

Gunny, you realize that if you're not online looking for a 13 y/o girl with daddy issues that you probably aren't going to be in a Hello Kitty chat room for one to entice you in the first place don't you?

[Gunny]

Gunny, you realize that if you're not online looking for a 13 y/o girl with daddy issues that you probably aren't going to be in a Hello Kitty chat room for one to entice you in the first place don't you?

ConHog, do YOU realize if you weren't online trying to be a know-it-all in every thread on the board people might be able to have an honest discussion?

I asked a question that is a legit one. In marches YOU to tell me all the reasons you think you know more and I'm wrong.

Try giving your damned insecure ego a rest, huh?

The point I was trying to make in this thread; which, apparently got lost in the nitnoid of emotional, knee-jerk assumptions is .....

If I'm a convicted bank robber and do my time, do I have to register with local law enforcement anywhere I move? If I'm a murderer and do my time, do I have to register with local law enforcement anywhere I move?

No, I don't.

If I'm a domestic terrorist can I get a Presidential pardon then mentor the current President? Yes, I can.

THIS TOPIC WASN'T ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL, EMOTIONAL KNEE-JERK REACTIONS.

It's about the hypocrisy of the law, and law enforcement.

Again, I PERSONALLY think pedophiles should be taken out and shot. But the law and law enforcement would then come after me.

CHANGE THE LAW. Or enforce the ones we have.

[Missileman]

What takes place is NOT solely the initiative of the perps.

It absolutely is. What you're arguing makes no sense at all. You're essentially arguing that if a young girl was sitting at a table alone at a McDonalds and some pedo approached her, that SHE initiated the contact.

The fact that these perps didn't get what they thought they were going to get DOES NOT make it entrapment.

[SassyLady]

The end justifies the means, huh?

If the law wasn't so selective and hypocritcal about it, it might not be an issue. When those who are chosen to UPHOLD THE LAW are violating the law, you don't see a problem?



Gunny .... I'm very sensitive when it comes to predators because of my personal experience and it is my personal belief, and I don't give a hairy rats ass if it's entrapment or pure vigilantism, I have no sympathy for people who knowingly talk to minors and then make dates to meet up with them. I DO NOT CARE IF IT IS ENTRAPMENT for these assholes....in fact, I wish a law were made that legalized entrapment for predators.

So, yes, the end justifies the means when it comes to people who prey on children.

[Intense]

Gunny .... I'm very sensitive when it comes to predators because of my personal experience and it is my personal belief, and I don't give a hairy rats ass if it's entrapment or pure vigilantism, I have no sympathy for people who knowingly talk to minors and then make dates to meet up with them. I DO NOT CARE IF IT IS ENTRAPMENT for these assholes....in fact, I wish a law were made that legalized entrapment for predators.

So, yes, the end justifies the means when it comes to people who prey on children.

Understandable. Yet in this society, the Perpetrator can probably get some Asshole Doctor to testify that His/Her condition is a treatable Disease, and Sue the Network or Municipality for the Temptation they caused, turning the whole thing around on us, just because it can be done. Think about Tempting an Alcoholic, if you wave it in front of him/her, are you not part of the problem? I think Gunny might have been touching on that. We are a Nation of Laws, and we need to work within them, and try harder. We need better ways to address the issue.

[LuvRPgrl]

Gunny .... I'm very sensitive when it comes to predators because of my personal experience and it is my personal belief, and I don't give a hairy rats ass if it's entrapment or pure vigilantism, I have no sympathy for people who knowingly talk to minors and then make dates to meet up with them. I DO NOT CARE IF IT IS ENTRAPMENT for these assholes....in fact, I wish a law were made that legalized entrapment for predators.

So, yes, the end justifies the means when it comes to people who prey on children.
A commnon sense approach would bed to ask yourself,,,"self, would this guy be trying to do this even if the sting operation wasnt in operation? the resounding answer is YES THEY WOULD

[Missileman]

Understandable. Yet in this society, the Perpetrator can probably get some Asshole Doctor to testify that His/Her condition is a treatable Disease, and Sue the Network or Municipality for the Temptation they caused, turning the whole thing around on us, just because it can be done. Think about Tempting an Alcoholic, if you wave it in front of him/her, are you not part of the problem? I think Gunny might have been touching on that. We are a Nation of Laws, and we need to work within them, and try harder. We need better ways to address the issue.


They aren't waving anything at these guys. To hear some of you, you'd think they had a 12-year-old girl going door to door begging for sex.

[SassyLady]

Understandable. Yet in this society, the Perpetrator can probably get some Asshole Doctor to testify that His/Her condition is a treatable Disease, and Sue the Network or Municipality for the Temptation they caused, turning the whole thing around on us, just because it can be done. Think about Tempting an Alcoholic, if you wave it in front of him/her, are you not part of the problem? I think Gunny might have been touching on that. We are a Nation of Laws, and we need to work within them, and try harder. We need better ways to address the issue.

That are designed to protect the criminals, not the victims. I believe that if you get rid of these predators BEFORE they commit the crime then you are helping to advance society.

As I said before, let's make it legal to entrap predators.

[Intense]

They aren't waving anything at these guys. To hear some of you, you'd think they had a 12-year-old girl going door to door begging for sex.

Maybe in your imagination, or your home state. :poke: :coffee: :salute: Seriously, I believe most of us are capable of doing serious damage to Someone that was caught messing with Someone so young. Our Society plays a part in the problem too, even letting Societies like NAMBLA see the light of day. There is much that can be done to create a safe environment.

I think like all addictions, the Perpetrator is in some way also a victim, just a thought.

You can be addicted to Alcohol, Smoking, Sex, Shop-Lifting, Gambling, Voting Liberal. Temptation, through Advertizing, Soliciting, Sting, Set-Up, is a battle of Will Powers, Some win, Some lose. Either way, I would take no joy or comfort in having contributed to it, that's all I'm saying.

[Gunny]

It absolutely is. What you're arguing makes no sense at all. You're essentially arguing that if a young girl was sitting at a table alone at a McDonalds and some pedo approached her, that SHE initiated the contact.

The fact that these perps didn't get what they thought they were going to get DOES NOT make it entrapment.

www.dictionary.reference.com/entrapment (http://www.dictionary.reference.com/entrapment)


Entrapment

1. the luring by a law-enforcement agent of a person into committing a crime.

Not sure how hard that is. I haven't seen one argument in this thread get around the definition of the word.


Gunny .... I'm very sensitive when it comes to predators because of my personal experience and it is my personal belief, and I don't give a hairy rats ass if it's entrapment or pure vigilantism, I have no sympathy for people who knowingly talk to minors and then make dates to meet up with them. I DO NOT CARE IF IT IS ENTRAPMENT for these assholes....in fact, I wish a law were made that legalized entrapment for predators.

So, yes, the end justifies the means when it comes to people who prey on children.

Entrapment is a violation of the law. Which is my WHOLE point. You don't care if the law is violated because in your opinion, the end justifies the means.

That's bullshit.


Understandable. Yet in this society, the Perpetrator can probably get some Asshole Doctor to testify that His/Her condition is a treatable Disease, and Sue the Network or Municipality for the Temptation they caused, turning the whole thing around on us, just because it can be done. Think about Tempting an Alcoholic, if you wave it in front of him/her, are you not part of the problem? I think Gunny might have been touching on that. We are a Nation of Laws, and we need to work within them, and try harder. We need better ways to address the issue.

BINGO!

Besides the show in the OP, you can catch episodes of COPS where law enforcement officers pose as hookers to entrap john's, and/r you can watch them pose as dealers to entrap users.

I simply have an issue with law enforcement violating one law to enforce another. If the end justifies the means, what's the point of having laws?


A commnon sense approach would bed to ask yourself,,,"self, would this guy be trying to do this even if the sting operation wasnt in operation? the resounding answer is YES THEY WOULD

And? The point is, the very people sworn to uphold the law are violating it. You don't find that a bit scary? Hope you never end up in the wrong place at the wrong time.


They aren't waving anything at these guys. To hear some of you, you'd think they had a 12-year-old girl going door to door begging for sex.

Wrong. They're waving the teenager on the internet.


That are designed to protect the criminals, not the victims. I believe that if you get rid of these predators BEFORE they commit the crime then you are helping to advance society.

As I said before, let's make it legal to entrap predators.

Let's.

But it currently isn't.

[Missileman]

Wrong. They're waving the teenager on the internet.


No, they're not. They are pretending to be a teenager on the internet. They wait to be approached by one of these sickos looking for a victim. It's the perp who initiates EVERYTHING; the conversation, the sex talk, the meeting in person... EVERYTHING. Again, the fact the perp doesn't get what he bargained for DOES NOT make it entrapment.

Entrapment is luring someone into a crime they wouldn't otherwise commit.

Read this:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/entrapment/


In criminal law, a person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit. A defendant who is subject to entrapment may not be convicted as a matter of public policy.
However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime... The mere providing of an opportunity to commit a crime is not entrapment. In order to find entrapment, there must be persuasion to commit a crime by the entrapping party


Note: Emphasis mine

[Gunny]

No, they're not. They are pretending to be a teenager on the internet. They wait to be approached by one of these sickos looking for a victim. It's the perp who initiates EVERYTHING; the conversation, the sex talk, the meeting in person... EVERYTHING. Again, the fact the perp doesn't get what he bargained for DOES NOT make it entrapment.

Entrapment is luring someone into a crime they wouldn't otherwise commit.

Read this:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/entrapment/



Note: Emphasis mine

Reread your own link. That the person was willing to commit the crime beforehand is an assumption in this instance. Providing a pseudo-13 years old to lure the person to commit a crime IS entrapment. If you ever watch the show, the persons ARE unduly persuaded to show.

[Missileman]

Reread your own link. That the person was willing to commit the crime beforehand is an assumption in this instance. Providing a pseudo-13 years old to lure the person to commit a crime IS entrapment. If you ever watch the show, the persons ARE unduly persuaded to show.

In order for it to be entrapment you have to believe that the perp wouldn't have shown up to meet a REAL 13-year-old. If you believe that, I've got this really neat bridge I'll sell you for a bargain.

I have seen the show, and the meetings were the perp's idea...period.

If an undercover cop pulls up in front of a known drug house, asks to buy some crack, and they sell it to him, that's NOT entrapment.

The sickos in the TV stories lurk in chat rooms looking for their next victim. The cops didn't send out a mass anonymous e-mail to lure unsuspecting men to join the chat room and ensnare those who wouldn't ordinarily be there.

[Gunny]

The legal definition of entrapment is open to interpretation. Basically, it boils down which courts decide what on an individual basis.

Just as I have noticed the same is true in this thread based who is willing to and not to address the topic itself on its own merit rather than let their emotions override their logic and common sense or not.

IMO, it's entrapment. The definition supports my opinion.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/entrapment

[Gunny]

In order for it to be entrapment you have to believe that the perp wouldn't have shown up to meet a REAL 13-year-old. If you believe that, I've got this really neat bridge I'll sell you for a bargain.

I have seen the show, and the meetings were the perp's idea...period.

If an undercover cop pulls up in front of a known drug house, asks to buy some crack, and they sell it to him, that's NOT entrapment.

The sickos in the TV stories lurk in chat rooms looking for their next victim. The cops didn't send out a mass anonymous e-mail to lure unsuspecting men to join the chat room and ensnare those who wouldn't ordinarily be there.

The perps were lured to the meetings. PERIOD.

[Missileman]

The legal definition of entrapment is open to interpretation. Basically, it boils down which courts decide what on an individual basis.

Just as I have noticed the same is true in this thread based who is willing to and not to address the topic itself on its own merit rather than let their emotions override their logic and common sense or not.

IMO, it's entrapment. The definition supports my opinion.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/entrapment


The very first line from your link:


The act of government agents or officials that induces a person to commit a crime he or she is not previously disposed to commit.

These guys hang out in the chat rooms to arrange these kinds of meetings...they are most definitely pre-disposed to commit what they get caught at. It is therefore, using your own definition, NOT entrapment.

[Gunny]

The very first line from your link:



These guys hang out in the chat rooms to arrange these kinds of meetings...they are most definitely pre-disposed to commit what they get caught at. It is therefore, using your own definition, NOT entrapment.

That is an assumption; therefore, it IS entrapment by "my" definition.

[Missileman]

That is an assumption; therefore, it IS entrapment by "my" definition.

It's not an assumption. The perp initiates the contact.

[Gunny]

It's not an assumption. The perp initiates the contact.

How do you know? I've seen EVERY episode of the show and they don't say who initiates the contact. Chris the Arrogant Jackass reads only excerpts that support his crap.

Nor do I necessarily believe the perp does initiate the contact. "Hi, my UserID is 'Looking4A13YrsOld'. Anyone of you 13 years olds want me?" Don't see it happening. They're dangling people out there posing as 13 years olds for the purpose of LURING someone to break the law.

[LuvRPgrl]

www.dictionary.reference.com/entrapment (http://www.dictionary.reference.com/entrapment)



Not sure how hard that is. I haven't seen one argument in this thread get around the definition of the word..

thats easy, they werent lurred into going to the website with kids.
Its just like if I drove down a street with known prostitutes cruising, nobody lurred me into that area

[LuvRPgrl]

In order for it to be entrapment you have to believe that the perp wouldn't have shown up to meet a REAL 13-year-old. If you believe that, I've got this really neat bridge I'll sell you for a bargain.

I have seen the show, and the meetings were the perp's idea...period.

If an undercover cop pulls up in front of a known drug house, asks to buy some crack, and they sell it to him, that's NOT entrapment.

The sickos in the TV stories lurk in chat rooms looking for their next victim. The cops didn't send out a mass anonymous e-mail to lure unsuspecting men to join the chat room and ensnare those who wouldn't ordinarily be there.

as even further evidence they werent lurred, I know all of us are somewhat internet savy, and I wouldnt be surprised one bit if none of us have ever been to, or even know how to get to one of the sites in question, I know I dont have a clue how to get there. Do I type in underage kids for sex sites into google?

Gunny, u might not like the show, but as for entrapment, you are simply way off base on this one, and everyone here knows how I feel about cops.

[LuvRPgrl]

How do you know? I've seen EVERY episode of the show and they don't say who initiates the contact. Chris the Arrogant Jackass reads only excerpts that support his crap.

