 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-1-2010 5:17, Darren New wrote:
> 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 think I even know a Dutch case along this lines: a random guy in a
(probably flashy, if I know him well) car is followed by two under cover
policeman that think he might be a person that will drive to fast.
Indeed he does and after an hour they put him to the side of the road,
charge him with speeding and confiscate his car because he is driving
more than 50 kilometer per hour too fast.
The case comes for a judge and the guy defends himself saying: i have
seen these two guys already in that town 100km from the place where they
arrested me. I have seen them repeatedly and of course I was speeding,
two dodgy looking guys were following me all this time.
The guy gets cleared, gets his car back and the police gets new
instructions. I don't remember if he got compensation, in cases like
this it is not unheard of.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/27/10 09:50, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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.
I thought one of the outcomes of this thread was that in the US, there
is no textbook definition.
--
"Graphic Artist seeks Boss with vision impairment."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?"
--
"Graphic Artist seeks Boss with vision impairment."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/27/10 14:34, andrel wrote:
> 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.
Little known fact (little known to Americans, even): In the US, when
you're questioned (but not detained/charged), you're not entitled to
having a lawyer present. You're entitled to refuse to answer, though.
At least that's the case with federal groups (FBI, etc) - may be
different in some states for the local law enforcement.
(I know this because I once *needed* to know this).
> BTW Did someone answer Warp's question already: can cops be prosecuted
> for 'entrapment'? (at least I think he wanted to know that)
I doubt it over here. Cases can be thrown out, but in the US, there's
no solid definition of entrapment. Perhaps he could be sued, though, and
the department may choose to discipline (although I think that's unlikely).
> 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.
You're making it too black and white. Yes, Jim mentioned lying, but
there are plenty of ways to trick you into saying stuff without actually
misleading/lying. It's a fine line where you go from acceptable to
unacceptable.
Furthermore, there are elements at stake that the police can exploit
without even realizing it - and only recent research has shown those
biases (e.g. issues in lineups and identification in general).
--
"Graphic Artist seeks Boss with vision impairment."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:34:50 +0100, andrel wrote:
>> 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 a cultural aspect to this for US citizens, I think; the ideas
about law and justice are rooted in the UK justice system, but with
significant modifications because of issues that contributed to the
revolutionary war. At least that's how I remember my history (but I
never claim to have a solid grasp of history, either <g>).
>> 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.
Here's the thing. In some parts of the US, there is a problem with drug
trafficking. There's a stretch of I-80, for example, between Omaha and
Nebraska where the cops wait for cars with out of state license plates.
They can't pull you over for having out of state plates, but they can
pull you over for any infraction - like drifting out of your lane, or
failing to signal for 100 feet before changing lanes (I know this because
I've been pulled over 3 separate times on that stretch of freeway while
driving at night).
They don't really care about the minor infractions. But because of the
drug trade that takes place along that stretch, they want to "get their
nose in your car" (as my cousin - who's a sheriff's deputy - put it).
The minor infraction gives them probable cause to stop you - and you will
get a warning for the infraction.
Often times, they'll ask the driver if they can search the car. Most
people will respond by saying "sure, why not, I've got nothing to hide",
and the idea is that this puts pressure on someone who does have
something to hide to do something.
But here's the kicker. Suppose they're *not* looking for drugs.
Suppose, instead, they're investigating a double homicide, and a car
matching your car's description was seen leaving the scene of the crime.
A perp described as a blond male, mid-to-late 30's, wearing a leather
coat driving the car. (Hey, that's me!). I'm not wearing the coat while
driving, but have it in the trunk or the back seat under some stuff where
they can't see it.
I consent to let them search the car. They find the coat; I match the
suspect's description, drive a car that vaguely matches the description
of the car leaving the scene - now I'm a suspect in a double homicide.
Just for drifting out of my lane.
That's why US citizens who are smart will not answer any questions -
because even if the cop says they're investigating an accident and think
you might've been in the area, you don't know for certain if in fact that
is what it is.
Similar situation - you get pulled over for speeding. First question any
cop will ask you is "do you know how fast you were going?" - most people
want to be honest, at least to some degree, so they'll say "Maybe 68-70
MPH" - if it's a 65 zone, congratulations, you've just confessed to
speeding. You get a ticket, and if you go to court to challenge, the
cop's notes will reflect that you said you were going 68-70. When you
pull away after being pulled over, the cop gets back in his car and sits
there. He's writing down everything from the conversation in case you
decide to challenge the ticket.
