what is entrapment?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Again. Decent law abiding citizens don't get "entrapped" as I understand the definition of entrapment (based on where and when the term gets used), just scumbags. I will never have to fear being "entrapped."

Perhaps ... I think it may be more than solely the description/characteristics outlined above, however.

Another anecdotal data point:
In fall 1999 or 2000, I was driving back from the Frogs Fly West on Silver Wings (aka "Frog Fest") boogie at Cape Girardeau Regional Airport and was pulled over by State Trooper in Fayette County, Illinois (south-central IL) for speeding. I probably was speeding, so that may disqualify me as ‘law abiding’ citizen by your definition. The police officer was very nice and polite; he only going to give me a warning (even tho’ he asserted he radared me going >10 miles over the limit, which technically should have disqualified me from being eligible for a warning, but I wasn’t going to argue).

He then states that he thought he smelled marijuana on me, and he wanted to bring the drug sniffing canine around my truck. I knew I hadn’t smoked anything, & I knew there wasn't any pot in my lil’ Ranger. So, sure, go ahead. The dog was more interested in the adjacent cornfield.

So, we’re sitting in the front seat of the trooper’s car, while the officer is checking to make sure that I don’t have any outstanding warrants, etc, and writing out my warning. The police officer asks – very nicely – if I wouldn’t mind if he put some pot under my bumper to “test the drug dog,” adding that the dog had been cooped up in the car all morning.

In my most diffident, calm, & cooperative voice, I say “Uh, sir, that sounds like entrapment to me.”

“Miss, you’ve been watching too much Fox television.” [He really said “Fox television” !]

I just mumbled. Now that State Trooper may have been completely sincere and of the highest integrity … but I didn’t want to take that chance. The risk equation was all downside for me: it would be his word against mine.

The critical factor wasn’t me being a ‘decent law abiding citizen’ but having the smarts/capability to assess the situation while in the middle of it and the intestinal fortitude to say ‘no,’ even if I did say it very politely.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

The woman is topless, but the video is shot from a distance with a long range lens, so it is not apparent (I tried, I couldn't see anything.)

Another interesting item is the comments posted about the article. The women were overwhelmingly amazed at the body language of the woman.

Lying on her back, kicking her legs, and spreading them. I wouldn't bet money on what (if) she was wearing under the shorts.

I can almost guarantee that if a woman came onto me like that, I'd probably have done the same thing in the same discreet fashion.

I sympathise. I doubt I would have done that in broad daylight though. I could see it at night in a more remote location (meet girl in bar, take girl for walk on remote part of beach real late at night.....yadda, yadda,yadda) but I would probably not do that during the day (I would have when I was a teenager). This particular case sounds like a bit much.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

If an attractive woman in a park is obviously coming on to a man, a lot of law-abiding men will take her up on any suggestions that she has.

Whether or not we consider the legal statute justified, does that mitigate the man’s ignorance of the law? Ignorance is generally not an acceptable excuse for breaking the law.

He chose an action (unzipping his pants). The woman in this case is not responsible for the man’s behavior. He had other options: say ‘no’ or suggest they go to a private residence, hotel, etc.

There’s a slippery slope in some of your arguments that is the same used by some Islamic states to assert/legislate/enforce that women must be covered/obscured -- beyond a hijab (head-covering) or jilbaab (cloak) -- but head to toe by an abaya (as in Saudi Arabia) or burka.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Richards 0]

Quote

I probably was speeding, so that may disqualify me as ‘law abiding’ citizen by your definition.

I don't consider someone a lawbreaker if they just weren't paying attention. To be a law breaker (in my opinion) you would have to have beeing going blatantly over the limit and veering in and out between cars to pas, or driving while impaired.

Quote

The police officer was very nice and polite; he only going to give me a warning (even tho’ he asserted he radared me going >10 miles over the limit, which technically should have disqualified me from being eligible for a warning, but I wasn’t going to argue).

He then states that he thought he smelled marijuana on me, and he wanted to bring the drug sniffing canine around my truck. I knew I hadn’t smoked anything, & I knew there wasn't any pot in my lil’ Ranger. So, sure, go ahead. The dog was more interested in the adjacent cornfield.

So, we’re sitting in the front seat of the trooper’s car, while the officer is checking to make sure that I don’t have any outstanding warrants, etc, and writing out my warning. The police officer asks – very nicely – if I wouldn’t mind if he put some pot under my bumper to “test the drug dog,” adding that the dog had been cooped up in the car all morning.

In my most diffident, calm, & cooperative voice, I say “Uh, sir, that sounds like entrapment to me.”