Nor do I necessarily believe the perp does initiate the contact. "Hi, my UserID is 'Looking4A13YrsOld'. Anyone of you 13 years olds want me?" Don't see it happening. They're dangling people out there posing as 13 years olds for the purpose of LURING someone to break the law.


well, none of us really know the answer to who started the chat, so its simple, if the perp did, its not entrapment, if he didnt then it is entrapment.

I look at it this way, you have an area known for drug use and dealings. Virtually never do you see wall street types driving down these streets. If you see a wall street type drivIing thru, and he winds up buying drugs, I think you could have pretty much assumed he was going to be buying drugs.

now, in those chat rooms, and I dont have the answer for this, is it normal for adults to be in there chatting? If not, just another reason to say its not entrapment.

again, I dont know, but ideally, the justice system would be taking things llike that into account when deciding guilt or innocence, but on the other hand, there is not one single aspect of our system that I trust to do the right thing, none, NONE.

[Missileman]

as even further evidence they werent lurred, I know all of us are somewhat internet savy, and I wouldnt be surprised one bit if none of us have ever been to, or even know how to get to one of the sites in question, I know I dont have a clue how to get there. Do I type in underage kids for sex sites into google?

Gunny, u might not like the show, but as for entrapment, you are simply way off base on this one, and everyone here knows how I feel about cops.

Also evidenced by the dozens of convictions as a result of the show...if they were entrapping people, it wouldn't stand up in court.

[ConHog]

Reread your own link. That the person was willing to commit the crime beforehand is an assumption in this instance. Providing a pseudo-13 years old to lure the person to commit a crime IS entrapment. If you ever watch the show, the persons ARE unduly persuaded to show.

Gunny,

Have you ever read the transcript from one of these busts? It ALWAYS starts with the adult initiating the conversation that they are looking for a minor to have sex with. ALWAYS. The show is very VERY careful about that. They NEVER have a "12 year old " posting in a chat room that they are really really looking for an older guy to fuck them first.

And even by your dictionary definition, you still fail because the show is NOT the police. Now under the LEGAL definition I actually think you could prove that this show is acting as an agent of the police, but the dictionary definition does NOT talk about agents of the police because that is a legal standard not a definition. So you need to pick which standard you want to use. The LEGAL or the Dictionary. You can't mix and match because they are incompatible.

I've now shown that Predator meets the standard of entrapment for neither the legal nor the dictionary definition. Just admit you're wrong and go on.

[LuvRPgrl]

Gunny,

Have you ever read the transcript from one of these busts? It ALWAYS starts with the adult initiating the conversation that they are looking for a minor to have sex with. ALWAYS. The show is very VERY careful about that. They NEVER have a "12 year old " posting in a chat room that they are really really looking for an older guy to fuck them first.

And even by your dictionary definition, you still fail because the show is NOT the police. Now under the LEGAL definition I actually think you could prove that this show is acting as an agent of the police, but the dictionary definition does NOT talk about agents of the police because that is a legal standard not a definition. So you need to pick which standard you want to use. The LEGAL or the Dictionary. You can't mix and match because they are incompatible.

I've now shown that Predator meets the standard of entrapment for neither the legal nor the dictionary definition. Just admit you're wrong and go on.

I dont think you could, the very first episode, they didnt have the cops there, and they let the guys go, and the viewers were pissed and said so, so then MSNBC got the cops involved, and they call it a "PARRALLEL" investigation, meaning, not a part of ours. Police never put them up to it, msnbc has been acting completely on their own, they just basically informed the cops that criminals will be walking out of the building.

[ConHog]

I dont think you could, the very first episode, they didnt have the cops there, and they let the guys go, and the viewers were pissed and said so, so then MSNBC got the cops involved, and they call it a "PARRALLEL" investigation, meaning, not a part of ours. Police never put them up to it, msnbc has been acting completely on their own, they just basically informed the cops that criminals will be walking out of the building.

I hear ya. I just think a person COULD make the argument that at this point they are acting as an agent of the police, but they are NOT meeting the other two criteria that have been set forth for this to be legal entrapment, so it's irrelevant anyway.

I still say it's way odd that Gunny thinks THIS is entrapment, but doesn't think undercover police parking a car in some barrio leaving the keys in the ignition and walking away isn't. I'm thinking that maybe someone got caught in a sting and this is personal.

[Missileman]

I hear ya. I just think a person COULD make the argument that at this point they are acting as an agent of the police, but they are NOT meeting the other two criteria that have been set forth for this to be legal entrapment, so it's irrelevant anyway.

I still say it's way odd that Gunny thinks THIS is entrapment, but doesn't think undercover police parking a car in some barrio leaving the keys in the ignition and walking away isn't. I'm thinking that maybe someone got caught in a sting and this is personal.

The first couple seasons were done without the cops...subsequent to that, they were coordinated with the police.

As for implying that Gunny was caught trying to pick up underage girls, that crosses a line that shouldn't be...an immediate retraction is warranted.

[ConHog]

The first couple seasons were done without the cops...subsequent to that, they were coordinated with the police.

As for implying that Gunny was caught trying to pick up underage girls, that crosses a line that shouldn't be...an immediate retraction is warranted.

You're of course right.

I'm sorry Gunny. That was stupid on my part.

[Gunny]

thats easy, they werent lurred into going to the website with kids.
Its just like if I drove down a street with known prostitutes cruising, nobody lurred me into that area

Who says they went to websites with kids in them? I've seen plenty of adult websites with the kids in THEM. Ran a couple, actually. Another assumption.

[Gunny]

well, none of us really know the answer to who started the chat, so its simple, if the perp did, its not entrapment, if he didnt then it is entrapment.

I look at it this way, you have an area known for drug use and dealings. Virtually never do you see wall street types driving down these streets. If you see a wall street type drivIing thru, and he winds up buying drugs, I think you could have pretty much assumed he was going to be buying drugs.

now, in those chat rooms, and I dont have the answer for this, is it normal for adults to be in there chatting? If not, just another reason to say its not entrapment.

again, I dont know, but ideally, the justice system would be taking things llike that into account when deciding guilt or innocence, but on the other hand, there is not one single aspect of our system that I trust to do the right thing, none, NONE.

I can end this responding to your first sentence.

Entrapment is entrapment. Law enforcement luring someone to commit a crime is entrapment.

Your assumption is they are "children's" chat rooms.

[Gunny]

Also evidenced by the dozens of convictions as a result of the show...if they were entrapping people, it wouldn't stand up in court.

Really? How many of them are plea bargains vs actual convictions?

You just hit on my point and aren't bright enough to figure it out. We allow it. That's why it happens.

[Gunny]

Gunny,

Have you ever read the transcript from one of these busts? It ALWAYS starts with the adult initiating the conversation that they are looking for a minor to have sex with. ALWAYS. The show is very VERY careful about that. They NEVER have a "12 year old " posting in a chat room that they are really really looking for an older guy to fuck them first.

And even by your dictionary definition, you still fail because the show is NOT the police. Now under the LEGAL definition I actually think you could prove that this show is acting as an agent of the police, but the dictionary definition does NOT talk about agents of the police because that is a legal standard not a definition. So you need to pick which standard you want to use. The LEGAL or the Dictionary. You can't mix and match because they are incompatible.

I've now shown that Predator meets the standard of entrapment for neither the legal nor the dictionary definition. Just admit you're wrong and go on.

Prove that it always starts out with the adult initiating the conversation.

I think you need to quit spending so much time attempting to prove you can play in the big leagues. The fact is, each and every one of can be called to jury duty and and could be such a case. And all I see here ... ESPECIALLY from YOU ... is a bunch of intolerance, ignorance, and pre-determined convictions.

You haven't shown shit except that you are ignorant if not stupid, and intolerant. Too bad for you, ignorance can be fixed.

[Missileman]

Really? How many of them are plea bargains vs actual convictions?

You just hit on my point and aren't bright enough to figure it out. We allow it. That's why it happens.

Ummm...a plea bargain results in an actual conviction. No one with a lawyer is going to take a plea bargain if they were entrapped and could have the case thrown out.

[ConHog]

Ummm...a plea bargain results in an actual conviction. No one with a lawyer is going to take a plea bargain if they were entrapped and could have the case thrown out.

Oh I don't know, my wife often reaches a plea bargain that results in the accused being found innocent.. :laugh2:

[Gunny]

Let me try to make my point in a different way to some of you overly-opinionated fools. Two allegedly served in the military and one who has been a military dependent for years. I'm glad I never served under ANY of you. Not a one of you can divorce your personal/emotional opinions from accomplishing the mission.

I assume we are all eligible for jury duty. Suppose you sit on a jury of a case like this and the defense lawyer cries "entrapment". If he doesn't, no problem. But if he DOES, then those transcripts become available and I'm going to base my vote on those transcripts and the facts surrounding it. Not my f-ing personal problem with child molesters. If you think ANYONE in the US deserves less than due process, then you suck, and you claim to stand for something you don't understand.

The fact is, law enforcement luring people to commit a crime is entrapment, by definition. Even with all the caveats, I am going to look for "why not". Remember? Innocent until proven guilty? Or is that some misguided notion that's just some meaningless words on paper?

When I thought a young Marine had taken advantage of my then 15 years old daughter, it took my then-wife and 3 Oceanside cops to keep me from shooting the fucker dead. BUT ... I STILL understood the ramifications of what I would or could have done and was willing to accept the consequences for my actions.

Y'all are so self-sanctimonious. Must be nice to not have a conscience and be willing to live with the fact that the end justifies the means. At least in my case, I understood what I was going to do was against the law.

Y'all have have spent 3 pages trying to explain away something unlawful as lawful. Good job.

I'd hate to have ANY one of you except Intense on MY jury for even shoplifting.

[ConHog]

Let me try to make my point in a different way to some of you overly-opinionated fools. Two allegedly served in the military and one who has been a military dependent for years. I'm glad I never served under ANY of you. Not a one of you can divorce your personal/emotional opinions from accomplishing the mission.

I assume we are all eligible for jury duty. Suppose you sit on a jury of a case like this and the defense lawyer cries "entrapment". If he doesn't, no problem. But if he DOES, then those transcripts become available and I'm going to base my vote on those transcripts and the facts surrounding it. Not my f-ing personal problem with child molesters. If you think ANYONE in the US deserves less than due process, then you suck, and you claim to stand for something you don't understand.

The fact is, law enforcement luring people to commit a crime is entrapment, by definition. Even with all the caveats, I am going to look for "why not". Remember? Innocent until proven guilty? Or is that some misguided notion that's just some meaningless words on paper?

When I thought a young Marine had taken advantage of my then 15 years old daughter, it took my then-wife and 3 Oceanside cops to keep me from shooting the fucker dead. BUT ... I STILL understood the ramifications of what I would or could have done and was willing to accept the consequences for my actions.

Y'all are so self-sanctimonious. Must be nice to not have a conscience and be willing to live with the fact that the end justifies the means. At least in my case, I understood what I was going to do was against the law.

Y'all have have spent 3 pages trying to explain away something unlawful as lawful. Good job.

I'd hate to have ANY one of you except Intense on MY jury for even shoplifting.

Gunny I proved unequivocally that this show is not entrapment. It's not even really a debate.

The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.

The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents.


if you're on a jury and those three things can't be proven. Then it is NOT entrapment and your duty as a jury member is to not ignore then when proclaiming a verdict.

YOU are the one bound up in emotion here and unable to digest the legal issues.

[Missileman]

Let me try to make my point in a different way to some of you overly-opinionated fools. Two allegedly served in the military and one who has been a military dependent for years. I'm glad I never served under ANY of you. Not a one of you can divorce your personal/emotional opinions from accomplishing the mission.

I assume we are all eligible for jury duty. Suppose you sit on a jury of a case like this and the defense lawyer cries "entrapment". If he doesn't, no problem. But if he DOES, then those transcripts become available and I'm going to base my vote on those transcripts and the facts surrounding it. Not my f-ing personal problem with child molesters. If you think ANYONE in the US deserves less than due process, then you suck, and you claim to stand for something you don't understand.

The fact is, law enforcement luring people to commit a crime is entrapment, by definition. Even with all the caveats, I am going to look for "why not". Remember? Innocent until proven guilty? Or is that some misguided notion that's just some meaningless words on paper?

When I thought a young Marine had taken advantage of my then 15 years old daughter, it took my then-wife and 3 Oceanside cops to keep me from shooting the fucker dead. BUT ... I STILL understood the ramifications of what I would or could have done and was willing to accept the consequences for my actions.

Y'all are so self-sanctimonious. Must be nice to not have a conscience and be willing to live with the fact that the end justifies the means. At least in my case, I understood what I was going to do was against the law.

Y'all have have spent 3 pages trying to explain away something unlawful as lawful. Good job.

I'd hate to have ANY one of you except Intense on MY jury for even shoplifting.


Well thankfully, our legal system uses the LEGAL definition of entrapment and not the GUNNY definition, otherwise, we couldn't convict anyone because EVRYONE'S been entrapped.

And exactly where have any of us said ignore evidence and convict them anyways.

[Gunny]

Well thankfully, our legal system uses the LEGAL definition of entrapment and not the GUNNY definition, otherwise, we couldn't convict anyone because EVRYONE'S been entrapped.

And exactly where have any of us said ignore evidence and convict them anyways.

Thankfully, the "Gunny definition" IS the legal definition. It doen't include my personal biases.

Tell me, when you ready to "round up the boys to hang a rope from the tree cuz we suspect?"

[ConHog]

Thanfully, the "Gunny definition" IS the legal definition. It doen't include my personal biases.

Tell me, when you ready to "round up the boys to hang a rope from the tree cuz we suspect?"

LOL your definition is NOT the legal definition gunny.

[Missileman]

Thanfully, the "Gunny definition" IS the legal definition. It doen't include my personal biases.

No, it's not. It's been pointed out to you in several posts...even your own link PROVED you wrong.



Tell me, when you ready to "round up the boys to hang a rope from the tree cuz we suspect?"

Point to where exactly ANYONE in this thread, other than YOU, has suggested such a thing.

[Gunny]

LOL your definition is NOT the legal definition gunny.

Verbatim, junior. Want to try again? Or perhaps you have some investment in seeking out HitlerStix?

Find another thread. The adults are playing here.

[SassyLady]

Let me try to make my point in a different way to some of you overly-opinionated fools. Two allegedly served in the military and one who has been a military dependent for years. I'm glad I never served under ANY of you. Not a one of you can divorce your personal/emotional opinions from accomplishing the mission.

I assume we are all eligible for jury duty. Suppose you sit on a jury of a case like this and the defense lawyer cries "entrapment". If he doesn't, no problem. But if he DOES, then those transcripts become available and I'm going to base my vote on those transcripts and the facts surrounding it. Not my f-ing personal problem with child molesters. If you think ANYONE in the US deserves less than due process, then you suck, and you claim to stand for something you don't understand.

The fact is, law enforcement luring people to commit a crime is entrapment, by definition. Even with all the caveats, I am going to look for "why not". Remember? Innocent until proven guilty? Or is that some misguided notion that's just some meaningless words on paper?

When I thought a young Marine had taken advantage of my then 15 years old daughter, it took my then-wife and 3 Oceanside cops to keep me from shooting the fucker dead. BUT ... I STILL understood the ramifications of what I would or could have done and was willing to accept the consequences for my actions.

Y'all are so self-sanctimonious. Must be nice to not have a conscience and be willing to live with the fact that the end justifies the means. At least in my case, I understood what I was going to do was against the law.

Y'all have have spent 3 pages trying to explain away something unlawful as lawful. Good job.

I'd hate to have ANY one of you except Intense on MY jury for even shoplifting.

Gunny, I think I am the person you have referred to as a military dependent ... I am OK with you referring to me by my name, SassyLady...you don't have to veil who you are talking about.

I have absolutely no problem admitting that I am biased when it comes to child predators; I am a total bigot .... totally and irrevocably intolerant. And whether or not I am affiliated with the military in any way, I would never agree to serve on a jury where child molestation was the charge....simply because I cannot, nor do I want to, divorce myself from my personal experience with child molestation. Any good soldier knows that their own limitations can put the mission and their fellow soldiers at risk and should be courageous enough to step up and acknowledge their shortcomings rather than put the mission and fellow soldiers at risk. I can do that without hesitation.

In my opinion, there are plenty of other people in this world who have not been molested by a child predator that can serve on the jury and I will never have to be put in the position to see if I can, in fact, be unbiased.

I believe in due process, but I don't believe I have to be the person that proves/disproves it. I trust the system enough I guess to believe that if it is entrapment the courts will determine that it is and the accused walks. However, just because a jury says that it is entrapment does not mean the person was not a predator.

Some of us are willing to admit that we are imperfect and I, for one, will not be shamed into admitting to something else ... no matter what names you call us or allusions you make to being a member/dependent of the military.

[Gunny]

The first couple seasons were done without the cops...subsequent to that, they were coordinated with the police.

As for implying that Gunny was caught trying to pick up underage girls, that crosses a line that shouldn't be...an immediate retraction is warranted.

Yeah, his buddy from another board made the same accusation (see my OP). If you don't 100% agree with them, you're automatically 100% against them.

I'm aware the first couple of seasons were done without the police. I STILL thought Chris Hanson was a smarmy jerk, but I had no real issue with child predators being exposed.


Ummm...a plea bargain results in an actual conviction. No one with a lawyer is going to take a plea bargain if they were entrapped and could have the case thrown out.

I agree it results in a conviction. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say anyone busted for soliciting a minor is going to plea out as low under the radar as they possibly can. I haven't seen too many of them that look as if they could actually afford a lawyer, so they get a court appointed one. They work a deal with the overworked ADA, and they're done.

I'd be willing to bet most, if not all, would just as soon skip the publicity of an actual trial. The burden of proof for entrapment is on the defense. I doubt many court-appointed lawyers are going to go for that.

It would take someone who DID have money with a high-powered attorney. One gets as much justice in this country as one can afford.

[Gunny]

Gunny, I think I am the person you have referred to as a military dependent ... I am OK with you referring to me by my name, SassyLady...you don't have to veil who you are talking about.

I have absolutely no problem admitting that I am biased when it comes to child predators; I am a total bigot .... totally and irrevocably intolerant. And whether or not I am affiliated with the military in any way, I would never agree to serve on a jury where child molestation was the charge....simply because I cannot, nor do I want to, divorce myself from my personal experience with child molestation. Any good soldier knows that their own limitations can put the mission and their fellow soldiers at risk and should be courageous enough to step up and acknowledge their shortcomings rather than put the mission and fellow soldiers at risk. I can do that without hesitation.

In my opinion, there are plenty of other people in this world who have not been molested by a child predator that can serve on the jury and I will never have to be put in the position to see if I can, in fact, be unbiased.

I believe in due process, but I don't believe I have to be the person that proves/disproves it. I trust the system enough I guess to believe that if it is entrapment the courts will determine that it is and the accused walks. However, just because a jury says that it is entrapment does not mean the person was not a predator.

Some of us are willing to admit that we are imperfect and I, for one, will not be shamed into admitting to something else ... no matter what names you call us or allusions you make to being a member/dependent of the military.

Nice post.

[SassyLady]

Nice post.

Thank you for the acknowledgement Gunny, and thank you for reopening the thread.

[ConHog]

Gonna try this again. How about some feedback see if people agree or disagree that this show meets these standards ?


The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.

The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents.


1. Does a government agent give the suspect the idea of talking to an underage person about meeting for sex?




2. Did government agents then persuade the suspect to commit a crime?

3. Was the suspect not willing to commit a crime before a government agent talked them into it?

If not, no entrapement.

Oh, and that's AFTER you have proven that the show is acting as an agent of the government. Otherwise all bets are off.


oh, i wanted to add something else to. Sassy I respect what you've went through has shaped your opinion, but I firmly believe that IF this show is entrapment it should be ended regardless of the crime. That's why I think we should all discuss the actual legal definition of the term, so we can agree that personal feelings don't matter, this show does NOT fit the indention of police entrapment.

[LuvRPgrl]

I can end this responding to your first sentence.

Entrapment is entrapment. Law enforcement luring someone to commit a crime is entrapment.

Your assumption is they are "children's" chat rooms.

your assumption is they arent

[ConHog]

your assumption is they arent

How about lookin one post above this post and giving your opinion on whether this show fits the three elements that define entrapment. I'd be interested in your take.

[jimnyc]

It doesn't appear to always be an open/shut case, and it CAN be entrapment in certain circumstances. In fact, here's a man that has had all charges dropped due to entrapment:


A sailor who was accused of being a paedophile by a sting broadcast on a national cable network has been acquitted after a judge threw the case out of court.

Twenty-six-year-old Joseph Roisman appeared on NBC Dateline's To Catch A Predator five years ago, where he was accused of trying to have sex with an online decoy posing as a 13-year-old girl.

But yesterday Mr Roisman's mother whooped with delight as a judge threw the case out after just six days of testimony and accused the programme's makers of entrapment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2027147/Joseph-Roisman-acquitted-paedophile-To-Catch-A-Predator-entrapment.html

Also, here's a google search on this very subject. I went through about the first 4 pages. Lots of good arguments in BOTH directions.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Avg5jQvgjSTUVx3KRPU58UybvZx4?fr=yfp-t-701-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=is%20to%20catch%20a%20predator%20entrapment

[Missileman]

It doesn't appear to always be an open/shut case, and it CAN be entrapment in certain circumstances. In fact, here's a man that has had all charges dropped due to entrapment:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2027147/Joseph-Roisman-acquitted-paedophile-To-Catch-A-Predator-entrapment.html

Also, here's a google search on this very subject. I went through about the first 4 pages. Lots of good arguments in BOTH directions.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Avg5jQvgjSTUVx3KRPU58UybvZx4?fr=yfp-t-701-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=is to catch a predator entrapment

From the article:


Mr Roisman's lawyer, Stephen Turer, argued that it was volunteers from Perverted Justice who had steered the conversation towards sex and his client had intended nothing more than 'watching movies and cuddling' after travelling 110 miles to meet the girl.


Cuddle with a 12-year-old? Can you say BULLSHIT! ? If it had been a real 12-year-old he would have had sex with her.

[Gunny]

The first couple seasons were done without the cops...subsequent to that, they were coordinated with the police.

As for implying that Gunny was caught trying to pick up underage girls, that crosses a line that shouldn't be...an immediate retraction is warranted.

I forgot to touch on this part of the post you quoted:

The statement is misleading and/or just flat out dishonest. My responses in the "Bait Car" thread were to posts based on the behavior of the car thieves, not whether or not I (or anyone) thought it was "entrapment". The subject of entrapment never entered the fray at all. It appears this particular individual either cannot read and comprehend, or does not bother to, and/or does not understand the word "context".

My intent with this thread was to discuss entrapment, not a TV show. Again, it appears that though I have explained my position more than once, it flies above a certain head.

On my part, I should not have used a specific TV show as the thread title.

And just to make a certain person happy; although, I have already stated this: I most certainly thing "Bait Car" is entrapment. Just as I believe cops posing as hookers and/or drug dealers is entrapment.

And last time I liked underaged girls was about 1977, when I was 17. ;)

[Gunny]

From the article:



Cuddle with a 12-year-old? Can you say BULLSHIT! ? If it had been a real 12-year-old he would have had sex with her.

Your personal opinion aside, the point remains. The guy got off based on entrapment. As I also previously stated, if I was on a jury and "entrapment" was the defense's argument, I'd want to read the transcripts.

The fact is, unlike one member has stated as fact, we don't KNOW the full content of the transcripts. Assuming that the perp is ALWAYS the initiator is exactly that ... an assumption.

And, as I stated in my OP, when I brought this thread onto another board, the person I mentioned as immediately relegating to the "pedophile file" happens to be a member of Perverted Justice. If Everyone in Perverted Justice is as closed-minded and one-way as he is, I wouldn't trust any one of them to tell me it was daylight without looking out the window. And since you're no dummy, you may have surmised who in this thread is one of "board buddies".

I think the whole thing is shady from a legal standpoint. I have NO problem with busting adults that want to have sex with minors. Some of these idiots deserve it. The most memorable one to me is the idiot who was out on bail for attempting to have sex with a minor and showed up. I also recall one idiot who had already been nailed by the show once befoer come around for a repeat. No sympathy here.

I DO however, on principal, have a problem with law enforcement violating the law to entrap them.

[Missileman]

I forgot to touch on this part of the post you quoted:

The statement is misleading and/or just flat out dishonest. My responses in the "Bait Car" thread were to posts based on the behavior of the car thieves, not whether or not I (or anyone) thought it was "entrapment". The subject of entrapment never entered the fray at all. It appears this particular individual either cannot read and comprehend, or does not bother to, and/or does not understand the word "context".

My intent with this thread was to discuss entrapment, not a TV show. Again, it appears that though I have explained my position more than once, it flies above a certain head.

On my part, I should not have used a specific TV show as the thread title.

And just to make a certain person happy; although, I have already stated this: I most certainly thing "Bait Car" is entrapment. Just as I believe cops posing as hookers and/or drug dealers is entrapment.

And last time I liked underaged girls was about 1977, when I was 17. ;)


Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you take issue with any proactive approach to law enforcement and want them to be reactive only.

[Missileman]

Your personal opinion aside, the point remains. The guy got off based on entrapment. As I also previously stated, if I was on a jury and "entrapment" was the defense's argument, I'd want to read the transcripts.

The fact is, unlike one member has stated as fact, we don't KNOW the full content of the transcripts. Assuming that the perp is ALWAYS the initiator is exactly that ... an assumption.

And, as I stated in my OP, when I brought this thread onto another board, the person I mentioned as immediately relegating to the "pedophile file" happens to be a member of Perverted Justice. If Everyone in Perverted Justice is as closed-minded and one-way as he is, I wouldn't trust any one of them to tell me it was daylight without looking out the window. And since you're no dummy, you may have surmised who in this thread is one of "board buddies".

I think the whole thing is shady from a legal standpoint. I have NO problem with busting adults that want to have sex with minors. Some of these idiots deserve it. The most memorable one to me is the idiot who was out on bail for attempting to have sex with a minor and showed up. I also recall one idiot who had already been nailed by the show once befoer come around for a repeat. No sympathy here.

I DO however, on principal, have a problem with law enforcement violating the law to entrap them.

It was a commie-pinko judge with a commie-pinko jury, in a commie-pinko Cailfornia court. Only a commie-pinko idiot would buy the story that this ADULT only wanted to "cuddle and watch a movie" with a 12-year-old...especially when he got half-naked when he got to the house. California is obviously bereft of any common sense.

I also have a problem with law enforcement entrapping people. I don't share your opinion that these cases are entrapment. I strongly disagree that stings involving bait cars, hookers, drug dealers, etc are entrapment in any way.

[Gunny]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you take issue with any proactive approach to law enforcement and want them to be reactive only.

Law enforcement, by its very nature is reactive. I've argued THAT many times in regard to turning military personnel into "cops" in Vietnam and the Middle East. I've also argued it with leftwingers where gun control is concerned. The cops aren't going to protect you. They're going to (maybe) solve the mystery of who killed you. It's the nature of the beast.

Where's all this procativity when it comes to stalkers? A restraining order is issued and the person ends up dead. THEN the cops come along and go "OMG, she was right!" Some consolation for the victim, huh?

I can tell you where they are. They're busy spending millions getting the "Prince of Pot" extradited from BC, Canada for selling pot seeds over the internet. Or entrapping some addict into a buy.

I'm all for proactivity, but the Marines teach you one thing for sure ... target acquisition and target priority.

As I said before, when I thought some young jarhead had assaulted my daughter, my own wife called the police on me because I knew where he lived and I was checking ammo. I hope there's a special place in Hell for child molestors.

That STILL does NOT give law enforcement -- sworn to uphold the law -- the right to violate the law to enforce another law.

[ConHog]

It was a commie-pinko judge with a commie-pinko jury, in a commie-pinko Cailfornia court. Only a commie-pinko idiot would buy the story that this ADULT only wanted to "cuddle and watch a movie" with a 12-year-old...especially when he got half-naked when he got to the house. California is obviously bereft of any common sense.

I also have a problem with law enforcement entrapping people. I don't share your opinion that these cases are entrapment. I strongly disagree that stings involving bait cars, hookers, drug dealers, etc are entrapment in any way.

They are NOT entrapment. You're most certainly right about that.

In the case Jim cited the case wasn't tossed because of police entrapment, rather like you said an idiotic jury bought the idea that a grown man traveled to hug a 12 year old.

[jimnyc]

They are NOT entrapment. You're most certainly right about that.

