Arrested for being Drunk at the BAR?! - Page 2

Electrofreak · 2006-03-25, 02:15 PM

Actually, I believe they CAN lie, they just can't take any legal action against you if they do.

Geist · 2006-03-25, 02:37 PM

So if a drug ring leader asked evreyone if they were a cop,they couldn't press charges against the drug ring.

Kyonye · 2006-03-25, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Hawkeye37

So if a drug ring leader asked evreyone if they were a cop,they couldn't press charges against the drug ring.

Basically.. Entrapment is a big deal.

Squeeky · 2006-03-25, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by Hawkeye37

So if a drug ring leader asked evreyone if they were a cop,they couldn't press charges against the drug ring.

False

Originally Posted by Electrofreak

Actually, I believe they CAN lie, they just can't take any legal action against you if they do.

Also, 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.

Hamma · 2006-03-25, 07:58 PM

Yea that damn crack habit is gonna get me in trouble.

Electrofreak · 2006-03-26, 04:52 AM

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.

Squeeky · 2006-03-26, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by Electrofreak

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.

You didn't read a word of my post, did you?

Electrofreak · 2006-03-27, 12:57 AM

Originally Posted by Squeeky

You didn't read a word of my post, did you?

Nope. All I read was "also, false" which it's not.

Electrofreak · 2006-03-27, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by Electrofreak

Nope. All I read was "also, false" which it's not.

Grr. Hating lack of edit button.

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.

Hamma · 2006-03-27, 08:12 AM

There's like a 10 or 15 min timer on the edit now. Your brain is lagging out

Phaden · 2006-03-27, 03:01 PM

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.

Squeeky · 2006-03-27, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Electrofreak

Let me clarify Squeeky. I'm aware of how entrapment works.

No you aren't.

Originally Posted by Electrofreak

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.

Wrong.

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.

ENTRAPMENT - 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; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

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. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

Electrofreak · 2006-03-27, 04:19 PM

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).

Squeeky · 2006-03-27, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Electrofreak

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.

Originally Posted by Electrofreak

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.

Originally Posted by Electrofreak

Actually, I believe they CAN lie, they just can't take any legal action against you if they do.

For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person.

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.

Squeeky · 2006-03-27, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Electrofreak

Where is the disagreement here Squeeky? Either I am missing something (possible) or you're just being confrontational (possible).

Or you're just a moron? (entirely possible, and most likely the reason you can't comprehend that you are wrong).

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.