|
One very good resource found on the web says this about entrapment:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm
<quote>
ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law
enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no
previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids
conviction in such a case.
However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break
the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a
favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is
not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to
offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in
an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim
of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime
charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that
Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the
person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or
persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person
is not guilty.
In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as
charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not
guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:
- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents
and not from the person accused of the crime.
- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into
committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime
is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before
the government agents spoke with him.
On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.
</quote>
Posted without written permission.
Note: No copyright statement found on the website in reference to this
article.
Larry, please note kindly the "third" item towards the end very closely.
If an undercover officer approaches a person, begins a conversation, and
leads that person into committing a crime that was not intended to be in the
first place, that sir, is entrapment.
I can only assume that most people who are arrested for "soliciting" under
these conditions just do not bother to challenge the arrest in any way.
The tv cop shows never show the court side of the issue because they are not
interested in doing so.
Assuming that even one case is dismissed by a judge for entrapment, why do
your officers continue using the tactic?
Harassment. And of course, for that unspeakable quota. Which we all know
does not exist.
It's a slow night when the officer has to drum up business right?
|
| |
| |
In article <bg0rel02aag@enews1.newsguy.com>, "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote:
One very good resource found on the web says this about entrapment:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm
<copyrighted material snipped>
Posted without written permission.
Note: No copyright statement found on the website in reference to this
article.
I hope you realize no written copyright statement is needed. It's still theirs.
Larry, please note kindly the "third" item towards the end very closely.
If an undercover officer approaches a person, begins a conversation, and
leads that person into committing a crime that was not intended to be in the
first place, that sir, is entrapment.
Do you really think a couple of paragraphs on one web site is an accurate
description of both federal law as wel las the law of all 50 states? Or
is it more likely that these couple of paragraphs are a generic, broad
overview into the area of entrapment law?
I can cite you specific cases that define entrapment, not secondary
non-legal sources like lectlaw, if you want.
I can only assume that most people who are arrested for "soliciting" under
these conditions just do not bother to challenge the arrest in any way.
That;'s your problem, assuming things. Of course defense lawyers
challenge the arrest. It's a standard motion they make in every sinbgle
case, and they nearly always get a hearing for the legality of the arrest
to be determined. Stop assuming things from TV and the movies and listen
to what real lawyers tell you.
The tv cop shows never show the court side of the issue because they are not
interested in doing so.
There's "Crime and Punishment" for one.
Assuming that even one case is dismissed by a judge for entrapment, why do
your officers continue using the tactic?
Because not one case is dismissed for entrapment under the undercover
procedures I have described to you. Doesn't it make sense?
Harassment. And of course, for that unspeakable quota. Which we all know
does not exist.
It's a slow night when the officer has to drum up business right?
There are entire NYPD units, called the VED's (Vice Enforcement Divisions)
that deal solely with issues like prostiutution, gambling, untaxed
cigarettes, lottery scams, massage parlors, and things like that. Believe
me, they don't need to "drum up business" in any of these areas - it's
prevalent. There's one known prostitute in NYC who has over 230
convictions. She was on the cover fo the NY Post or the Daily News last
summer for it.
|
| |
| |
Answer to the question: It's the reflexive cry of
someone willingly enticed into a criminal act and
caught. E.g., John DeLorean.
Richard wrote:
One very good resource found on the web says this about entrapment:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm
<quote>
ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law
enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no
previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids
conviction in such a case.
However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break
the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a
favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is
not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to
offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in
an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim
of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime
charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that
Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the
person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or
persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person
is not guilty.
In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as
charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not
guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:
- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents
and not from the person accused of the crime.
- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into
committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime
is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before
the government agents spoke with him.
On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.
</quote>
Posted without written permission.
Note: No copyright statement found on the website in reference to this
article.
Larry, please note kindly the "third" item towards the end very closely.
If an undercover officer approaches a person, begins a conversation, and
leads that person into committing a crime that was not intended to be in the
first place, that sir, is entrapment.
I can only assume that most people who are arrested for "soliciting" under
these conditions just do not bother to challenge the arrest in any way.
The tv cop shows never show the court side of the issue because they are not
interested in doing so.
Assuming that even one case is dismissed by a judge for entrapment, why do
your officers continue using the tactic?
Harassment. And of course, for that unspeakable quota. Which we all know
does not exist.
It's a slow night when the officer has to drum up business right?
|
| |
| |
Delorean was importuned and refused. And importuned again. And misquoted and
lied to.
In other words, they tried too hard, and then they lied. He was acquitted by
the plain words on the tapes. He didn't just "get off".
On 27/7/03 19:32, in article
OUUUa.23977$Mc.1870648@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net, "Jonathan Ball"
<jonball@whitehouse.not> wrote:
Answer to the question: It's the reflexive cry of
someone willingly enticed into a criminal act and
caught. E.g., John DeLorean.
|
| |
| |
Harassment. And of course, for that unspeakable quota. Which we all know
does not exist.
It's a slow night when the officer has to drum up business right?
There are entire NYPD units, called the VED's (Vice Enforcement Divisions)
that deal solely with issues like prostiutution, gambling, untaxed
cigarettes, lottery scams, massage parlors, and things like that. Believe
me, they don't need to "drum up business" in any of these areas - it's
prevalent. There's one known prostitute in NYC who has over 230
convictions. She was on the cover fo the NY Post or the Daily News last
summer for it.
her rates went up 20% the next day ... AND ... she's booked solid through
Dec 2005
|
| |
| |
Larry wrote:
[...] There's one known prostitute in NYC who has over 230 convictions.
She was on the cover fo the NY Post or the Daily News last summer for it.
Probably the Post.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
|