In the case Jim cited the case wasn't tossed because of police entrapment, rather like you said an idiotic jury bought the idea that a grown man traveled to hug a 12 year old.

Did you and MM follow the endless Google link I posted as well? You may THINK you're right in every instance, but each case is different, and there's lots of people more knowledgeable than us discussing it.

[ConHog]

Law enforcement, by its very nature is reactive. I've argued THAT many times in regard to turning military personnel into "cops" in Vietnam and the Middle East. I've also argued it with leftwingers where gun control is concerned. The cops aren't going to protect you. They're going to (maybe) solve the mystery of who killed you. It's the nature of the beast.

Where's all this procativity when it comes to stalkers? A restraining order is issued and the person ends up dead. THEN the cops come along and go "OMG, she was right!" Some consolation for the victim, huh?

I can tell you where they are. They're busy spending millions getting the "Prince of Pot" extradited from BC, Canada for selling pot seeds over the internet. Or entrapping some addict into a buy.

I'm all for proactivity, but the Marines teach you one thing for sure ... target acquisition and target priority.

As I said before, when I thought some young jarhead had assaulted my daughter, my own wife called the police on me because I knew where he lived and I was checking ammo. I hope there's a special place in Hell for child molestors.

That STILL does NOT give law enforcement -- sworn to uphold the law -- the right to violate the law to enforce another law.

Correct, so good thing they aren't doing that.

[Missileman]

Did you and MM follow the endless Google link I posted as well? You may THINK you're right in every instance, but each case is different, and there's lots of people more knowledgeable than us discussing it.

I haven't checked out the other link yet, but I will. I hope it has something more convincing than the "innocence" of the guy from the first link.

[jimnyc]

I haven't checked out the other link yet, but I will. I hope it has something more convincing than the "innocence" of the guy from the first link.

Thousands of sites discussing the same thing, some of them legal sites, some of them from long practicing attorneys. And regardless of what you and CH think of the first link, the case was presented in front of a court, lawyers gave them information, and you guys don't like the outcome because it disagrees with what you're arguing here. Doesn't change the fact that they determined the police were involved in entrapment. And I'm confident that ANY page/lawyer/case that anyone can find showing that a case may have been built on entrapment, you guys will find a way to disagree with it. If a lawyer practicing for 40 years on the constitution stated it was entrapment, you guys would disagree. My point in giving the links is to show that it's not as open/shut as YOU guys may think, that others disagree, and what REALLY matters is the court of law.

[Gunny]

It was a commie-pinko judge with a commie-pinko jury, in a commie-pinko Cailfornia court. Only a commie-pinko idiot would buy the story that this ADULT only wanted to "cuddle and watch a movie" with a 12-year-old...especially when he got half-naked when he got to the house. California is obviously bereft of any common sense.

I also have a problem with law enforcement entrapping people. I don't share your opinion that these cases are entrapment. I strongly disagree that stings involving bait cars, hookers, drug dealers, etc are entrapment in any way.

On what grounds do you disagree? Bait Car -- cops leave a car wide open with the keys in it. A tempting crime of opportunity. Cops pose as drug dealers to bust addicts. What nonsense is THAT? Back in the day when people had brains, they spent their time, effort and OUR tax dollars busting the DEALERS. What does busting the addict accomplish? So the local yokels can justify their existence, or what?

Prostitution is a completely different topic because I think prostitution being illegal is just stupid. If that's what someone wants or is the best they can get, big deal. We quit enforcing adultery laws LONG ago. What's the difference? If I pay $100 for a hooker, get a room and a bottle of Jack and don't have to talk to the person the next day, big deal. As opposed to $25 for flowers, $50 for dinner, $30 for a movie, and "maybe" "get some"? When I was a Pvt the Corproal of the Guard would do that every payday, and a few heckled him for it. THAT was his answer.

Yet, sociopathic serial murderers span decades.

Don't you think law enforcement has better things to do?

[Gunny]

Correct, so good thing they aren't doing that.

I've presented how they are. Good thing you keep ignoring that.

[ConHog]

Thousands of sites discussing the same thing, some of them legal sites, some of them from long practicing attorneys. And regardless of what you and CH think of the first link, the case was presented in front of a court, lawyers gave them information, and you guys don't like the outcome because it disagrees with what you're arguing here. Doesn't change the fact that they determined the police were involved in entrapment. And I'm confident that ANY page/lawyer/case that anyone can find showing that a case may have been built on entrapment, you guys will find a way to disagree with it. If a lawyer practicing for 40 years on the constitution stated it was entrapment, you guys would disagree. My point in giving the links is to show that it's not as open/shut as YOU guys may think, that others disagree, and what REALLY matters is the court of law.

Correction Jim. I DO like the outcome because the guy was judged by a jury. May not agree with their verdict; but such is life.

[ConHog]

On what grounds do you disagree? Bait Car -- cops leave a car wide open with the keys in it. A tempting crime of opportunity. Cops pose as drug dealers to bust addicts. What nonsense is THAT? Back in the day when people had brains, they spent their time, effort and OUR tax dollars busting the DEALERS. What does busting the addict accomplish? So the local yokels can justify their existence, or what?

Prostitution is a completely different topic because I think prostitution being illegal is just stupid. If that's what someone wants or is the best they can get, big deal. We quit enforcing adultery laws LONG ago. What's the difference? If I pay $100 for a hooker, get a room and a bottle of Jack and don't have to talk to the person the next day, big deal. As opposed to $25 for flowers, $50 for dinner, $30 for a movie, and "maybe" "get some"? When I was a Pvt the Corproal of the Guard would do that every payday, and a few heckled him for it. THAT was his answer.

Yet, sociopathic serial murderers span decades.

Don't you think law enforcement has better things to do?

Very true, but you or I would walk away from that temptation wouldn't we? If there were a million dollars on the seat I'd walk away, because I am not a criminal. Entrapment would be if an undercover cop talked one of us into stealing the car when we had no intention or desire to do until they talked us into it.

[Gunny]

More flaming and deflecting from you?

Notice I'm not doing either. I'm addressing THE ISSUE. which is this Is Predator entrapment? It is NOT, that isn't a question. It's a statement of fact.

Legal terms have meanings and definitions, entrapment included, and Predator meets none of those.

Going to quit crying, or what?

I've addressed the topic to anyone who has addressed the topic to me. I've ignored any other idiot who can't address the topic without some bullshit accusation. You haven't addressed ANYTHING with anything more than YOUR assumptive opinion.

Bye.

[Gunny]

Correction Jim. I DO like the outcome because the guy was judged by a jury. May not agree with their verdict; but such is life.

Some people need to pretend they have a life rather than pretend they have some sort of opinion in a thread that is OBVIOUSLY WAY over their heads.

[Missileman]

On what grounds do you disagree? Bait Car -- cops leave a car wide open with the keys in it. A tempting crime of opportunity. Cops pose as drug dealers to bust addicts. What nonsense is THAT? Back in the day when people had brains, they spent their time, effort and OUR tax dollars busting the DEALERS. What does busting the addict accomplish? So the local yokels can justify their existence, or what?

A crime of opportunity that ONLY a car thief will take advantage of. As far as busting drug buyers, I agree that the emphasis should be on the sellers, BUT, buying and possessing drugs is as illegal as selling them.


Prostitution is a completely different topic because I think prostitution being illegal is just stupid. If that's what someone wants or is the best they can get, big deal. We quit enforcing adultery laws LONG ago. What's the difference? If I pay $100 for a hooker, get a room and a bottle of Jack and don't have to talk to the person the next day, big deal. As opposed to $25 for flowers, $50 for dinner, $30 for a movie, and "maybe" "get some"? When I was a Pvt the Corproal of the Guard would do that every payday, and a few heckled him for it. THAT was his answer.

I also agree prostitution should be legal.


Yet, sociopathic serial murderers span decades.

Don't you think law enforcement has better things to do?

It's quite obvious that serial killers are far more intelligent, and therefore more elusive, than some knucklehead that truly believes it's their lucky day, they just found an Escalade abandoned with the keys in it.

[Missileman]

Thousands of sites discussing the same thing, some of them legal sites, some of them from long practicing attorneys. And regardless of what you and CH think of the first link, the case was presented in front of a court, lawyers gave them information, and you guys don't like the outcome because it disagrees with what you're arguing here. Doesn't change the fact that they determined the police were involved in entrapment. And I'm confident that ANY page/lawyer/case that anyone can find showing that a case may have been built on entrapment, you guys will find a way to disagree with it. If a lawyer practicing for 40 years on the constitution stated it was entrapment, you guys would disagree. My point in giving the links is to show that it's not as open/shut as YOU guys may think, that others disagree, and what REALLY matters is the court of law.


Do you think every decision passed down by a judge was the correct one? I think NOT. I've never known a defense attorney who wouldn't say ANYTHING to get their client off, they believe it's their job.

When I see the police involved in misconduct, I'm as critical of them as anyone.

The courts are fallible and in some jurisdictions, prone to succomb to having smoke blown up their ass. e.g. O.J. Simpson

I'm not saying that no one's never been entrapped, I'm saying that "Bait Car", drug stings, prostitution stings, and "To Catch a Predator" are not entrapment. Making it easy for someone to steal a car is not entrapment. Pretending to be a drug buyer is not entrapment. Pretending to be an underage kid on the internet is not entrapment.

[Gunny]

A crime of opportunity that ONLY a car thief will take advantage of. As far as busting drug buyers, I agree that the emphasis should be on the sellers, BUT, buying and possessing drugs is as illegal as selling them.



I also agree prostitution should be legal.



It's quite obvious that serial killers are far more intelligent, and therefore more elusive, than some knucklehead that truly believes it's their lucky day, they just found an Escalade abandoned with the keys in it.

I disagree with your first. It's a crime of opportunity MANY would find hard to resist. From what I've seen, about a 1/4 are repeat offenders.

My point to the latter is that maybe our time effort and money should be spent on catching REAL criminals that KILL people than on busting some dude for selling pot seeds.

[SassyLady]

Do you think every decision passed down by a judge was the correct one? I think NOT. I've never known a defense attorney who wouldn't say ANYTHING to get their client off, they believe it's their job.

When I see the police involved in misconduct, I'm as critical of them as anyone.

The courts are fallible and in some jurisdictions, prone to succomb to having smoke blown up their ass. e.g. O.J. Simpson

I'm not saying that no one's never been entrapped, I'm saying that "Bait Car", drug stings, prostitution stings, and "To Catch a Predator" are not entrapment. Making it easy for someone to steal a car is not entrapment. Pretending to be a drug buyer is not entrapment. Pretending to be an underage kid on the internet is not entrapment.

If leaving a bait car is entrapment, then what would you call it if I left my keys in the car accidentally, a guy/girl walking down the street sees it and steals it, but get caught later. Are they allowed to claim entrapment because I left the keys in the car?

[fj1200]

If leaving a bait car is entrapment, then what would you call it if I left my keys in the car accidentally, a guy/girl walking down the street sees it and steals it, but get caught later. Are they allowed to claim entrapment because I left the keys in the car?

You're not law enforcement, you're blonde... :rimshot:

[SassyLady]

You're not law enforcement, you're blonde... :rimshot:

A bottle blond to cover the gray ... really a brunette (spent most of my life as a redhead), who has never left her keys anywhere!

But really, how do you entrap an honest person?

[fj1200]

But really, how do you entrap an honest person?

That's the trick, you can't entrap an honest person but you can entrap someone who wouldn't normally commit a crime (one of the legal rules IIRC). If in your example the cops left the keys in the car in a place not known to be a hot spot of car theft then whoever they catch is likely to be a joyrider. Entrapment if you ask me but I don't think that is the case in Predator type scenarios.

[SassyLady]

That's the trick, you can't entrap an honest person but you can entrap someone who wouldn't normally commit a crime (one of the legal rules IIRC). If in your example the cops left the keys in the car in a place not known to be a hot spot of car theft then whoever they catch is likely to be a joyrider. Entrapment if you ask me but I don't think that is the case in Predator type scenarios.

Well, sometimes the weeds get so bad in an area of my yard that it's hard to just eradicate the really nasty ones. Sometimes I have to spray roundup on everything and end up taking out a few lesser evil weeds and grass to stop the really bad ones from spreading and creating absolute havoc with my yard. Some weeds are just in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

[fj1200]

Well, sometimes the weeds get so bad in an area of my yard that it's hard to just eradicate the really nasty ones. Sometimes I have to spray roundup on everything and end up taking out a few lesser evil weeds and grass to stop the really bad ones from spreading and creating absolute havoc with my yard. Some weeds are just in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

I hope your ashamed of profiling weeds and the damage you cause to the innocent, they have rights as well.

[LuvRPgrl]

It doesn't appear to always be an open/shut case, and it CAN be entrapment in certain circumstances. In fact, here's a man that has had all charges dropped due to entrapment:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2027147/Joseph-Roisman-acquitted-paedophile-To-Catch-A-Predator-entrapment.html

Also, here's a google search on this very subject. I went through about the first 4 pages. Lots of good arguments in BOTH directions.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Avg5jQvgjSTUVx3KRPU58UybvZx4?fr=yfp-t-701-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=is to catch a predator entrapment

If the initial contact, and how it is handled, varies, then whether or not it is entrapment, certainly is going to change according to how they went about it.

IF they cops did not initiate the conversation , and/or the content, sex, then I would think it would be difficult to see it as entrapment. IF they did, then I think we would be hard pressed to see it as anything but entrapment.

IF they were entrapping any of them, it is absoluting disgusting and the entrappers should go to prison

[SassyLady]

I hope your ashamed of profiling weeds and the damage you cause to the innocent, they have rights as well.

I have no shame.....:neener:


So far there is no WEEDACLU in my area but I'm sure one will pop up soon!!!

[fj1200]

^I didn't think so. :laugh:

[LuvRPgrl]

How about lookin one post above this post and giving your opinion on whether this show fits the three elements that define entrapment. I'd be interested in your take.

with the info at hand, I dont see any; of the definitions of entrapment being filled.

As for sassy, I would agree to making this an exception, possibly, if it remained ONE exception, but unfortunately, once one exception is made, many more always will be made, and then it becomes the norm.

[SassyLady]

with the info at hand, I dont see any; of the definitions of entrapment being filled.

As for sassy, I would agree to making this an exception, possibly, if it remained ONE exception, but unfortunately, once one exception is made, many more always will be made, and then it becomes the norm.

You are correct ... we've made too many exceptions regarding porn, and now it's become the norm and trying to stop it by whatever means necessary is infringing upon the rights of the predators....the Overton Window in full force.

[Gunny]

If leaving a bait car is entrapment, then what would you call it if I left my keys in the car accidentally, a guy/girl walking down the street sees it and steals it, but get caught later. Are they allowed to claim entrapment because I left the keys in the car?

You aren't law enforcement luring someone to commit a crime.

[Gunny]

That's the trick, you can't entrap an honest person but you can entrap someone who wouldn't normally commit a crime (one of the legal rules IIRC). If in your example the cops left the keys in the car in a place not known to be a hot spot of car theft then whoever they catch is likely to be a joyrider. Entrapment if you ask me but I don't think that is the case in Predator type scenarios.

Again, you can't really make that statement minus the actual transcripts.

I consider law enforcement piggy-backing Chris Hanson and his team of zealots entrapment. No one in this thread has changed my mind. Especially since only one person has actually engaged me in dialogue while the periphery has just pot-shotted. All the while screeching foul at the highest of tenor voices.

[Gunny]

with the info at hand, I dont see any; of the definitions of entrapment being filled.

As for sassy, I would agree to making this an exception, possibly, if it remained ONE exception, but unfortunately, once one exception is made, many more always will be made, and then it becomes the norm.

What exception? Unless juries are selected differently than in Texas, she can recuse herself by just saying she's biased. They just put her back in the jury pool.

I always go to jury duty dressed like the redneck from Hell. Tucked in pearl-snap Texas flag shirt, wranglers, license plate belt buckle and boots. I get sent home every time.:laugh:

[SassyLady]

What exception? Unless juries are selected differently than in Texas, she can recuse herself by just saying she's biased. They just put her back in the jury pool.

I always go to jury duty dressed like the redneck from Hell. Tucked in pearl-snap Texas flag shirt, wranglers, license plate belt buckle and boots. I get sent home every time.:laugh:

The exception is that it is legal to entrap child predators, not jury duty.

Clarification ... I want it to be legal to entrap child predators.

[Gunny]

The exception is that it is legal to entrap child predators, not jury duty.

It's not legal. It's just done.

[SassyLady]

What exception? Unless juries are selected differently than in Texas, she can recuse herself by just saying she's biased. They just put her back in the jury pool.

I always go to jury duty dressed like the redneck from Hell. Tucked in pearl-snap Texas flag shirt, wranglers, license plate belt buckle and boots. I get sent home every time.:laugh:

I just tell them that my stepfather went to jail for molesting myself and my siblings, and that I have a brother in prison as a serial killer, and that I have really strong beliefs about the death penalty and don't believe I can be unbiased. I tell the truth and don't have to put on a show.

[SassyLady]

It's not legal. It's just done.

Do you always argue in circles? We are not saying it is legal, we are saying that it should be legal, and that way it would not be entrapment!!! Do you agree that this would be better for our children if we were able to get potential predators off the streets?

[Missileman]

That's the trick, you can't entrap an honest person but you can entrap someone who wouldn't normally commit a crime (one of the legal rules IIRC). If in your example the cops left the keys in the car in a place not known to be a hot spot of car theft then whoever they catch is likely to be a joyrider. Entrapment if you ask me but I don't think that is the case in Predator type scenarios.

Going for a joy ride isn't car theft? If I take a "joy ride" on a woman I find unconscious is it not rape even if the woman passed out in a place not known as a hot spot for rape?

[fj1200]

Again, you can't really make that statement minus the actual transcripts.

I consider law enforcement piggy-backing Chris Hanson and his team of zealots entrapment. No one in this thread has changed my mind. Especially since only one person has actually engaged me in dialogue while the periphery has just pot-shotted. All the while screeching foul at the highest of tenor voices.

I think I can, especially as I was speaking generally. LE can run a sting that does not run afoul of entrapment IMO and address criminal behavior against a group of victims that are unlikely to be able to defend themselves. If we have determined that kids do not have the capacity to enjoy full rights and responsibilities of society then we also need to protect them against certain criminal behavior; they are legally defenseless.


I always go to jury duty dressed like the redneck from Hell. Tucked in pearl-snap Texas flag shirt, wranglers, license plate belt buckle and boots. I get sent home every time.:laugh:

If your aim is to get off of jury duty then you're successful. If your aim is to potentially save someone from an entrapping charge then you are unsuccessful.


It's not legal. It's just done.

Your opinion of legality is not jibing with most here nor what has been determined to be acceptable.


Going for a joy ride isn't car theft? If I take a "joy ride" on a woman I find unconscious is it not rape even if the woman passed out in a place not known as a hot spot for rape?

Is that what I said? I was saying that the joyriders aren't predisposed to the crime and "entrapping" them is not addressing habitual criminal behavior. If they sent a 15 year old acting as a 20 year old into a bar full of soccer dads and ends up getting hit on and propositioned, did they catch a criminal or did they entrap someone who thought they were getting lucky? Habitual criminal behavior should be the target.

[LuvRPgrl]

What exception? Unless juries are selected differently than in Texas, she can recuse herself by just saying she's biased. They just put her back in the jury pool.

I always go to jury duty dressed like the redneck from Hell. Tucked in pearl-snap Texas flag shirt, wranglers, license plate belt buckle and boots. I get sent home every time.:laugh:

an exception for entrapment. Unlike most other crimes, the victim in this crime is young kids, so I would be willing to bend the law a bit in terms of defining entrapment.

You have alot of people who are never going to rob a bank,
then you have some who are going to try no matter what,
and then, with most crimes, you have some who wouldnt unless the opportunity was thrown in their face,
not robbing a bank literally, but lets say a clerk leaves the cash drawer open to go into the back, some who normally wouldnt steal or rob the store, might reach over and grab some money.

If that kind of temptation is CREATED by the cops, then you have entrapment.

But sexual crimes are a different story. I think virtually anyone who is inclined to, will eventually do it because the sexual urge drive is different from monetary crimes. Thats why the recitivism rate is so high in these crimes. These guys cant control themselves, as evidenced by the guys who got caught twice. Guys either are, or arent attracted to 12 year olds, or even full blown pedos attracted to 10 yrs and younger kids.

again, I think the initiator of the chat room conversation determines entrapment or not, but even if the cops initiated it, the guy has plenty of time to think it thru before commiting themselves, unlike the open cash drawer or the bait car, which are impulse actions, AND IM EXTREMELY OPPOSED TO MOST OF THE EFFORTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT THESE DAYS, in the msnbc sting, I wouldnt consider it entrapment.

Im not sure why you call hanson a zealot.

But especially considering who the victims are, 12 yr olds, the perps have plenty of time to think about that and still continuing with the crime, those guys are real scumbags and are lucky its mr hanson and not me catching them, cuz instead of cops outside the house waiting for them, they would need an ambulence.

To turn the pc on, then go to a chat room with kids, then chat up a kid, then talk sex, these guys are looking for it.

Adults, even the completely innocent ones, should simply be extra cautious when dealing with minors. You would never find me with a minor alone in a house.

[LuvRPgrl]

Very true, but you or I would walk away from that temptation wouldn't we? If there were a million dollars on the seat I'd walk away, because I am not a criminal. Entrapment would be if an undercover cop talked one of us into stealing the car when we had no intention or desire to do until they talked us into it.

R U KIDDING ME??
If a million dollars were just sitting there, it certainly would change the thinking of almost, if not every, person here.

The main thought that would lead me to not take the money is that it might belong to a drug dealer, cartel, or such and they would come after me.

But if a serious huge chunk of money were sitting there, I would analyze the situation and might grab it and go, but I would call chris hanson first just to find out where he is at that moment !

[LuvRPgrl]

You are correct ... we've made too many exceptions regarding porn, and now it's become the norm and trying to stop it by whatever means necessary is infringing upon the rights of the predators....the Overton Window in full force.

color me perplexed and confused, and ;yea, thats not my normal state

The exception IM talking about is about entrapment, this is the one area, sex crimes, and Im not including prostitution, which isnt a crime,,,,where I WOULD allow an exception, EXCEPT I know law enforcement and the courts would allow more exceptions.

[LuvRPgrl]

It's not legal. It's just done.


which makes it legal

[Missileman]

Is that what I said? I was saying that the joyriders aren't predisposed to the crime and "entrapping" them is not addressing habitual criminal behavior. If they sent a 15 year old acting as a 20 year old into a bar full of soccer dads and ends up getting hit on and propositioned, did they catch a criminal or did they entrap someone who thought they were getting lucky? Habitual criminal behavior should be the target.

I don't care if it's a first offense or tenth, if you steal a car, you're a car thief. The notion that a first offender is entrapped simply because it's their first offense is in itself offensive. There is no filter that I'm aware of that can be applied to only snag career criminals.

If the cops were to send a 15-year-old into a bar posing as an adult, THAT would be entrapment.

[Missileman]

but lets say a clerk leaves the cash drawer open to go into the back, some who normally wouldnt steal or rob the store, might reach over and grab some money.

If that kind of temptation is CREATED by the cops, then you have entrapment.


If you reach over the counter and take the money, you're a criminal, plain and simple. It doesn't make any difference whether the cops set it up or not. As has been pointed out in several posts/links, merely providing what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime is not entrapment. Your scenario doesn't come close to passing ANY of the following, let alone ALL three which must be true in order for entrapment to occur.


Entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled:

The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.
The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents.

[ConHog]

If you reach over the counter and take the money, you're a criminal, plain and simple. It doesn't make any difference whether the cops set it up or not. As has been pointed out in several posts/links, merely providing what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime is not entrapment. Your scenario doesn't come close to passing ANY of the following, let alone ALL three which must be true in order for entrapment to occur.

I don't see how some dummies are missing the three elements requirement, it's simply NOT police entrapment if those three criteria aren't met.

[LuvRPgrl]

Ummm...a plea bargain results in an actual conviction. No one with a lawyer is going to take a plea bargain if they were entrapped and could have the case thrown out.

On this micro point, I agree with Gunny, it does happen that sometimes an innocent person may take a plea bargain. So, they were never proven guilty, and it can be similiar to how the cops get "confessions", sometimes they force them ouot of innocent people

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't care if it's a first offense or tenth, if you steal a car, you're a car thief. The notion that a first offender is entrapped simply because it's their first offense is in itself offensive. There is no filter that I'm aware of that can be applied to only snag career criminals.

If the cops were to send a 15-year-old into a bar posing as an adult, THAT would be entrapment.

first time = car thief

tenth time = habitual car thief,

and the sentencing should be handled differently, the first time offender may not turn into a career thief sometimes, if handled properly

If the cops send a 15 yr old into a bar, then the barkeep should be checking his ID.
15 YR OLDS are not hanging out at bars.

[LuvRPgrl]

If you reach over the counter and take the money, you're a criminal, plain and simple. It doesn't make any difference whether the cops set it up or not. As has been pointed out in several posts/links, merely providing what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime is not entrapment. Your scenario doesn't come close to passing ANY of the following, let alone ALL three which must be true in order for entrapment to occur.Entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled:

The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.
The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents.




OF course the idea came from the govt and not the customer, people dont walk into a 7-11 store with the thought of grabbing cash.

OF COURSE THE CUSTOMER WAS PERSUADED, THE ACT OF LEAVING THE CASH UNATTENDED IS THE CRUCIAL FACTOR, AND IT WOULD BE THE GOVT AGENTS WHO CREATE THAT SITUATION, HENCE THEY PERSUADED D CUST. BY LEAVING IT UNATTENDED.

As for willing, of course anyone WHO ACTUALLY DOES IT, was willing, its a stupid part of the definition. But fortunately, its says "or"
not "and"
OF COURSE the cust wasnt ready, how can you plan for something you never even were thinking of. Im sure if and when it happens, most people, errr, everyone there, would be greatly surprised if not shocked.

The reason it is considered so stupid for a clerk to leave an unattended register is because a huge percentage of people would grab some money, so, according to you, a huge percentage of everyday americans are criminals, and walk into a convenience store thinking of grabbing some money

[Missileman]

On this micro point, I agree with Gunny, it does happen that sometimes an innocent person may take a plea bargain. So, they were never proven guilty, and it can be similiar to how the cops get "confessions", sometimes they force them ouot of innocent people

A plea bargain is an admission of guilt. At that point, the government isn't obligated to prove anything.

[Missileman]

first time = car thief

tenth time = habitual car thief,

and the sentencing should be handled differently, the first time offender may not turn into a career thief sometimes, if handled properly

If the cops send a 15 yr old into a bar, then the barkeep should be checking his ID.
15 YR OLDS are not hanging out at bars.

We're not talking about sentencing. A suggestion was made that under the same circumstances (bait car) that a person who is stealing their first car has been entrapped whereas a repeat offender has not.

[Missileman]

OF course the idea came from the govt and not the customer, people dont walk into a 7-11 store with the thought of grabbing cash.

OF COURSE THE CUSTOMER WAS PERSUADED, THE ACT OF LEAVING THE CASH UNATTENDED IS THE CRUCIAL FACTOR, AND IT WOULD BE THE GOVT AGENTS WHO CREATE THAT SITUATION, HENCE THEY PERSUADED D CUST. BY LEAVING IT UNATTENDED.

Only in a world where MAGIC, TALKING cash registers exist. You apparently haven't a CLUE what persuade means. Hint: It doesn't mean TEMPT.


As for willing, of course anyone WHO ACTUALLY DOES IT, was willing, its a stupid part of the definition. But fortunately, its says "or"
not "and"
OF COURSE the cust wasnt ready, how can you plan for something you never even were thinking of. Im sure if and when it happens, most people, errr, everyone there, would be greatly surprised if not shocked.

The reason it is considered so stupid for a clerk to leave an unattended register is because a huge percentage of people would grab some money, so, according to you, a huge percentage of everyday americans are criminals, and walk into a convenience store thinking of grabbing some money

Anyone who reaches across the counter and takes some cash IS A CRIMINAL, you can try to spin it any way you wish, but it doesn't alter that FACT. In some neighborhoods, the percentage of people who would take some cash is extremely high, in others, it would be extemely miniscule. If you're suggesting that a significant number of law abiding people would help themselves to some cash, I suggest you're full of shit. In fact, IMO, the law-abiding person would keep a watch on the register to make sure no one else grabbed any cash and then lecture the clerk about why it was a dumb thing to leave it open.

