Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Pee Ess You
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
2006-03-25, 02:37 PM | [Ignore Me] #17 | ||
Lieutenant Colonel
|
So if a drug ring leader asked evreyone if they were a cop,they couldn't press charges against the drug ring.
__________________
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
-Douglas Adams |
||
|
2006-03-25, 07:50 PM | [Ignore Me] #19 | ||||
False
Entrapment in the judicial system is when law enforcement induces, or entraps someone, by presenting the opportunity for them to commit a crime. However, when someone is predisposed to commit a crime, offering them the opportunity to commit the said crime is not entrapment. Which leads us to the above, widely misheld belief that when you ask an undercover officer "Are you a police officer", they have to respond truthfully. Which is false. Example 1 (No Entrapment): Hamma goes into the ghetto to buy $20 worth of crack. Hamma, approaches an officer and asks where he can score some rocks. The officer offers to sell Hamma $20 worth of crack. "Are you a cop?" "Aww hell no, fuck the police" the officer responds. Hamma buys the crack, and is subsequently arrested. Right off the bat, Hamma proved to the police that he was predisposed to purchase crack cocaine, by asking the undercover officer where to buy some. Therefore, there is no entrapment by the police. Example 2 (Entrapment) An undercover officer approaches Hamma. "Hey, will you sell me some crack cocaine?" "Ok, follow me!" Hamma responds Hamma sells the crack to the police officer, and is arrested. In this case, it is entrapment, because police don't know that Hamma was predisposed to commit the crime. In this situation, without the police, Hamma would have not commited a crime. The police produced the opportunity, and motivation, for Hamma to commit the crime. In the United States, entrapment exists if the accused's main motivation was the offer made by the police. If the accused was more motivated by other concerns, such as financial gain, then it is not entrapment. In short, the defenses objective is to prove that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person, to commit a crime. Last edited by Squeeky; 2006-03-25 at 07:53 PM. |
|||||
|
2006-03-26, 04:52 AM | [Ignore Me] #21 | ||
They can lie though... if an undercover agent's life is in danger, he can lie to keep himself from getting shot. I've watched enough CourtTV to know that. Naturally, after lying though he can't arrest the suspect because it's entrapment.
Last edited by Electrofreak; 2006-03-26 at 04:54 AM. |
|||
|
2006-03-26, 08:35 PM | [Ignore Me] #22 | |||
|
||||
|
2006-03-27, 01:17 AM | [Ignore Me] #24 | |||
Let me clarify Squeeky. I'm aware of how entrapment works. My point is the cop doesn't have to tell the truth, which you agreed to. However, if the cop denies being a cop, the suspect has grounds to state that he was coerced into the illegal act, which can cause the case to be thrown out. I guess I shouldn't have stated that the court CANT try the suspect if the cop says no, but it can be much more difficult, because at that point the officer has become more than a passive participant in the crime. Sure, the suspect isn't going to say in court "well if he had said he was a cop I wouldn't have sold him that crack!" (unless they're dumb). However if the officer's response can be determined as pushing the suspect towards the sale, the court loses its case. |
||||
|
2006-03-27, 03:01 PM | [Ignore Me] #26 | ||
Contributor Major
|
I saw this on an interview on CNN or something, and both the host and the counterpoint man both just bashed the speaker. At one point they said "Why not the slippery slope and bring back prohibition? I mean that brought us such great things as organized crime and more"
Really crappy, and i think eventually this will be stopped due to voters complaining or something else. |
||
|
2006-03-27, 04:15 PM | [Ignore Me] #27 | |||||
Any UC/Narc who is worth half his weight in dog shit knows that he HAS TO PROVE THAT THE SUSPECT WAS PREDISPOSED TO COMMITING THE CRIME, AND THE OFFICERS SIMPLY PRESENTED THE DEFENDANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT SAID CRIME. If the police know that the individiual in question was predisposed to commiting the crime, the undercover officer can lie to protect the integrity of their investigation. Listen, I know you're a little thick, but try and read this entire paragraph and maybe you can grasp the definition of Entrapment.
|
||||||
|
2006-03-27, 04:19 PM | [Ignore Me] #28 | ||
I fail to see how any of that is in opposition to what I've been saying. I've been saying exactly just that... entrapment is when a police officer coerces or inlfluences someone's decision to commit a crime.
Where is the disagreement here Squeeky? Either I am missing something (possible) or you're just being confrontational (possible). Last edited by Electrofreak; 2006-03-27 at 04:20 PM. |
|||
|
2006-03-27, 04:25 PM | [Ignore Me] #29 | ||||||
Read that, not once, not twice, but as many times as it takes for you to realize you've been completely and utterly wrong in your argument on 3 seperate occasions. |
|||||||
|
2006-03-27, 04:39 PM | [Ignore Me] #30 | |||
Read my post. You said, on 3 different occasions, that cops could lie, but that it was entrapment. I've proved to you, several times, that you CAN lie, and it's not entrapment. |
||||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|