Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 	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. 

Right. More generally, I think it's basically a cop getting you to break a 
law that you otherwise wouldn't have broken. I'm just giving the general 
thought behind it, to clarify it's not just "a cop is involved, hence it is 
entrapment."

Selling drugs to someone that you wouldn't sell to were he a cop is clearly 
not entrapment, by that reasoning. :-)

>> 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.

Agreed. I wasn't disagreeing with you. The *easy* case is when the person is 
clearly an officer of the law. Otherwise, you have to defend yourself by 
making clear it wouldn't have happened without the unknown person bugging you.

>>>     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.

Yes, different from the drug case.  And there have been apparently a fair 
number of cops winding up doing stuff like organizing "terrorist" attacks 
and then arresting those who went along with it.

>> 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 understood. I was just clarifying for the others in the conversation who 
asked in the first place.

I think we're in irreconcilable agreement here.

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

Post a reply to this message