If YOU would reach over the counter and grab a handful simply because the register was left open, I'd say your moral compass is lacking a needle.

[ConHog]

On this micro point, I agree with Gunny, it does happen that sometimes an innocent person may take a plea bargain. So, they were never proven guilty, and it can be similiar to how the cops get "confessions", sometimes they force them ouot of innocent people

WRONG!!

A plea bargain ALWAYS results in a plea of guilty to SOMETHING. That's a fact jack.

[LuvRPgrl]

A plea bargain is an admission of guilt. At that point, the government isn't obligated to prove anything.
NOOOOO

Its an admission that they have enough evidence or supposed evidence to get a jury to possibly find them guilty, whether they are guilty or not. Circumstancial evidence along with maybe the cops manufacturing evidence, and a bad attorney, and possibly a criminal background, can lead to a false guilty verdict. It happens.

[Missileman]

NOOOOO

Its an admission that they have enough evidence or supposed evidence to get a jury to possibly find them guilty, whether they are guilty or not. Circumstancial evidence along with maybe the cops manufacturing evidence, and a bad attorney, and possibly a criminal background, can lead to a false guilty verdict. It happens.

Cite a single case, ANY case, where a plea bargain involved a person pleading "not guilty".

[LuvRPgrl]

WRONG!!

A plea bargain ALWAYS results in a plea of guilty to SOMETHING. That's a fact jack.

Which is not what I said.
Plea bargains can be accepted by innocent people sometimes. Legally and technically he admits guilt, even if he didnt do the crime. But in reality he didnt do it.
Innocent people get convicted from time to time.

[LuvRPgrl]

Cite a single case, ANY case, where a plea bargain involved a person pleading "not guilty".

NO

[ConHog]

NO

cuz you're wrong

There is no such thing as a plea bargain that ends in anything but a plea of guilty.

You're thinking about a plea of no contest, which is entirely different.

[Gunny]

Cite a single case, ANY case, where a plea bargain involved a person pleading "not guilty".

Loaded question. Of course a plea bargain invovles only a guilty plea. Just so long as the "state gets theirs". You're trying to play semantics. The fact is, all you have to do is turn on Investigation Discovery and you'll hear at least twice a day "I took the plea out of ignorance because I was being threatened with the death sentence". Some people would rather live in chains than die free. Not me.

Since Obama did away with my job and I sit around watching forensic shows all day, I have marvelled at the amount of people convicted on pure bullshit. Deja vu. Kind of like playing semantics. They take a bunch of disjointed facts and weave their own tale in between and call it a case.

Perhaps we shouldn't make it so lucrative to be a successful DA? Where they sell their souls to get a conviction? I've seen the prosecution argue the stupidest crap EVER and unfortunately, win. Not only that, it isn't uniform.

A guy accused of pushing his wife off a cliff on the West Coast was exonerated. Same scenario in Maine, the guy's doing life with no possibility of parole.

If your arguement is this crap is fair and right, try again.

[Missileman]

Loaded question. Of course a plea bargain invovles only a guilty plea. Just so long as the "state gets theirs". You're trying to play semantics. The fact is, all you have to do is turn on Investigation Discovery and you'll hear at least twice a day "I took the plea out of ignorance because I was being threatened with the death sentence". Some people would rather live in chains than die free. Not me.

Since Obama did away with my job and I sit around watching forensic shows all day, I have marvelled at the amount of people convicted on pure bullshit. Deja vu. Kind of like playing semantics. They take a bunch of disjointed facts and weave their own tale in between and call it a case.

Perhaps we shouldn't make it so lucrative to be a successful DA? Where they sell their souls to get a conviction? I've seen the prosecution argue the stupidest crap EVER and unfortunately, win. Not only that, it isn't uniform.

A guy accused of pushing his wife off a cliff on the West Coast was exonerated. Same scenario in Maine, the guy's doing life with no possibility of parole.

If your arguement is this crap is fair and right, try again.

I'm not playing semantics, I said a plea bargain is an admission of guilt and it is in EVERY case, because that is what a guilty plea is. Do innocent people wind up convicted? It happens, but it's a lot more rare than what some are contending it is. Might an innocent person take a plea? Maybe, but it's gotta be more rare than an innocent person being wrongfully convicted in a trial. Most plea bargains are reached with guilty people who are getting a lesser charge and lighter sentence for saving the government the cost and time of a trial.

[ConHog]

I'm not playing semantics, I said a plea bargain is an admission of guilt and it is in EVERY case, because that is what a guilty plea is. Do innocent people wind up convicted? It happens, but it's a lot more rare than what some are contending it is. Might an innocent person take a plea? Maybe, but it's gotta be more rare than an innocent person being wrongfully convicted in a trial. Most plea bargains are reached with guilty people who are getting a lesser charge and lighter sentence for saving the government the cost and time of a trial.

There's almost NO actual cases of an innocent person accepting a plea bargain.

and what does this have to do with entrapment anyway?

[Gunny]

I'm not playing semantics, I said a plea bargain is an admission of guilt and it is in EVERY case, because that is what a guilty plea is. Do innocent people wind up convicted? It happens, but it's a lot more rare than what some are contending it is. Might an innocent person take a plea? Maybe, but it's gotta be more rare than an innocent person being wrongfully convicted in a trial. Most plea bargains are reached with guilty people who are getting a lesser charge and lighter sentence for saving the government the cost and time of a trial.

Right. But you leave out the reality that creates that plea bargain.

I disagree. There are a lot more innocent peole convicted who can't afford to BUY justice because of some zealot ADA looking to clinb and spinning a web of bullshit than your argument recognizes. Rare? No. Tell the average joe the only way out of a death penalty is to plea bargain, and most will choose life.

Most plea bargains may very well be reached by tghe guilty. How many are reached by the afraid? Oh, you don't know because our government wouldn't DARE publish THAT statistic.

You have a whole lot of faith in a whole bunch of social-climbing, gold-digging bullshit.

[LuvRPgrl]

Only in a world where MAGIC, TALKING cash registers exist. You apparently haven't a CLUE what persuade means. Hint: It doesn't mean TEMPT..
A tad bit judgemental there?
Persuade can easily intrude into the arena of tempt. He saw a temptation (A DRINK) which persuaded him to pick it up and drink it.

Anyone who reaches across the counter and takes some cash IS A CRIMINAL, you can try to spin it any way you wish, but it doesn't alter that FACT..
Putting words in my mouth only shows a lack of confidence on your part.
I DIDN'T say one who grabs the money isnt a thief. I DID say that most people DONT walk into a store with grabbing cash on their mind.


In some neighborhoods, the percentage of people who would take some cash is extremely high, in others, it would be extemely miniscule. If you're suggesting that a significant number of law abiding people would help themselves to some cash, I suggest you're full of shit..
Putting words in my mouth eh? I never suggested that. Significant is not a term I used or implied or suggested. Fact is, neither of us know how many would, but I can guarantee you some would, you cant guarantee me that NONE would. And I didnt say "law abiding" either.

In fact, IMO, the law-abiding person would keep a watch on the register to make sure no one else grabbed any cash and then lecture the clerk about why it was a dumb thing to leave it open..
Why would it be dumb if a significant number of people wouldnt steal from it anyways, and the clerk believed the guy would guard it for him anyways.


If YOU would reach over the counter and grab a handful simply because the register was left open, I'd say your moral compass is lacking a needle.
Which I didnt say.
Im not going to say that in the past, or under certain circumstances I wouldnt.
I think, relatively speaking, my compass is just fine oh mr Judgemental perfect walking and talking dictionary.

[LuvRPgrl]

There's almost NO actual cases of an innocent person accepting a plea bargain.

and what does this have to do with entrapment anyway?


You dont know that.

[Gunny]

There's almost NO actual cases of an innocent person accepting a plea bargain.

and what does this have to do with entrapment anyway?

Still here? Why?

You've already laid out your non-argument.

[Gunny]

I'm not playing semantics, I said a plea bargain is an admission of guilt and it is in EVERY case, because that is what a guilty plea is. Do innocent people wind up convicted? It happens, but it's a lot more rare than what some are contending it is. Might an innocent person take a plea? Maybe, but it's gotta be more rare than an innocent person being wrongfully convicted in a trial. Most plea bargains are reached with guilty people who are getting a lesser charge and lighter sentence for saving the government the cost and time of a trial.

It's a game...not an admission of guilt. I took a plea bargain in 1977 for beating the shit out of Miami Metro Dade cop who thought because I had below shoulder length hair he could just slam my head into the hood of my car. As Jess how well slamming my head into ANYTHING works. I knocked half his teeth out with an elbow. And guess who was DA in Miami then? Janiet Reno.

I took a plea to keep me from being convicted of a felony. Simple as that. When you've been there, you might have an argument. If you haven't, don't bother. I wasn't taking no shit off no cop for no reason. Of course, *I* was a liberal THEN. We still had balls.

I know EXACTLY what a plea bargain is,

[Missileman]

A tad bit judgemental there?
Persuade can easily intrude into the arena of tempt. He saw a temptation (A DRINK) which persuaded him to pick it up and drink it.

Dictionaries can be your friend...you should introduce yourself to one someday...soon.


Putting words in my mouth eh? I never suggested that. Significant is not a term I used or implied or suggested. Fact is, neither of us know how many would, but I can guarantee you some would, you cant guarantee me that NONE would. And I didnt say "law abiding" either.



The reason it is considered so stupid for a clerk to leave an unattended register is because a huge percentage of people would grab some money


Anything else YOU wrote that you'd like to accuse me of putting in your mouth? And although you accused me of it, it was you who actually made the argument that a huge percentage of Americans are criminals with the above statement.

BTW, I never implied no one would take the money. In fact, I said depending on where the store is, the number of dirtbags walking through the door could be very high.

[ConHog]

Money grubbing ADAs force innocent people to accept plea bargains. :laugh:

What a retarded statement .

[Gunny]

Money grubbing ADAs force innocent people to accept plea bargains. :laugh:

What a retarded statement .

Money-grubbing? More like power-grubbing. Feel free to put words in your OWN mouth, not mine. The fact is, ADA's want to be DA's and DA's want to be AG's and AG's want to be mayors. It's political posturing more than legal. The legal end is a means to a larger end, and a stellar conviction record makes that means to an end shine.

Nothing "retarded" about what's obvious to the average 7th grader.

The only thing that's been retarded, distracting and trolling in this thread is YOU. I would suggest you try contributing something to the topic, but that would require the ability to think and formulate sentences in a logical, intelligent manner. Lets YOU out.

[Gunny]

I'm not playing semantics, I said a plea bargain is an admission of guilt and it is in EVERY case, because that is what a guilty plea is. Do innocent people wind up convicted? It happens, but it's a lot more rare than what some are contending it is. Might an innocent person take a plea? Maybe, but it's gotta be more rare than an innocent person being wrongfully convicted in a trial. Most plea bargains are reached with guilty people who are getting a lesser charge and lighter sentence for saving the government the cost and time of a trial.

On to a more intelligent response.

A plea bargain is not always an admission of guilt. I forget what the plea is called, but one can actually plead basically "no contest". It isn't an admission of guilt.

A plea ALWAYS ends in a conviction. THAT is what I thought your argument was. That is true. Other than expediency, what does the prosecution get out of a plea if not a conviction of some kind?

Your assumptive reason leaves a bit to be desired. The US legal system is quite a bit darker than you either know, or wish to acknowledge. Again, I watch all these damned forensic shows and trial shows, and my opinion is people get convicted based more on emotion than logic and evidence.

I will agree that not most but a majority of plea bargains are reached with guilty people going for a lighter sentence.

Insofar as the topic is concerned, I am willing to go out on a limb and say that MOST of the plea bargains are made so the accused cna keep his name out of the news.

[fj1200]

I don't care if it's a first offense or tenth, if you steal a car, you're a car thief. The notion that a first offender is entrapped simply because it's their first offense is in itself offensive. There is no filter that I'm aware of that can be applied to only snag career criminals.

If the cops were to send a 15-year-old into a bar posing as an adult, THAT would be entrapment.

Who said that they weren't a car thief?


We're not talking about sentencing. A suggestion was made that under the same circumstances (bait car) that a person who is stealing their first car has been entrapped whereas a repeat offender has not.

You completely missed the point. If you're going to set up a sting to catch a car thief, set it up to catch repeat offenders or in a high crime area not where the only likely thief is a joyrider.

[fj1200]

On to a more intelligent response.

A plea bargain is not always an admission of guilt. I forget what the plea is called, but one can actually plead basically "no contest". It isn't an admission of guilt.

Nolo contendere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere).

Nolo contendere is a legal term that comes from the Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) for "I do not wish to contend." It is also referred to as a plea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea) of no contest. In criminal trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_(law)), and in some common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law) jurisdictions, it is a plea where the defendant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defendant) neither admits nor disputes a charge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charge), serving as an alternative to a pleading of guilty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_(law)) or not guilty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquittal). A no-contest plea, while not technically a guilty plea, has the same immediate effect as a guilty plea, and is often offered as a part of a plea bargain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere#cite_note-0) In many jurisdictions a plea of nolo contendere is not a right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right), and carries various restrictions on its use.
...
In the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), state law determines whether, and under what circumstances, a defendant may plead no contest in state criminal cases. In federal court, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Criminal_Procedure)only allow a nolo contendere plea to be entered with the court's consent; before accepting the plea, the court is required to "consider the parties' views and the public interest in the effective administration of justice."

[LuvRPgrl]

Dictionaries can be your friend...you should introduce yourself to one someday...soon..
So I assume you have no rebuttal to my statement, and example.









Anything else YOU wrote that you'd like to accuse me of putting in your mouth?.
what a non sensical statement. Think about it, if I accuse YOU of putting words in my mouth, then it would require something YOU WROTE, not me.


And although you accused me of it, it was you who actually made the argument that a huge percentage of Americans are criminals with the above statement..
and you converted it into another term, which I didnt use.




BTW, I never implied no one would take the money. In fact, I said depending on where the store is, the number of dirtbags walking through the door could be very high.

[Missileman]

Who said that they weren't a car thief?

The person arguing that first time offenders have been entrapped.




You completely missed the point. If you're going to set up a sting to catch a car thief, set it up to catch repeat offenders or in a high crime area not where the only likely thief is a joyrider.

