Stings vs. Entrapment

Bootlegging at it's finest art of crime prevention . The kids must be in some official capacity working for the police dept , not like they are going to randomly asking kids off the street to go buy me some booze from that store .

How do they find these kids , not like there is an ad in the paper for such a position is there ? When they do not get the desired result from the so called sting do they go back again and again just because they received a tip . How accurate were the tips and the motivation behind the person to come forward ? So and so took my GF and now he is going to pay . So and so broke up with me and now she is going to pay also ?

What are the ethics and laws and risks involved when using a minor in such a capacity , knowing full well that a minor cannot buy alcohol . Those kids may as well be arrested for possession then also . What happens to the booze after the fact ( no return policy ) ?

Two wrongs make a right ? Or am I missing something here that says it is okay ?

Big Ole Can O Worms , Not much difference here with our local government , the city would shut down in services provided from all the boozers and dopers on staff if they got fired .

That is why the unions don't want drug testing of their members .

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Just observing?

It says in the article they set it up, and then observe.

How can they prove that a crime would have taken place if they did not set it up?

Hence, the predisposed thing

Yes, they sent an underage person into a shop to attempt to buy some alcohol.

It's not a crime for someone to attempt to purchase age-restricted goods. The crime is committed by an adult selling the goods to an underage person. This is what the police were observing.

Originally posted by Praetorius
So, you're telling me that clerks never sell tobacco or alcohol to minors and johns never pick up prostitutes where prostitution is against the law unless the customer or hooker is working with the cops?

Come on, now. There's a clear difference between giving someone enough rope to hang themselves as compared to stringing them up against their will, as least when working with proper definitions of these terms and not the murky world of court ruling on questionable cases.

edit on 10/25/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)

So, you're telling me that american citizens never go so far over the edge that they blow something up, or try to assassinate political leaders and it's against the law unless the ATF, FBI, CIA, or other agency is setting it up?

Come on, now. There's a clear difference between giving someone enough C4 to blow up a skyscraper as compared to giving them the detonator, and or detonating it themselves.

Yeah, I see where this is heading. Go back to sleep America, thinking outside the box is a thoughtcrime. You are free, to do as we tell you. Enjoy your false paradigms and silly arguments.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Just observing?

It says in the article they set it up, and then observe.

How can they prove that a crime would have taken place if they did not set it up?

Hence, the predisposed thing

Yes, they sent an underage person into a shop to attempt to buy some alcohol.

It's not a crime for someone to attempt to purchase age-restricted goods. The crime is committed by an adult selling the goods to an underage person. This is what the police were observing.

It's a crime to tell a minor to commit a misdemeanor offense. It's also a crime to tell someone to blow up a building, kind of like the CIA, FBI and ATF are caught doing this and similar things regularly. The only reason they aren't arrested? They say it was a ... sting.

I'm sure they were just observing as well. I wonder what the clerk observed. Show me some pictures of these 'underage' anonymous helpers please.

I keep coming back, like a car accident. I just can't believe there is even a discussion about this. As far as I'm concerned, all police 'officers' involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

It is not the police department's job to run sting operations. It is the police department's job to ensure your safety. If a crime is being comitted, a police officer is obligated by duty and law to respond immediately. This whole argument is based on the premise that the police officer is allowed to stand by and watch a crime be comitted even when he/she knows it is about to happen.

If someone is pointing a gun at you, does the officer wait until he or she fires until they respond? Why are you going to let someone commit a crime, why not be a public servant, step in, and remind the clerk it's against the law to sell to underage patrons.

Heck, all three of you can hug after that and explain the whole 'sting' operation. You can even sit around a campfire later and sing kumbaya.

What is wrong with America? Why do you all accept a police state? It's insanity!

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
It's a crime to tell a minor to commit a misdemeanor offense.

I'm not sure about the law in the US, but in England it's not a crime for a minor to purchase alcohol. The crime is committed by the adult who facilitates the transaction.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
It's a crime to tell a minor to commit a misdemeanor offense.

I'm not sure about the law in the US, but in England it's not a crime for a minor to purchase alcohol. The crime is committed by the adult who facilitates the transaction.

Are you kidding me?

It is very illegal to purchase alcohol as a minor for a couple of reasons.

1) This is not your average minor, it is a paid provocateur. This person is being paid to commit a crime, or participate in committing a crime with full knowledge of the repurcussions. The only reason law protects a minor is because of the assumption of innocence. No, I don't mean guilty or innocent, I mean the innocence assosciated with youth and skewed moral compass. A child can't understand the rammifications of murder. However, this person has been trained, coached and educated in the rule of law and is intentionally trying to coerce another citizen into committing a crime. That, is a crime.

2) The job of the police officer is to inform, serve and protect. Who is being served when the officer opts to spend taxpayer money to prosecute, fine, imprison, and penalty an american citizen and businessman instead of remind him of the law he is actively being coerced into breaking. Are you going to follow a man with a history of arson carrying gasoline and matches, just in case he gets an urge to burn your house down to the ground? When do you want the 'officer' to stop him, before or after he has started the fire?

3) Yes, it's actually illegal. Consult your local lawfirm for more questions if you want specifics.

This is highly illegal and a large factor in why America is rotting from the inside out.

reply to post by sbctinfantry
There are some fairly substantial differences between vice crimes/sales to minors and allegations of terrorism, friend.

While I appreciate the attempt at parallel reasoning, it seems to fall somewhat short here. I'm not saying police DON'T ever entrap people (hence the concept of entrapment existing, and I believe most of the domestic terrorism allegations tend to fall clearly under such), but to claim that all stings are entrapment is untenable. I'm sure we've all seen some of the videos for ourselves, and there is no undue inducement taking place in a good many cases.

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
Yes, it's actually illegal.

That's truly bizarre.

Society designates a legal age for alcohol consumption, because they believe that a person of a certain age is not capable of drinking alcohol responsibly. Yet, when a person who - by society - is not deemed old enough, or responsible enough, attempts to purchase alcohol, then they are held accountable.

The world's gone mad!

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by sbctinfantry

 

There are some fairly substantial differences between vice crimes/sales to minors and allegations of terrorism, friend.

While I appreciate the attempt at parallel reasoning, it seems to fall somewhat short here. I'm not saying police DON'T ever entrap people (hence the concept of entrapment existing, and I believe most of the domestic terrorism allegations tend to fall clearly under such), but to claim that all stings are entrapment is untenable. I'm sure we've all seen some of the videos for ourselves, and there is no undue inducement taking place in a good many cases.

It's not reasoning, it's madness. If you can't see that then you're on your own.

I'm not going to let someone bash your window in, or reach inside your unlocked car and start driving away with it before I try to stop them.

This kind of crap is the reason I get strange looks from anyone, even police, for wiping my prints off their weapon before handing it back.

reply to post by sbctinfantry

It's not reasoning, it's madness. If you can't see that then you're on your own.

I'm not going to let someone bash your window in, or reach inside your unlocked car and start driving away with it before I try to stop them.

This kind of crap is the reason I get strange looks from anyone, even police, for wiping my prints off their weapon before handing it back.

I can appreciate the second line - good looking out - and the last line seems to be good sense.

However, I'm afraid you have entirely lost me in light of the subject of this thread and what I was saying? Apologies in advance if I've gone dense again.