“Miss, you’ve been watching too much Fox television.” [He really said “Fox television” !]

I just mumbled. Now that State Trooper may have been completely sincere and of the highest integrity … but I didn’t want to take that chance. The risk equation was all downside for me: it would be his word against mine.

The critical factor wasn’t me being a ‘decent law abiding citizen’ but having the smarts/capability to assess the situation while in the middle of it and the intestinal fortitude to say ‘no,’ even if I did say it very politely.

Fair enough. I have never been in a scenario where a cop asked me to let them plant drugs so it is so far out there in terms of normal situations I cannot say how I might have reacted. It does sound very weird; what kind of cops do you have down there?

That to me does not sound like entrapment though so much as planting evidence. Entrapment (as I understand it) usually involves a conscious choice on the part of the person to do something they know to be illegal.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

He chose an action (unzipping his pants). The woman in this case is not responsible for the man’s behavior. He had other options: say ‘no’ or suggest they go to a private residence, hotel, etc.

Yes he did. My basic concern is not that.
He made a "legal" mistake, but not one that would have normally existed. Someone went out of their way to create that situation. This seems to be a mis-allocation of resources and poor tactics. That is my point.

I have spent very little time in court, but my attorney told me, "There is right, wrong, and the law. You are right, but you aren't going to like the law." So, I try to point out when I feel the law is not just.

Quote

There’s a slippery slope in some of your arguments that is the same used by some Islamic states to assert/legislate/enforce that women must be covered/obscured -- beyond a hijab (head-covering) or jilbaab (cloak) -- but head to toe by abaya (as in Saudi Arabia), or burka.

Slippery like Mt Everest on an icy day? That is an extremely long slide to compare the two.

There are what I call "normal and customary social signals". One of those is when a half naked women do not spread their legs in front of a man and caress him in a suggestive fashion unless it is "game on".

(btw, you need to click on the video link, that is exactly what went on.)

That is the same body language that is used in strip clubs. I sincerely doubt that the topless woman was a police officer. Probably, a woman being motivated by "leniency" in her upcoming court appearance.

Woman are topless in a variety of venues without men whipping out their penises at every turn. She requested him to do so.

If you read the comments (some by Columbus residents), the women are appalled by the program.

[Zipp0 1]

Maybe she should just give the guy a blowjob, ask him to fuck her in the ass, then in the middle of it all, yell "NO!!!". Then they could add lewd acts in public, sodomy, and rape to the charges! Now THAT would be justice.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Now THAT would be justice.

There you go confusing "justice" with the law.

Justice would be getting it thrown out of court because he didn't pull her hair and make her bark.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

Now THAT would be justice.

There you go confusing "justice" with the law.

Justice would be getting it thrown out of court because he didn't pull her hair and make her bark.

I guess it would be OK to go up and take some photos of the topless lady and post them all over the internet since she has no expecttion of privacy, right? That would probably be a good start to setting this right. Maybe with a caption like "Cop Whores Invade Park"?

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

Again. Decent law abiding citizens don't get "entrapped" as I understand the definition of entrapment (based on where and when the term gets used), just scumbags.

The world is not divided into decent, law abiding citizens and scumbags. I don't believe that you always abide by the law (I don't believe that anyone always abides by the law), but I don't think you're a scumbag.

Entrapment can make people who had absolutely no intention of commiting a certain crime commit it because the opportunity was artificially presented. Take, for instance, someone who happens to have some dope at a festival and is approached by a cop who wants to buy a small amount. That person is by almost no-ones definition a drug dealer, but could be convicted of a pretty serious crime because he's been set up.

There's enough real crime out there without locking people up for manufactured crime.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[happythoughts 0]

Playboys new "Cops of Columbus" spread.

Except that I think that these are not women cops.
They are probably women who were busted and promised leniency (no jail) for success in busting men.

They are motivated. Funny, huh? It is illegal for these guys to pay a woman to take her clothes off in public and rub her feet on them, but a judge can order her to.

"A year in jail for prostitution or prostitute yourself like we say."

Then, she goes out and continues her criminal lifestyle, while the guy is now a criminal and never intended to be.


No one believes this is a woman cop, right?

She is doing this under judicial duress and being rewarded for this scam.

"Ok, a good days work. Everybody back to the police van for handjobs."

[Richards 0]

Quote

The world is not divided into decent, law abiding citizens and scumbags. I don't believe that you always abide by the law (I don't believe that anyone always abides by the law), but I don't think you're a scumbag.