Everyone of those repeat offenders started with a first...wonder what percentage were "just" a joyride.

[Missileman]

what a non sensical statement. Think about it, if I accuse YOU of putting words in my mouth, then it would require something YOU WROTE, not me.

Nice dodge!

You wrote this:


The reason it is considered so stupid for a clerk to leave an unattended register is because a huge percentage of people would grab some money


And followed it with:


Putting words in my mouth eh? I never suggested that. Significant is not a term I used or implied or suggested. Fact is, neither of us know how many would, but I can guarantee you some would, you cant guarantee me that NONE would. And I didnt say "law abiding" either.


Let me guess...you are going to argue that "huge percentage" and "significant" couldn't possible be considered the same thing.

[ConHog]

Nolo contendere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere).


Amazing that you can write the same thing as I wrote and mine is not on topic, but yours is according to some, or rather one.

[Gunny]

Nolo contendere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere).

They actually quote some act or plea or whatever, but it is exactly what you say. It's a hedge around an admission of guilt. It does however result in a conviction.

[fj1200]

The person arguing that first time offenders have been entrapped.

Everyone of those repeat offenders started with a first...wonder what percentage were "just" a joyride.

So you're contention is that LEOs should be leaving cars with keys in random places to snare those who have an inclination to steal, since repeat offenders started with "just" a joyride. Good plan.

Or you could admit that your characterization of my position is incorrect.

[Gunny]

Amazing that you can write the same thing as I wrote and mine is not on topic, but yours is according to some, or rather one.

You still here NOT contributing to this thread?

[ConHog]

You still here NOT contributing to this thread?

shut up stupid.

I've made the exact same arguments as MM is making, you just have a bug up your ass about me. That's your problem, not mine.

Now shut up and keep claiming that a television show ins entrapment even though I ,and by I I mean ME personally, posted the EXACT legal definition of police entrapment in the thread and you ignored that and flamed b/c you KNOW you can't dispute it.

[Gunny]

shut up stupid.

I've made the exact same arguments as MM is making, you just have a bug up your ass about me. That's your problem, not mine.

Now shut up and keep claiming that a television show ins entrapment even though I ,and by I I mean ME personally, posted the EXACT legal definition of police entrapment in the thread and you ignored that and flamed b/c you KNOW you can't dispute it.

*yawn*

Anything else? Obviously the conversation is above your head. Feel free to do your drama-queen act at www.romperroom.com (http://www.romperroom.com) wher you might find some peers; although, I doubt it. I got an 11 years old here at the house that could school YOUR sorry little butt.

But let's recap: This has been a thread of at least semi-intelligent people having a discussion. Enter drama queen aka CornDog. Have you figured out yet most everyone in this thread is ignoring you? Nope. Not you.

Please feel free to read up on www.getaclue.com (http://www.getaclue.com). I KNOW the words are a bit big for you, but I DO have an 11 years old who can explain those 2 syllable anomalies to you.

But you got what you crave, right? A little bit of attention?

[ConHog]

*yawn*

Anything else? Obviously the conversation is above your head. Feel free to do your drama-queen act at www.romperroom.com (http://www.romperroom.com) wher you might find some peers; although, I doubt it. I got an 11 years old here at the house that could school YOUR sorry little butt.

But let's recap: This has been a thread of at least semi-intelligent people having a discussion. Enter drama queen aka CornDog. Have you figured out yet most everyone in this thread is ignoring you? Nope. Not you.

Please feel free to read up on www.getaclue.com (http://www.getaclue.com). I KNOW the words are a bit big for you, but I DO have an 11 years old who can explain those 2 syllable anomalies to you.

But you got what you crave, right? A little bit of attention?

Here Gunny, I'll give you another shot


The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.

The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents.


Keep your childish flames and your stupid comments about me not discussing the topic to yourself and show the class how To Catch A Predator meets the three established requirements to be police entrapment that I have listed 5 times in this thread.

[Gunny]

STILL here?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2zEG9owql0&ob=av2n

[ConHog]

STILL here?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2zEG9owql0&ob=av2n



Address the points coward

[Gunny]

Address the points coward

I've already addressed any point you may have accidentally made. I've also spent a lot of extra time addressing your non-points. The fact is, no one's talking to you. You are ruining an otherwise decent conversation just to make sure EVERYONE knows you're around and pays attention to you. You remind me of the middle child around here with your constant demands for attention. For your edification, you can trust that most everyone knows where YOU are on the board at any given time in order to ensure they are elsewhere.

[LuvRPgrl]

Nice dodge!

You wrote this:



And followed it with:



Let me guess...you are going to argue that "huge percentage" and "significant" couldn't possible be considered the same thing.

Just as much as temp and persuade


About
first time offenders, what will and does happen, some of them are probably very borderline, and would never do it unless given the easy opportunity by keys in an escalade.

[Gunny]

Just as much as temp and persuade


About
first time offenders, what will and does happen, some of them are probably very borderline, and would never do it unless given the easy opportunity by keys in an escalade.

I'm going back to the definition of "entrapment" ....

When law enforcement lures someone to commit a crime. Doesn't have to be more nor less than that. All the caveats to "interpretting" that sentence are judicial bullshit. The fact is, law enforcement is luring people to commit crimes.

[Missileman]

I'm going back to the definition of "entrapment" ....

When law enforcement lures someone to commit a crime. Doesn't have to be more nor less than that. All the caveats to "interpretting" that sentence are judicial bullshit. The fact is, law enforcement is luring people to commit crimes.

The legal definition includes more than what you've written..."lures someone to commit a crime they otherwise wouldn't commit"

There is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.

If a cop were to hand someone the keys to a car and ask them to move it around behind the building and then some other cops were waiting for the guy to pull around and bust him for car theft, that would be entrapment. There isn't anything remotely like that going on with "bait cars".

[Missileman]

Just as much as temp and persuade

Maybe you should try posting in your primary language and see if you can compose an argument that makes sense.

[ConHog]

The legal definition includes more than what you've written..."lures someone to commit a crime they otherwise wouldn't commit"

There is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.

If a cop were to hand someone the keys to a car and ask them to move it around behind the building and then some other cops were waiting for the guy to pull around and bust him for car theft, that would be entrapment. There isn't anything remotely like that going on with "bait cars".

I've noticed that I've posted the 3 elements of entrapment in this thread 5 times and Gunny has flamed me each time and accused me of derailing the thread, rather than addressing the 3 elements and explaining how the show has done them.

[Gunny]

The legal definition includes more than what you've written..."lures someone to commit a crime they otherwise wouldn't commit"

There is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.

If a cop were to hand someone the keys to a car and ask them to move it around behind the building and then some other cops were waiting for the guy to pull around and bust him for car theft, that would be entrapment. There isn't anything remotely like that going on with "bait cars".

No, it really doesn't. People re-defining simple English to suit their agendas entails more that what I've written. The same is true of the entire Constitution. Words mean things. Twisting them to mean something they don't is intellectual dishonesty.

[ConHog]

No, it really doesn't. People re-defining simple English to suit their agendas entails more that what I've written. The same is true of the entire Constitution. Words mean things. Twisting them to mean something they don't is intellectual dishonesty.

Sigh, let me try again

Gunny, if YOU call anything but THIS entrapment, then it is YOU who redefining the words, not everyone else.

Entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled:

The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.
The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents.

[Missileman]

No, it really doesn't. People re-defining simple English to suit their agendas entails more that what I've written. The same is true of the entire Constitution. Words mean things. Twisting them to mean something they don't is intellectual dishonesty.

If you're going to use a "legal" term like entrapment, don't you think it logical to define it as it pertains in the law?

[ConHog]

If you're going to use a "legal" term like entrapment, don't you think it logical to define it as it pertains in the law?

not when you're pretending like you know more than the law. :laugh:

[Gunny]

If you're going to use a "legal" term like entrapment, don't you think it logical to define it as it pertains in the law?

Nope. You hit on my point EXACTLY. The literal definition and the legal definition are 2 completely separate animals, and I'm calling "bullshit". This is a microcosm of the bastardization of our consitution. "Well, they meant ...."

Bullshit. What they meant is what they wrote.

[ConHog]

Nope. You hit on my point EXACTLY. The literal definition and the legal definition are 2 completely separate animals, and I'm calling "bullshit". This is a microcosm of the bastardization of our consitution. "Well, they meant ...."

Bullshit. What they meant is what they wrote.

Gunny, police entrapment is not mentioned in the COTUS and wasn't even recognized by the courts in the US until 1935.

YOU are the one twisting the COTUS and legal definitions to fit your own agenda here.

[Missileman]

Nope. You hit on my point EXACTLY. The literal definition and the legal definition are 2 completely separate animals, and I'm calling "bullshit". This is a microcosm of the bastardization of our consitution. "Well, they meant ...."

Bullshit. What they meant is what they wrote.

Entrapment is mentioned nowhere in the COTUS, so your point is as clear as mud at this point.

[ConHog]

Entrapment is mentioned nowhere in the COTUS, so your point is as clear as mud at this point.

Somewhere in the thread I posted the actual court case from 1935 where the Court first recognized police entrapment as being illegal. Gunny ignored it then, just as he will now.

[Gunny]

Entrapment is mentioned nowhere in the COTUS, so your point is as clear as mud at this point.

Lst I checked, the 5th Amendment is pretty clear.

btw ... think you could get rid of that ankle-biter riding your tail? It's like stepping in dog shit.

[ConHog]

Lst I checked, the 5th Amendment is pretty clear.

btw ... think you could get rid of that ankle-biter riding your tail? It's like stepping in dog shit.



No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation[QUOTE=Gunny;530370]Lst I checked, the 5th Amendment is pretty clear.


No mention of entrapment whatsoever.

[Missileman]

Lst I checked, the 5th Amendment is pretty clear.

btw ... think you could get rid of that ankle-biter riding your tail? It's like stepping in dog shit.

Are you going to go with what they wrote or what you think they meant? There isn't anything in the 5th about entrapment.

[Gunny]

Are you going to go with what they wrote or what you think they meant? There isn't anything in the 5th about entrapment.

Really? Last I checked, self-incrimination is exactly that. Entrapment is self-incrimination. Not hard.

[ConHog]

Really? Last I checked, self-incrimination is exactly that. Entrapment is self-incrimination. Not hard.

no it isn't Gunny. And the Court has already agreed. You're thinking of Entrapment by estoppel. In 1977 the Court ruled that

the defense "applies when, acting with actual or apparent authority, a government official affirmatively assures the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant reasonably believes that official."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment#Entrapment_by_estoppel

[Missileman]

Really? Last I checked, self-incrimination is exactly that. Entrapment is self-incrimination. Not hard.

Entrapment is an act by the government, self incrimination is an act by an individual...they can't by any stretch of the imagination, be related.

[ConHog]

Entrapment is an act by the government, self incrimination is an act by an individual...they can't by any stretch of the imagination, be related.

Read the post of mine right before yours. Interesting stuff in relation this topic.

[SassyLady]

Found this:

There is no entrapment where there is predisposition. United States v. Clark, 28 M.J. 401, 406 (C.M.A. 1989).

[LuvRPgrl]

The person arguing that first time offenders have been entrapped.




Everyone of those repeat offenders started with a first...wonder what percentage were "just" a joyride.

IF even one percent were, thats too many.

since you dont know, you admit you have no way of determing which ones, and/or if some, were ready and willing (YOUR WORDS) to commit the crime,

IF SOMe of them arent ready and willing, then you have no way to determine which ones they are because you cant prove it, so since you cant prove it, its entrapment.

and the burden of proof is SUPPOSE to be on the govt. yet ;they dont prove it, they just assume it.

Dont get me wrong, if you bothered to read my posts for what they mean, you would know that I dont think the sex sting is entrapment.

[ConHog]

IF even one percent were, thats too many.

since you dont know, you admit you have no way of determing which ones, and/or if some, were ready and willing (YOUR WORDS) to commit the crime,

IF SOMe of them arent ready and willing, then you have no way to determine which ones they are because you cant prove it, so since you cant prove it, its entrapment.

and the burden of proof is SUPPOSE to be on the govt. yet ;they dont prove it, they just assume it.

Dont get me wrong, if you bothered to read my posts for what they mean, you would know that I dont think the sex sting is entrapment.

unless the three conditions I posted have been met, it is NOT entrapment, no matter if it's their first of 400th crime.

[Missileman]

IF even one percent were, thats too many.

since you dont know, you admit you have no way of determing which ones, and/or if some, were ready and willing (YOUR WORDS) to commit the crime,

IF SOMe of them arent ready and willing, then you have no way to determine which ones they are because you cant prove it, so since you cant prove it, its entrapment.

and the burden of proof is SUPPOSE to be on the govt. yet ;they dont prove it, they just assume it.

Dont get me wrong, if you bothered to read my posts for what they mean, you would know that I dont think the sex sting is entrapment.

And you wonder why I call you an idiot. If they get behind the wheel and drive off in a car that's not theirs, it doesn't matter if it's a joy ride or if they are planning on stripping the vehicle for parts and it doesn't matter if it's their first or tenth car, they are ready and willing to break the law and they are stealing a car. It's NOT entrapment.

[Wind Song]

Most child predators are heterosexual.

[ConHog]

Most child predators are heterosexual.

Shut up you idiot, that has nothing to do with this thread.

And you're wrong besides.

[Wind Song]

Shut up you idiot, that has nothing to do with this thread.

And you're wrong besides.


No, I'm correct. What you fail to understand is that STRAIGHT men still like to fuck little boys. There are two types. One type has no adult sexuality at all. He only wants children and the sex of the child he chooses has to do with the availability of the source.

Others are straight men, married or in relationships who have sex with women, and in a time of stress hit on children.

Do the research.

[ConHog]

No, I'm correct. What you fail to understand is that STRAIGHT men still like to fuck little boys. There are two types. One type has no adult sexuality at all. He only wants children and the sex of the child he chooses has to do with the availability of the source.

Others are straight men, married or in relationships who have sex with women, and in a time of stress hit on children.

Do the research.

Correct the adult doesn't care about the sex of the child, they only care that they are children and since most perpetrators are men they have easier access to boys than girls so they have sex with little boys. Hence they are neither gay nor straight in their pedophilia.

You fail, again

And this STILL has nothing to do with the topic of this thread which is police entrapment. So discuss that or get the fuck out of the thread.

