It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
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)
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.
Originally posted by sbctinfantry
It's a crime to tell a minor to commit a misdemeanor offense.
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.
Originally posted by sbctinfantry
Yes, it's actually illegal.
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.