 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/26/10 18:28, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> However, the conclusion was that the error was in the initial court not
> allowing the defense to argue entrapment before the jury, not that it
> was actual entrapment. The end result was that the case was sent back to
> the initial jurisdiction, and I would have to search around more to see
> if that resulted in a new trial or just a dismissal. That case, by it
> self, set no legal wording for what entrapment actually is.
Well, based on what I saw in the article, no formal definition has been
specified - it's often left to the juries/judges to decide what
constitutes entrapment.
--
"Graphic Artist seeks Boss with vision impairment."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:09:00 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vt edu> wrote:
>> Entrapment is a cop, or another official of the state, convincing a
>> person to commit a crime by using their position as part of the state
>> to influence the person. In the case of an undercover cop, no
>> entrapment because the person is not unduly influenced.
>
> So you are saying that if a cop identifies himself as a police officer
> and then lures someone to commit a crime, it's entrapment, but if the
> cop does not identify himself as such, then it's not entrapment?
>
> I don't think that's how entrapment is defined in the US or any other
> country.
That's pretty much the textbook definition from what I understand.
If I'm a cop and I incite you to commit a crime, then it's entrapment.
If I'm a cop but you don't know it and you elect to commit a crime
without my urging, then it's not. So, an undercover cop posing as a drug
dealer who has a "customer" who freely seeks out the cop and buys illegal
drugs hasn't been entrapped, because it was their choice.
The bottom line is that it depends on whose choice it was to commit the
crime. If it's the cop's choice for the 'target' to commit a crime, then
it's entrapment. So, for example, an undercover cop selling drugs to
willing customers isn't entrapment; the undercover cop ordering a hit on
someone would be.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:21:20 +0100, andrel wrote:
>> Wouldn't that mean that the police can lure anybody to do a crime
>> with
>> impunity as long as they don't identify themselves as the police?
>
> Yes, at least in the US.
Not as I understand it. I have a cousin who's a sheriff's deputy,
though, and I could ask him if he could explain the difference - but from
having talked shop with him before, I'm pretty sure my earlier
description is what he'd respond with.
It basically is a question of whose choice it was to commit the actual
crime being charged. In the case of an undercover cop selling drugs, the
buyer has the option to walk away from the deal.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> If I'm a cop and I incite you to commit a crime, then it's entrapment.
> If I'm a cop but you don't know it and you elect to commit a crime
> without my urging, then it's not.
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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Even if it's not technically called by the legal term "entrapment", I have
> > to still assume that it's illegal for a police officer to do that (even if
> > it's by some other legal term). Else it wouldn't make much sense.
> I think in this particular case, MJ is supposed to be by prescription. So if
> the cop gives you a fake prescription and you fill it, then you're not
> guilty of selling weed. You're guilty of accepting a fake prescription,
> which is probably not illegal unless you knew it was fake.
I'm talking about the cop, not about the person who commits the crime.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> If I'm a cop and I incite you to commit a crime, then it's entrapment.
>
>> If I'm a cop but you don't know it and you elect to commit a crime
>> without my urging, then it's not.
>
> 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.
>
He didn't say that, in the first case, the cop identified himself.
Still, it is an edge case. It depends on whether the judge or jury
decide that the suspect would have committed the crime without the
urging of the state officer.
Technically, the person inciting does not have to be a police officer or
state officer. An individual citizen, acting on behalf of the state, can
still cause it to be entrapment. I think the case I heard was where a
person notified the police about something, a drug buy or what ever, and
directed someone to buy from an undercover cop. Because she notified the
police first, and acted with their consent, it was entrapment. If she
had just heard about an undercover cop selling drugs in a certain area,
and directed a buyer there, it would not have been entrapment because
the state officials had not been involved in convincing the person to
commit a crime. But separating those gets really far into constitutional
law, which is an absolute mess.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:57:10 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> If I'm a cop and I incite you to commit a crime, then it's entrapment.
>
>> If I'm a cop but you don't know it and you elect to commit a crime
>> without my urging, then it's not.
>
> 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.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:58:09 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>> > Even if it's not technically called by the legal term "entrapment",
>> > I have
>> > to still assume that it's illegal for a police officer to do that
>> > (even if it's by some other legal term). Else it wouldn't make much
>> > sense.
>
>> I think in this particular case, MJ is supposed to be by prescription.
>> So if the cop gives you a fake prescription and you fill it, then
>> you're not guilty of selling weed. You're guilty of accepting a fake
>> prescription, which is probably not illegal unless you knew it was
>> fake.
>
> I'm talking about the cop, not about the person who commits the crime.
It's not illegal (in general, there are exceptions) for a cop to use
deception in a sting, investigation, or questioning.
That's why it is generally best when dealing with the police to say
nothing; there's no requirement that if they say "we're not investigating
you" that they be telling the truth. Cops are trained professionals, and
not just trained in physical skills, shooting, and the like - they also
have training in conducting questioning sessions and getting people to
say things they don't want to say.
Jim
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-1-2010 22:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:58:09 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> Warp wrote:
>>>> Even if it's not technically called by the legal term "entrapment",
>>>> I have
>>>> to still assume that it's illegal for a police officer to do that
>>>> (even if it's by some other legal term). Else it wouldn't make much
>>>> sense.
>>> I think in this particular case, MJ is supposed to be by prescription.
>>> So if the cop gives you a fake prescription and you fill it, then
>>> you're not guilty of selling weed. You're guilty of accepting a fake
>>> prescription, which is probably not illegal unless you knew it was
>>> fake.
>> I'm talking about the cop, not about the person who commits the crime.
>
> It's not illegal (in general, there are exceptions) for a cop to use
> deception in a sting, investigation, or questioning.
>
> That's why it is generally best when dealing with the police to say
> nothing;
One of the reasons some policeman here hate it when during an
investigation they meet US citizens. They will often start acting as if
this is the US. Saying nothing and demanding to see a lawyer when they
just want to ask you something is not really helping the police here.
Sometimes even Dutch citizens that have watched too much US crime movies
do the same.
> there's no requirement that if they say "we're not investigating
> you" that they be telling the truth.
That is the problem from the other side. For me this is an inconceivable
idea. Here the police has to conform to higher standards than the
general audience. Of course in under cover operations they might lie a
bit not to blow the cover, but if it is wearing a uniform it won't lie.
As simple as that.
If they do the case is closed and if it was a big lie, they get prosecuted.
BTW Did someone answer Warp's question already: can cops be prosecuted
for 'entrapment'? (at least I think he wanted to know that)
> Cops are trained professionals, and
> not just trained in physical skills, shooting, and the like - they also
> have training in conducting questioning sessions and getting people to
> say things they don't want to say.
Well, lying an torture are not part of the tools of a Dutch policeman,
they often seen to be able to do their job regardless.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