I did not mean to imply that it is that black and white. Perhaps it is my delivery. In my post with nerdgirl I discussed how I tend to look at "scumbags" as people who make a conscious choice to do something that they know is bad, not someone who makes a dumb error. For examle I have been caught speeding when I was not paying attention to the limit. I also used to rent movies at the video store and record them (for personal library not distribution) which of course was wrong and I do not do anymore so I can not present myself as someone who is squeaky clean. I guess the dividing line for me is intentions. Some good people do things that are wrong and I realise there is probably a good reason for the "entrapment" law. I guess it just bugs me that in common language it is far too often used for what appears to be a straight forward arrest/sting.

Quote

Entrapment can make people who had absolutely no intention of commiting a certain crime commit it because the opportunity was artificially presented. Take, for instance, someone who happens to have some dope at a festival and is approached by a cop who wants to buy a small amount. That person is by almost no-ones definition a drug dealer, but could be convicted of a pretty serious crime because he's been set up.

There's enough real crime out there without locking people up for manufactured crime.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

For examle I have been caught speeding when I was not paying attention to the limit.

The only time you speed is by accident? Virtually none of us are going to relate to that. I only use that line when I get nailed for it. Granted, Canada has photo speed tickets, something we've resisted so far.

We do have problems with entrapment here. The Marin CHP liked to bust motorcyclists for crossing the double yellow by driving well under the speed limit. Maybe some still commit the infraction at the speed limit, but the cops didn't give that a chance, instead they create the situation. Same with this park sex bust. That is the definition of entrapment.

The problem I have with To Catch a Predator is that they don't (can't) wait for a crime to be committed. No zippers undone, no verbal 'take your pants off, girl," just presumption that they are going to do more than talk. They also arrest people who don't even come to the door.

[Richards 0]

Quote

The only time you speed is by accident? Virtually none of us are going to relate to that.

No it's true. That is why I resorted to using the cruise control and staying in the right lane. The few times I got speeding tickets I really just wasn't paying attention. I didn't try to use that as an excuse at the tme though. I just accepted the ticket and started using cruise control. Lack of paying attention is a big problem of mine. As a matter of fact I had to authorize Visa to just deduct my monthly payment from my account because I used to forget sometimes (even though I had the money to pay) and I was worried about hurting my credit rating .

Quote

Canada has photo speed tickets, something we've resisted so far.

I don't mind speed enforcement so long as it is not abused. The advantage of photo radar is that it free's cops up to do actual cop work, but again it is subject to abuse.

Quote

We do have problems with entrapment here. The Marin CHP liked to bust motorcyclists for crossing the double yellow by driving well under the speed limit. Maybe some still commit the infraction at the speed limit, but the cops didn't give that a chance, instead they create the situation. Same with this park sex bust. That is the definition of entrapment.

Sounds like you have some cops with small dick syndrome. Sorry to put it that way. Most of teh cops I have dealt with here are human. For example I often hear the saying that "ignorance of the law is not an excuse". Up here that seems to be used more for the bad guy that is just playing dumb. Most cops I have dealt with use their judgement and if it appears to them that you were genuinely ignorant they tried to give people the benefit of the doubt (within reason).

Quote

The problem I have with To Catch a Predator is that they don't (can't) wait for a crime to be committed. No zippers undone, no verbal 'take your pants off, girl," just presumption that they are going to do more than talk.

I gues that is where we will have to disagree. Do you honestly beleive that a man who talks to someone who identifies themselves as a minor, discusses sex and even in some cases expresses concern about the cops, and finally describes certain acts he would like to perfrom is actually showing up at the "minors" house just to talk? I am somewhat sceptical. It reminds me of the story where they said that most men busted for child pornography claimed it was accidentally downloaded even though they had a kazillion gigabites of it stored on their computer. Some excuses stretch the boundaries of reason. I am comfortable that the men who showed up at the door on "to catch a predator" were genuine predators and were not entrapped. I am greatfull that they were exposed and prosecuted.

Quote

They also arrest people who don't even come to the door.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I don't mind speed enforcement so long as it is not abused. The advantage of photo radar is that it free's cops up to do actual cop work, but again it is subject to abuse.

And the "actual work" they are doing is like setting up stupid entrapments in parks.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I gues that is where we will have to disagree. Do you honestly beleive that a man who talks to someone who identifies themselves as a minor, discusses sex and even in some cases expresses concern about the cops, and finally describes certain acts he would like to perfrom is actually showing up at the "minors" house just to talk? I am somewhat sceptical..

So am I. But how do you arrest someone for a crime that never happened? People say all sorts of shit online. dropzone.com proves that everyday. We don't arrest them, do we?

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

I guess the dividing line for me is intentions. Some good people do things that are wrong and I realise there is probably a good reason for the "entrapment" law. I guess it just bugs me that in common language it is far too often used for what appears to be a straight forward arrest/sting.

