On 01/26/10 16:22, Darren New wrote:
> 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.

	The reason I quoted the portion from Wikipedia was to point out that
entrapment /doesn't/ require the victim to know he's a cop. In that
particular case, the undercover agent was bugging the guy to do
something illegal, and he did. It was ruled as entrapment, because it
wasn't clear if the person would have done it ordinarily had he not been
repeatedly asked to sell it.

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

	Again, my point is that entrapment seems to apply to people who are not
clearly officers 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. :-)

	Different from the drug case, yes. But not different from entrapment.

> 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 think you misunderstood. I never claimed that the drug case in
question was entrapment. I was merely clarifying to Andrel that I may
find some stings OK, but I don't find entrapment OK. My responses to you
were regarding the definition of entrapment, and that it need not
involve the target realizing that he's dealing with a law enforcement
agent.


-- 
"Graphic Artist seeks Boss with vision impairment."

Post a reply to this message