|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:18:17 -0800, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 01/27/10 13:11, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> You only consider two cases: Either the cop identifies himself *and*
>>> incites someone to commit a crime, or neither.
>>>
>>> That was not the question. The question was if a cop incites someone
>>> to commit a crime but does not identify himself as a police officer.
>>
>> If the person is given no choice in committing the crime, then it's
>> entrapment. If the cop says to the second party "kill that guy or I
>> kill you" and then arrests the second party, that's entrapment. If the
>> second party has a reasonable chance of declining to participate, then
>> it's not.
>
> I think that still isn't covering all the angles Warp is talking
about.
> What if it's an undercover cop who convinces (but doesn't coerce)
> someone to commit a crime?
>
> I'd call that entrapment, as well. The usual criterion is "Would
the
> person have been predisposed to commit the crime had the cops not
> approached him about it?"
Yeah, I would as well - your description is closest to what I was trying
(and failing) to say. That predisposition is an important part, I think,
of the determination. It's not a really clear definition (to me).
I may ask my cousin about that - I know he's on leave right now, but when
he gets back in a couple weeks, I may drop him a line and ask him.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |