- Jun 11, 2004
- 4,359
- 1
- 76
Continued at abc news
I am astonished that law enforcement can get away with this as it is so obviously entrapment.
Topless Woman Lures Perverts in Police Sting
- Thread starter HeXploiT
- Start date
Continued at abc news
I am astonished that law enforcement can get away with this as it is so obviously entrapment.
Yeah, but it's harder to do their jobs for real so they milk off the public teat along the path of least resistance.
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 65,784
- 14,203
- 146
I don't think it actually qualifies as entrapment, but it's dammed sure WRONG IMO.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm
"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. "
Entrapment might be dammed near impossible to prove in this case, especially when you consider WHY they had the sting operation in place...HOWEVER, I'm of the opinion that many sting operations do come awfully close to entrapment...but again, it'd almost impossible to actually prove.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm
"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. "
Entrapment might be dammed near impossible to prove in this case, especially when you consider WHY they had the sting operation in place...HOWEVER, I'm of the opinion that many sting operations do come awfully close to entrapment...but again, it'd almost impossible to actually prove.
"The argument failed to sway a Franklin County Municipal Court jury that found Garrison guilty of public indecency last month"
I have no faith in our jury system at all. People are stupid, lawyers manipulate. But we Americans have to believe our system is #1 just like everything.
I have no faith in our jury system at all. People are stupid, lawyers manipulate. But we Americans have to believe our system is #1 just like everything.
the crime would be exposing his genitals in a park where theoretically other citizens might see it.
Yes, that would have been a crime which is why he was arrested.
Whipping your wang out in a park is considered a no no by law.
That's basically it in terms of the crime he seemed to of committed.
The problem is they got the guy to show his genitals in a public place. Granted he should not of done that but did this guy wake up in the morning hoping to do this or was he enticed to do it? I do not think it's entrapment because he could of backed out but it's sure about 1 eye lash away from it IMHO.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,771
- 10,378
- 146
When the Philly PD did the hooker troll, the female cops posing were strictly instructed NOT to initiate anything illegal, as that could be legitimately considered entrapment. When this "hooker" asked to see the guy's penis, that seems to me to be the very definition of entrapment.
Mostly, it reminds me of the old WC Fields line, that he got by the censors back in the day, "It's nice out. Think I'll leave it out."
Mostly, it reminds me of the old WC Fields line, that he got by the censors back in the day, "It's nice out. Think I'll leave it out."
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
Not entrapment at all. Is it a useful use of city money? Maybe. Did they net any sexual predators? Who knows?
If the govt. entices you to commit a crime, and you commit a crime, YOU still commited the crime.
In the above situation, I would have asked to go somewhere private to finish the affair. Why? Because it"s not illegal to chat up someone to get her into bed, but it IS illegal to have sexual contact and/or expose oneself in public for a lascivious purpose.
If she had asked me to light up a crack pipe with her, I would have turned her down because it's illegal. If she would have offered a beer to me, I would have accepted.
These convictions will stand, unless they come up with a civil rights violation. What will likely happen is it will be allowed to drop down to a public indecency charge.
If the govt. entices you to commit a crime, and you commit a crime, YOU still commited the crime.
In the above situation, I would have asked to go somewhere private to finish the affair. Why? Because it"s not illegal to chat up someone to get her into bed, but it IS illegal to have sexual contact and/or expose oneself in public for a lascivious purpose.
If she had asked me to light up a crack pipe with her, I would have turned her down because it's illegal. If she would have offered a beer to me, I would have accepted.
These convictions will stand, unless they come up with a civil rights violation. What will likely happen is it will be allowed to drop down to a public indecency charge.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
Following procedure, iow.
It's sometimes who alike and at other times how different it is from common fucking sense, isn't it.
And hi there my brother, it's better.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
Yeah, it sure does look like entrapment. Guess that police department has nothing better to do than to try to goad otherwise law-abiding innocent people into criminal behavior.
And just why wasn't the policewoman charged for public indecency herself? I think this guy should try to figure out a way to sue the woman and the police department, perhaps for some variant of intentional infliction of emotional distress. It would be awesome if he could win tens of thousands of dollars worth of damages for this sort of public humiliation.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,267
- 126
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter