>> ^artician:

I have heard that various "entrapment" laws say that an officer cannot lie to a suspect [...] Someone know more about this?

Yeah, it's bullshit.

http://www.snopes.com/risque/hookers/cop.asp

>> ^artician:

I have heard that various "entrapment" laws say that an officer cannot lie to a suspect (?), so for drug deals and prostitution stings (I think), if they say "no I'm not a cop", whatever illegal action they arrest a person for is not up-holdable in court. Someone know more about this? I could see her just being a civilian that's under the employ of the police department for that reason, but that would mean the titles off. Meh!


No. They cannot coerce you to do something that you probably wouldn't do. In fact, ex., a Latin King bust down here was completely thrown out because an informant threatened his ex-members, and they knew the guy was crazy so they feared for their lives...

As far as lying goes--fair game. Otherwise there would be no need for undercover-anythings....

I have heard that various "entrapment" laws say that an officer cannot lie to a suspect (?), so for drug deals and prostitution stings (I think), if they say "no I'm not a cop", whatever illegal action they arrest a person for is not up-holdable in court. Someone know more about this? I could see her just being a civilian that's under the employ of the police department for that reason, but that would mean the titles off. Meh!

>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Also, is Swaim dressed up as a Faceball 2000 character?

That's Scud: The Disposable Assassin
Now can anybody positively ID Katie's costume? It seems pretty generic.
Also, super healing FTW, eventual entrapment notwithstanding.


Can't say I've ever heard of him.

edit: Kate is Lex according to the cracked.com comments.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Also, is Swaim dressed up as a Faceball 2000 character?


That's Scud: The Disposable Assassin

Now can anybody positively ID Katie's costume? It seems pretty generic.

Also, super healing FTW, eventual entrapment notwithstanding.

>> ^shuac:

Shooting video when rights are being abused/denied is one thing; that's a safeguard and, once uploaded to YouTube, becomes a public awareness mechanism...but painting yourself as a target for the express purpose of "catching a cop in the act" is quite another; that shit's pure deceit.
Also, is it really necessary to deny presenting identification just because you can? If the cop was being a dick at the outset, I might deny presenting I.D. too but this cop was obviously cool and obviously aware of what was really going on.
Entrapment works both ways and it's a good thing this cop was one step ahead of this fucking tool.


2nd that

Shooting video when rights are being abused/denied is one thing; that's a safeguard and, once uploaded to YouTube, becomes a public awareness mechanism...but painting yourself as a target for the express purpose of "catching a cop in the act" is quite another; that shit's pure deceit.

Also, is it really necessary to deny presenting identification just because you can? If the cop was being a dick at the outset, I might deny presenting I.D. too but this cop was obviously cool and obviously aware of what was really going on.

Entrapment works both ways and it's a good thing this cop was one step ahead of this fucking tool.

I fap'ed to this wonderful Welsh booty a decade ago, when I saw Entrapment. Still, Vincent Cassel is the man you want if a field of lasers has to be negotiated.

I don't feel like they've shown anything in the video that establishes this as entrapment. He would have to coerce others into committing a crime for it to be entrapment. Just saying he wants to and seeing if anyone jumps on board doesn't qualify.

As much as I hate to agree with O'Reilly on anything, he's right. Napolitano is (again) either completely ignorant of the law or intentionally making false statements. Thinking about committing a crime is different than learning how to make a bomb, moving it into place, and pushing what you believe is the detonator. Having intent is one thing, acting on the intent is another. Also, if you want to invoke entrapment, then you do have to prove it.

We should all be glad that Napolitano is no longer on the bench.

Entrapment*

According to this article it sounds like the extortion thing is an effort by the FBI to entrap him in a different wire-fraud charge (which seems to have worked to an extent, but he went and killed someone else before they could act on it).

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/10/peru.murder.case/index.html?hpt=T2

Yes
>> ^xxovercastxx:

Under US law, would this be considered entrapment?

Under US law, would this be considered entrapment?

You know why the lawyer is crying; because the judge doesn't give a shit. The whole tone of that court is bullshit.

Now I'm going to use ad homimen against the quoted person below. Do you dislike the constitution; your comment would seem to put you in that category. This case is clear cut, the Judicial Branch in Nevada does not have the power to call that law what it is; bullshit. The balance of powers is not working, and it is clear in the judge’s tone of voice; "I wash my hands of this."

Read the 8th amendment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Somehow I get the feeling that you would think the ultimatum imposed on Alan Turing was correct and immaculately moral. Read the following excerpt from Wikipedia. Turing’s ultimatum was chemical castration or imprisonment. Bear it in mind that this is the same era where Oppenheimer was persecuted for, what some would say, the same carelessness as Turing.

In January 1952 Turing picked up 19-year-old Arnold Murray outside a cinema in Manchester. After a lunch date, Turing invited Murray to spend the weekend with him at his house, an invitation which Murray accepted although he did not show up. The pair met again in Manchester the following Monday, when Murray agreed to accompany Turing to the latter's house. A few weeks later Murray visited Turing's house again, and apparently spent the night there.[38]

After Murray helped an accomplice to break into his house, Turing reported the crime to the police. During the investigation, Turing acknowledged a sexual relationship with Murray. Homosexual acts were illegal in the United Kingdom at that time,[6] and so both were charged with gross indecency under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, the same crime that Oscar Wilde had been convicted of more than fifty years earlier.[39]

Turing was given a choice between imprisonment and probation conditional on his agreement to undergo hormonal treatment designed to reduce libido. He accepted chemical castration via oestrogen hormone injections.[40] A side effect of the treatment caused him to grow breasts.

Turing's conviction led to the removal of his security clearance, and barred him from continuing with his cryptographic consultancy for GCHQ. At the time, there was acute public anxiety about spies and homosexual entrapment by Soviet agents,[41] because of the recent exposure of the first two members of the Cambridge Five, Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean, as KGB double agents. Turing was never accused of espionage but, as with all who had worked at Bletchley Park, was prevented from discussing his war work.[42]

Your way of thinking is outdated, outmaneuvered and better suited for the middle ages; also misogyny doesn't suit you.

>> ^fjules:

She got sentenced for life because she refused to have her name on the sex offenders list. Basically, it's her own fault.
"wtf with the crying lawyer?"
Good reason why women can't be lawyers.