[Wind Song]

Correct the adult doesn't care about the sex of the child, they only care that they are children and since most perpetrators are men they have easier access to boys than girls so they have sex with little boys. Hence they are neither gay nor straight in their pedophilia.

You fail, again

And this STILL has nothing to do with the topic of this thread which is police entrapment. So discuss that or get the fuck out of the thread.

You are not the boss of me.

[ConHog]

You are not the boss of me.

ugh

[Wind Song]

ugh


When you understand that and can live with it, get back to me.

[SassyLady]

When you understand that and can live with it, get back to me.

Must you infect every thread with a reference to gay/hetero? Seriously?

[Wind Song]

Must you infect every thread with a reference to gay/hetero? Seriously?

There is a reference to gay/hetero on the first page of this thread, long before I got here.

[ConHog]

Must you infect every thread with a reference to gay/hetero? Seriously?

yes she must, she's a militant about it.


I mean it's an interesting subject and all are pedos gay, but has NOTHING to do with this thread topic.

[Wind Song]

yes she must, she's a militant about it.


I mean it's an interesting subject and all are pedos gay, but has NOTHING to do with this thread topic.


Militant. Exactly what is that in your world? In mine, it would mean using violence.

You must mean advocating for marriage equality and combating ignorance.

[ConHog]

Militant. Exactly what is that in your world? In mine, it would mean using violence.

You must mean advocating for marriage equality and combating ignorance.

No one has a problem with you wanting marriage equality or combating ignorance, but that is a far cry from bringing that shit up in every thread no matter the subject.

This thread is about a television show and whether it is police entrapment, nothing more. Do you have an opinion on that? If so, please share, if not please do the rest of us a favor and leave the thread. If you refuse maybe Jim will help you leave the thread.

[Wind Song]

No one has a problem with you wanting marriage equality or combating ignorance, but that is a far cry from bringing that shit up in every thread no matter the subject.

This thread is about a television show and whether it is police entrapment, nothing more. Do you have an opinion on that? If so, please share, if not please do the rest of us a favor and leave the thread. If you refuse maybe Jim will help you leave the thread.

No, I'm not going to leave the thread. I will stop mentioning the fact that most predators are straight men, regardless of the gender of the child they prey on.

[ConHog]

No, I'm not going to leave the thread. I will stop mentioning the fact that most predators are straight men, regardless of the gender of the child they prey on.

why are you in a thread that you refuse to post an opinion about the topic of the thread? Makes no sense.

[SassyLady]

There is a reference to gay/hetero on the first page of this thread, long before I got here.

And, as you can see from reading the majority of the posts it is not the topic we decided to discuss in this thread and yet you drag it back. Why?

We all know that predators are disgusting whether gay/hetero....doesn't make a difference about entrapment. So, what is your stance on entrapment?

[Wind Song]

And, as you can see from reading the majority of the posts it is not the topic we decided to discuss in this thread and yet you drag it back. Why?

We all know that predators are disgusting whether gay/hetero....doesn't make a difference about entrapment. So, what is your stance on entrapment?


My stance on entrapment is that it is an acceptable police method for catching predators.

[SassyLady]

My stance on entrapment is that it is an acceptable police method for catching predators.

We are in agreement.

[darin]

No, I'm not going to leave the thread. I will stop mentioning the fact that most predators are straight men, regardless of the gender of the child they prey on.


Uh - look, it's simple: When a man molests a boy, the man is a homosexual. EVERY boy molested by a male is by definition, molested by a homosexual male.

[ConHog]

We are in agreement.

I disagree with both of you, BUT this show doesn't meet the entrapment standard, so it's a moot point anyway.

[Wind Song]

Uh - look, it's simple: When a man molests a boy, the man is a homosexual. EVERY boy molested by a male is by definition, molested by a homosexual male.

I've agreed to not discuss that topic on this thread. For the record, however, you've oversimplified the definitions. If you check the research there are two types of child predators. One, never has sex with an adult, and cannot be truly called hetero or homo based on the gender of the child they select, which usually has to do with availability of target.

The second kind, is by majority, heterosexual, meaning has regular sex with adult women and chooses a child of either gender under certain kinds of stress conditions. This is NOT a homosexual in the closet. Homosexuals have sex with adult men.

There are homosexual predators, who pick underage boys to have sex with, but not in the numbers that heterosexuals do.

[SassyLady]

I disagree with both of you, BUT this show doesn't meet the entrapment standard, so it's a moot point anyway.

I'm not saying whether my belief is legal or right, just the way I think it should be Con. I've said since the beginning that I do not believe this show is entrapment.....but I took it a step further and said that I have no problem with using entrapment to capture predators.

To clarify my position on subjects in this thread:

1. Show is not entrapment....because entrapment does not apply to predisposition and I believe it's not entrapment to give someone an opportunity to do the right thing and they choose the wrong thing.
2. Laws should be changed to allow entrapment of child predators.
3. Child predators are male/female; gay/hetero; rich/poor; all races ....they come from all walks of life and anyone who concentrates/focus on just one avenue will miss the big picture.

[ConHog]

I'm not saying whether my belief is legal or right, just the way I think it should be Con. I've said since the beginning that I do not believe this show is entrapment.....but I took it a step further and said that I have no problem with using entrapment to capture predators.

To clarify my position on subjects in this thread:

1. Show is not entrapment....because entrapment does not apply to predisposition and I believe it's not entrapment to give someone an opportunity to do the right thing and they choose the wrong thing.
2. Laws should be changed to allow entrapment of child predators.
3. Child predators are male/female; gay/hetero; rich/poor; all races ....they come from all walks of life and anyone who concentrates/focus on just one avenue will miss the big picture.

Oh, I understand what you're saying Sassy. I'm just saying that as much as I despise pedophiles, I don't think the government should be out actively entrapping them and if you look at the actual legal definition of entrapment I think you might agree. Truth be told, I don't think a person COULD be entrapped because I see noway a person could be talked into trying to have sex with a minor unless they had a predisposition to doing so anyway. Just sending a young looking cop out and having him/her pretend to be a minor looking for sex with an adult is not entrapment either. That's what I'm getting at.

[LuvRPgrl]

And you wonder why I call you an idiot. If they get behind the wheel and drive off in a car that's not theirs, it doesn't matter if it's a joy ride or if they are planning on stripping the vehicle for parts and it doesn't matter if it's their first or tenth car, they are ready and willing to break the law and they are stealing a car. It's NOT entrapment.

because you say so?

I Laid out my reasoning, to show how i reached my opinion.

your only line of reasoning is that Im an idiot.

[Missileman]

because you say so?

It's not because I say so, it's because that's how the law is written.


I Laid out my reasoning, to show how i reached my opinion.

Ready and willing to break the law doesn't mean out actively looking to break the law as you're arguing. It means simply that when the opportunity arises, they make the choice to commit a crime. A person who steals a car doesn't have to leave his house with the sole intention of stealing a car in order to NOT be entrapped.


your only line of reasoning is that Im an idiot.

Over and over again, YOU offer evidence that MY reasoning is sound.

[LuvRPgrl]

It's not because I say so, it's because that's how the law is written..
thanks for your opinion,
now how about posting some facts





Ready and willing to break the law doesn't mean out actively looking to break the law as you're arguing. It means simply that when the opportunity arises, they make the choice to commit a crime. A person who steals a car doesn't have to leave his house with the sole intention of stealing a car in order to NOT be entrapped.
.

thats not what the law says.
IT IS whether or not the perso normally would have commited the crime if no enticement hadnt been presented.,
c
YOUR definition above actually by definition means if you commit the crime, by definition its not entrapment, so there would be no such existence of entrapment.

[ConHog]

thanks for your opinion,
now how about posting some facts






thats not what the law says.
IT IS whether or not the perso normally would have commited the crime if no enticement hadnt been presented.,
c
YOUR definition above actually by definition means if you commit the crime, by definition its not entrapment, so there would be no such existence of entrapment.

You are decidedly wrong on this.

Entrapment by estoppel

look it up.

Here, I'll do it for you

A subset of the entrapment defense was first recognized by the Supreme Court in Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423 (1959). There, four defendants were testifying before a committee of the Ohio State Legislature. The chairman of the committee told them that they could assert their right against self-incrimination. They asserted this right, and refused to answer questions. However, Ohio law provided them immunity from prosecution, so the right against self-incrimination was inapplicable, and they were subsequently prosecuted for their failure to answer questions. The Supreme Court overturned three of the four convictions based on the doctrine of entrapment by estoppel.

As described in United States v. Howell, 37 F.3d 1197, 1204 (7th Cir. 1994), the defense "applies when, acting with actual or apparent authority, a government official affirmatively assures the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant reasonably believes that official."

That is the ONLY exception for self incrimination as relates to police entrapment. If you admit to doing something that you were led to believe was legal when it was in fact illegal.

That's it.

[LuvRPgrl]

You are decidedly wrong on this.

Entrapment by estoppel

look it up.

Here, I'll do it for you

A subset of the entrapment defense was first recognized by the Supreme Court in Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423 (1959). There, four defendants were testifying before a committee of the Ohio State Legislature. The chairman of the committee told them that they could assert their right against self-incrimination. They asserted this right, and refused to answer questions. However, Ohio law provided them immunity from prosecution, so the right against self-incrimination was inapplicable, and they were subsequently prosecuted for their failure to answer questions. The Supreme Court overturned three of the four convictions based on the doctrine of entrapment by estoppel.

As described in United States v. Howell, 37 F.3d 1197, 1204 (7th Cir. 1994), the defense "applies when, acting with actual or apparent authority, a government official affirmatively assures the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant reasonably believes that official."

That is the ONLY exception for self incrimination as relates to police entrapment. If you admit to doing something that you were led to believe was legal when it was in fact illegal.

That's it.

What a surprise, you're online !

[ConHog]

What a surprise, you're online !

Even more of a surprise, I'm spanking your old ass yet again.

Thanks for at least admitting it by attacking rather than arguing what I posted is wrong.

[LuvRPgrl]

You are decidedly wrong on this.

Entrapment by estoppel

look it up.

Here, I'll do it for you

A subset of the entrapment defense was first recognized by the Supreme Court in Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423 (1959). There, four defendants were testifying before a committee of the Ohio State Legislature. The chairman of the committee told them that they could assert their right against self-incrimination. They asserted this right, and refused to answer questions. However, Ohio law provided them immunity from prosecution, so the right against self-incrimination was inapplicable, and they were subsequently prosecuted for their failure to answer questions. The Supreme Court overturned three of the four convictions based on the doctrine of entrapment by estoppel.

As described in United States v. Howell, 37 F.3d 1197, 1204 (7th Cir. 1994), the defense "applies when, acting with actual or apparent authority, a government official affirmatively assures the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant reasonably believes that official."

That is the ONLY exception for self incrimination as relates to police entrapment. If you admit to doing something that you were led to believe was legal when it was in fact illegal.

That's it.

YAWN....

JUST the fact that one court overturns the other, and these are supposedly some of the best legal minds in the land, proves the law is disambiguous.
Law is suppose to be made in plain language, and not suppose to be technical and and open to interpatration. If it is, it needs to be re written.

Like; your example above, if a citizen doesnt know if they are breaking the law, how can they make a choice? And we know the citizen cant possibly know if the justices dont even agree.
The only way a citizen can know if its the law or not, one would have tuo be able to read the mind of the highest court, and correctly predict which court would make the final decision.


The fact that so many laws get to the supreme court means the laws being written are out of control.
Could you imagine the current administration writing the original Constitution. It would look like several phone books.

[Missileman]

thanks for your opinion,
now how about posting some facts


The legal definition of entrapment and the conditions that must be met in order for entrapment to occur have been posted SEVERAL times now in this thread. They aren't opinions, they are facts.



thats not what the law says.
IT IS whether or not the perso normally would have commited the crime if no enticement hadnt been presented.,


Sorry Charlie, the LAW clearly states the 3 conditions that must ALL be true in order for entrapment to occur, and what you just wrote ISN'T one of them. Enticement is as lousy a synonym for persuasion as temptation is. Temptation DOES NOT equal entrapment. Enticement DOES NOT equal entrapment. There has to be PERSUASION by a government agent.

[LuvRPgrl]

The legal definition of entrapment and the conditions that must be met in order for entrapment to occur have been posted SEVERAL times now in this thread. They aren't opinions, they are facts.




Sorry Charlie, the LAW clearly states the 3 conditions that must ALL be true in order for entrapment to occur, and what you just wrote ISN'T one of them. Enticement is as lousy a synonym for persuasion as temptation is. Temptation DOES NOT equal entrapment. Enticement DOES NOT equal entrapment. There has to be PERSUASION by a government agent.

Persuasion is open to interpetationl
I DONT give a rats ass what any of the courts say these days, they dont operate under the constitution, they are activist judges. They are as full of crap as you are.
You didnt respond to my point that your definition means that if you commit the act, then no matter what it woiuldny be entrapment.

try citing the exact law using the persuasion term please.

[ConHog]

Persuasion is open to interpetationl
I DONT give a rats ass what any of the courts say these days, they dont operate under the constitution, they are activist judges. They are as full of crap as you are.
You didnt respond to my point that your definition means that if you commit the act, then no matter what it woiuldny be entrapment.

try citing the exact law using the persuasion term please.

Persuasion is NOT open to interpretation, it has a legal definition. Just like a cop doesn't get to interpret BAC, it is defined by law.

We've posted the exact law approximately fifty bajillion times in this thread. You're just either illiterate , stubborn, or stupid and won't admit to being wrong here.

[Missileman]

Persuasion is open to interpetationl
I DONT give a rats ass what any of the courts say these days, they dont operate under the constitution, they are activist judges. They are as full of crap as you are.
You didnt respond to my point that your definition means that if you commit the act, then no matter what it woiuldny be entrapment.

try citing the exact law using the persuasion term please.

Entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled:

1. The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
2. Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.
3. The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents.

[LuvRPgrl]

Persuasion is NOT open to interpretation, it has a legal definition. Just like a cop doesn't get to interpret BAC, it is defined by law. .

All WORDS are subjedt to interpetation, thats why we have a dictionary.




We've posted the exact law approximately fifty bajillion times in this thread. You're just either illiterate , stubborn, or stupid and won't admit to being wrong here.

BUT IM STILL SMARTER THAN YOU