Oh, well you're never going to stop crooks shouting entrapment whenever they think it might get them off (or even just get them some publicity), and I agree, a lot of entrapment claims are just plain dumb. That doesn't mean genuine entrapment doesn't happen as well, or that genuine entrapment isn't wrong.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don't mind speed enforcement so long as it is not abused. The advantage of photo radar is that it free's cops up to do actual cop work, but again it is subject to abuse.

And the "actual work" they are doing is like setting up stupid entrapments in parks.

Is that the norm or one isolated incedent?

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I gues that is where we will have to disagree. Do you honestly beleive that a man who talks to someone who identifies themselves as a minor, discusses sex and even in some cases expresses concern about the cops, and finally describes certain acts he would like to perfrom is actually showing up at the "minors" house just to talk? I am somewhat sceptical..

So am I. But how do you arrest someone for a crime that never happened? People say all sorts of shit online. dropzone.com proves that everyday. We don't arrest them, do we?

Hard call then. If planning the sex online and then showing up at the "minors" house is not enough then what is the line that needs to be crossed before we arrest? Do you see my concern? How can we posibly be proactive in catching these guys unless we are willing to lure them in and arrest them at the door? If we are going to lure them over the internet then what line do we have to allow them to cross before we arrest them? SHould we simply wait untill a kids mom calls and complains that her daughter had sex with a 40 year old? Even if we catch the two of them alone in a hotel room, unless there is sexual intercourse occuring then he can argue that despite a slew of dirty intenet chats and plans for sexual intercourse they were just in the hotel room with wine, flowers (and him with a pack of condoms) just to talk. What about soliciting to commit murder? Again we are talking about a crime that has not yet happened. At some point we have to be willing to say that with a reasonable degree of certainty the person had already engaged in criminal activity.

As for the idea that people say all kinds of shit online, even on DZ I have to disagree. I have never witnessed any member here soliciting sex from someone who identifies himself/herself as a minor. Talking shit or being un-PC is a far cry from planning a sexual encounter with a minor over the net and then showing up at the minors house with the apparent intention of talking.

I don't mean any disrespect but we are going to have to disagree here. I am quite satisfied that the guys showing up at the door on that show deserve to be arrested. I know some here will acuse me of being a "hang-em-high" hardliner for that but there have to be provisions in place to protect children from these guys. The only other solution I can suggest is that we make it illegal for any adult to meet with any person identified as a minor over the internet regardless of the intentions unles they arrange first to meet the parents.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[billvon 3,070]

>If planning the sex online and then showing up at the "minors" house
>is not enough then what is the line that needs to be crossed before we
>arrest? Do you see my concern?

One such sting involved the "minor" asking the target to go into her garage, take all his clothes off, then come into the living room naked. In that case there is really no question about his motivation, or his expectations.

The problem lies in arresting anyone who comes to the door. Heck, if you saw someone you thought was 13 arranging such a meeting, I could see you giving their parents a call to warn them - or even going to the house to warn them if you couldn't get them on the phone. That wouldn't indicate your intent to molest anyone, even if you had been friendly to them online, and even if the cops couldn't immediately identify what your screen name was. (Which, in many cases, they can't.)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

So am I. But how do you arrest someone for a crime that never happened? People say all sorts of shit online. dropzone.com proves that everyday. We don't arrest them, do we?

Hard call then. If planning the sex online and then showing up at the "minors" house is not enough then what is the line that needs to be crossed before we arrest? Do you see my concern? How can we posibly be proactive in catching these guys unless we are willing to lure them in and arrest them at the door? If we are going to lure them over the internet then what line do we have to allow them to cross before we arrest them? SHould we simply wait untill a kids mom calls and complains that her daughter had sex with a 40 year old? Even if we catch the two of them alone in a hotel room, unless there is sexual intercourse occuring then he can argue that despite a slew of dirty intenet chats and plans for sexual intercourse they were just in the hotel room with wine, flowers (and him with a pack of condoms) just to talk.

You ever show up for a date with condoms in your pocket? Preparedness doesn't equal intent.

When do you arrest them? You have a full camera crew and cops waiting. The girl isn't in danger, and isn't even a minor. So you can wait until he starts removing his or her clothes. Then you can smack him with the baton.

And as I said, they don't even wait. I saw them notice a guy parked on the street who then drove off. Still busted him for the non crime. Sorry, saving the children isn't a valid reason for arresting people for immoral thought. It makes just as much sense to arrest the parents for neglecting their children.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>If planning the sex online and then showing up at the "minors" house
>is not enough then what is the line that needs to be crossed before we
>arrest? Do you see my concern?