So say you get pulled over, but you've got the cruise control on and
you're doing less than the speed limit. Cop's radar gun is
miscalibrated, and he clocks you at 75 when you're doing 65-66. You get
pulled over, maybe you sped up to pass another car; you assume that he
saw you pass the other car, and you decide that since he caught you for
speeding, he must be right and you must be wrong, so you say 67 MPH. Now
you have no recourse to challenge the ticket because you confessed.
Once a month I meet with our local police liason officer (in fact, I meet
with him tomorrow night) as part of our local community organization. He
often will tell stories after the meeting to those who are sticking
around about the dumb things people confess to.
> BTW Did someone answer Warp's question already: can cops be prosecuted
> for 'entrapment'? (at least I think he wanted to know that)
I think it depends on the circumstances. I can't think of any such
prosecutions offhand, but I don't follow the news that closely.
>> 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.
Torture isn't a tool US cops use either (unless they're bad cops), but
psychological misdirection is a tool that I would expect any member of
any law enforcement agency in the world would use as a tool in their
fight against crime. "Lying" often may be too strong of a word,
"misdirection" might be a better word to use, because it's not "lying" if
you let someone believe something that isn't true.
But it would never surprise me if you had two suspects who knew each
other for a cop or prosecutor to tell each suspect that the other guy was
cutting a deal at that very moment and this was his last chance to tell
anything they should know.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:15:45 -0800, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 01/27/10 09:50, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> I thought one of the outcomes of this thread was that in the US,
there
> is no textbook definition.
Well, I'm sure there is a 'textbook' definition, but reality is often
different than the textbook.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Little known fact (little known to Americans, even): In the US, when
> you're questioned (but not detained/charged), you're not entitled to
> having a lawyer present. You're entitled to refuse to answer, though.
And you're free to leave if you're not being detained. :-)
--
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 01/27/10 18:49, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Little known fact (little known to Americans, even): In the US, when
>> you're questioned (but not detained/charged), you're not entitled to
>> having a lawyer present. You're entitled to refuse to answer, though.
>
> And you're free to leave if you're not being detained. :-)
Well, yes. That's what I meant by "refuse to answer".
--
He's got a magnet!!! Everybody BACKUP!!!!!!!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/27/10 16:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Here's the thing. In some parts of the US, there is a problem with drug
> trafficking. There's a stretch of I-80, for example, between Omaha and
> Nebraska where the cops wait for cars with out of state license plates.
How can you be between Omaha and Nebraska?
> I consent to let them search the car. They find the coat; I match the
> suspect's description, drive a car that vaguely matches the description
> of the car leaving the scene - now I'm a suspect in a double homicide.
> Just for drifting out of my lane.
I would think that your matching the description, as well as your car,
would be sufficient enough reason to stop, but am not sure.
> That's why US citizens who are smart will not answer any questions -
> because even if the cop says they're investigating an accident and think
> you might've been in the area, you don't know for certain if in fact that
> is what it is.
Refusing to allow them to search your car is usually within your right.
However, it can lead to an inconvenience. I remember years ago
reading/being told that if you refuse, they have the right to hold you
there until sniffing dogs come and sniff. The following seems to concur:
http://flexyourrights.org/supreme_court/illinois_v_caballes
Although it implies a limit to how long you have to wait.
I should add that the site actually encourages you to decline a search.
> Similar situation - you get pulled over for speeding. First question any
> cop will ask you is "do you know how fast you were going?" - most people
> want to be honest, at least to some degree, so they'll say "Maybe 68-70
> MPH" - if it's a 65 zone, congratulations, you've just confessed to
> speeding. You get a ticket, and if you go to court to challenge, the
> cop's notes will reflect that you said you were going 68-70. When you
> pull away after being pulled over, the cop gets back in his car and sits
> there. He's writing down everything from the conversation in case you
> decide to challenge the ticket.
I think that's quite fair - I don't see a problem in that.
--
He's got a magnet!!! Everybody BACKUP!!!!!!!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
