Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Bang.
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
2003-12-18, 10:03 PM | [Ignore Me] #5 | ||
Sexy Beast
|
pwned
__________________
Dragonwolves - Recruting Officer If God brings you to it, He will bring you through it. |
||
|
2003-12-18, 10:46 PM | [Ignore Me] #8 | |||
Major
|
In our bizzare ass legal system... I wonder if there is a loophole here:
|
|||
|
2003-12-18, 11:03 PM | [Ignore Me] #9 | |||
General
|
|
|||
|
2003-12-18, 11:06 PM | [Ignore Me] #11 | |||
PSU Admin
|
|
|||
|
2003-12-18, 11:41 PM | [Ignore Me] #15 | ||
Sergeant Major
|
No it isn't entrapment. Entrapment is when the police induce the defendant to do something that he had no intent to do.
I was a prosecutor in Brooklyn for a bunch of years and that thing happens quite often. The Defendant knew that he wasn't allowed to drive, but did so anyway. That is not entrapment. Entrapment would be if the officer said - here is my car. you have to drive it to the back otherwise you can't get your stuff. He is screwed. A good example of entrapment is when an undercover officer goes to a person on the street and says, "can you get me some drugs. This guy over there is selling the drugs but I don't want to have to go get them. Will you get them for me?" The person then goes to get the drugs, gives them to the undercover and is then arrested for selling the drugs. The person did not have any intent to sell the drugs. The police officer engaged in conduct which made the person do something he did not intend to do. The person did have the intent to possess the drugs,however. In this case the person did have the intent to drive as proven by the fact that he drove to the station originally. Last edited by Glaynor; 2003-12-18 at 11:43 PM. |
||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|