One such sting involved the "minor" asking the target to go into her garage, take all his clothes off, then come into the living room naked. In that case there is really no question about his motivation, or his expectations.

The problem lies in arresting anyone who comes to the door. Heck, if you saw someone you thought was 13 arranging such a meeting, I could see you giving their parents a call to warn them - or even going to the house to warn them if you couldn't get them on the phone. That wouldn't indicate your intent to molest anyone, even if you had been friendly to them online, and even if the cops couldn't immediately identify what your screen name was. (Which, in many cases, they can't.)

From the predator shows I've seen, the "teen" usually asks the adult to bring something like condoms or alcohol which is circumstantial evidence of intent, according to the show. The teen also tells the adult she's underaged.

I understand there are many sites where people do role playing, but getting in your car and driving for hours after you have just asked someone you know is underage to have sex with you and then showing up with condoms and alcohol is a little hard to write off as just role playing.

[Richards 0]

Quote

The problem lies in arresting anyone who comes to the door. Heck, if you saw someone you thought was 13 arranging such a meeting, I could see you giving their parents a call to warn them - or even going to the house to warn them if you couldn't get them on the phone. That wouldn't indicate your intent to molest anyone, even if you had been friendly to them online, and even if the cops couldn't immediately identify what your screen name was. (Which, in many cases, they can't.)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

The problem lies in arresting anyone who comes to the door. Heck, if you saw someone you thought was 13 arranging such a meeting, I could see you giving their parents a call to warn them - or even going to the house to warn them if you couldn't get them on the phone. That wouldn't indicate your intent to molest anyone, even if you had been friendly to them online, and even if the cops couldn't immediately identify what your screen name was. (Which, in many cases, they can't.)

Whenever I watched the show the ones that showed up were identified in advance by thier IP address (or something similar). It was pretty cut and dried. If on other episodes, individuals who had nothing to do with the chat showed up I have not seen those episodes so I will have to take your word on it. THe ones I saw were pretty clean busts which left little doubt.

As for someone going to warn the parents and getting busted as the perv I have never heard of it. Is this an actual incident or a hypothetical?

[Richards 0]

Quote

You ever show up for a date with condoms in your pocket? Preparedness doesn't equal intent.

Whenever I went on a date there certainly was intent (or at least faint hope) to have sex, as I suspect is the case with the majority of the male species. Only I went with women in my own age group.

Quote

When do you arrest them? You have a full camera crew and cops waiting. The girl isn't in danger, and isn't even a minor. So you can wait until he starts removing his or her clothes.

But the man showing up on the scene has been told online that she is a minor. Thus he intends to meet with the minor. In the cases I saw he had described sexual acts online.

Quote

Then you can smack him with the baton.

Let's not put words in my mouth now

Quote

And as I said, they don't even wait. I saw them notice a guy parked on the street who then drove off. Still busted him for the non crime.

Details? Did the online guy describe a car that matched that car? Did he give a plate number? Did he specifiy that location? For example if a guy has been talking to a girl who has identified herself as a minor, describes sexual acts he will commit with her and then says;

" Meet me in the parking lot behind the 7-11 and I will be in a red mustang, plate number 123-456.....uh your not a cop are you? I sure could get into a lot of trouble for this";

and then surprise surprise a red mustang plate number 123-456 shows up in exactly that location in the agreed upon time (after circling the block 7 or 8 times) I can sleep well at night after putting that guy in the clink. Was it that scenario (I saw one like that) or was it a random guy parking in a parking lot in the area and then just on a hunch they figured he must be the guy, or perhaps grabed a random car driver going by? Was it something in between the two extremes I have described?

Quote

Sorry, saving the children isn't a valid reason for arresting people for immoral thought.

THinking about murder is not illegal either. Saying to an undercover cop that you will accept money to kill someone and then showing up at the alledged targets house with a gun does not meen that you were going to commit a crime either? You may have just been talking shit to the cop and decided to drop by the targets house to "talk" and happened to bring a peice. It some point we should not have to wait for a crime to happen before we can bust. I realize we do need safeguards against unjust convictions but in my humble opinion the characters busted in the shows I watched were guilty. I am not sure which shows you watched.

Quote

It makes just as much sense to arrest the parents for neglecting their children.

[Richards 0]

Quote

The perv is also told by the teen that her/his parents aren't home.

I can tell you this, if some adult showed up at my house at 11pm-2am with booze and condoms wanting to see my kid who they met on the internet and then tried to explain they were there to warn me of what my child was doing, that person might not be the only one going to jail that night.