Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 	The only difference in what you're saying is that he/she states openly
> that he/she is a cop.

Not just that. He states openly that he's a cop *and* that he's authorizing 
you to do that.

In other words, it would be like you being on an airplane, having the cabin 
attendant say "This restroom is broken, go use the one in first class", then 
giving you grief for going into first class.

Obeying the policeman (to a great extent) overrides the breaking of the law.

> 	I still find it wrong to go undercover, and then /convince/ someone to
> commit a crime, and then charge him for it. 

Yes. But that's a different question. :-)

> 	However, reading the rest of the article, it seems that there has been
> no definitive criterion in the US for this - often leaving it up to the
> jurors to decide.

Yep. Basically, the guy wouldn't have sold the booze had the cop not 
browbeaten him.  In *this* case, the guy on the corner was standing there 
dealing, so the cops arrested him after gathering evidence it was going on.

I.e., this wasn't "we tricked this guy into selling drugs."  This was "we 
stood here and watched him sell drugs five times. The sixth time, we 
arranged him to sell it to us, so we could catch him."

If you convinced the jury that the cop was the first person he sold anything 
to, that would probably be closer to entrapment. But again, not being a 
lawyer, I don't think it's very clear-cut.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message