|
ToxicSlurpee posted:"Ma'am, we have here several text messages you sent asking if somebody knew how to have somebody murdered. Several other witnesses also indicate that you had asked how hard it was to have somebody killed. It is clear that you were actively seeking the services of a hitman; it is lucky that you contacted the police officer before a legitimate hitman. You stood to gain millions of dollars on the death of your husband and stated that if he wasn't wealthy you would have divorced him years ago. It seems to the court that you were actively seeking the death of your husband for financial reasons." You said: quote:Those things should be entrapment for the reasons I stated; it's entirely possible that the person would normally not be the kind of person to buy drugs but suddenly decide to. Or they might mishear the police officer or be a total pushover who just does whatever other people say. It should be entrapment. The fact that it isn't considered entrapment by America's legal system is a serious problem. In the scenario where the police put a phone number up advertising a hit-man and someone calls it, but has no other evidence that they were soliciting hit-men other than calling the police sting number, then that is entrapment under your rules. Not to mention the several other posts already addressing your misconceptions about entrapment laws everywhere outside of the U.S. Or the absurdity of saying peer pressure should be a reason to dismiss criminal charges.
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 02:03 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:You said: You're misreading what I said. I never said that passively offering something and catching people actively searching for that is entrapment. That isn't at all entrapment. Randomly offering it to people who aren't looking for it and then arresting them if they say yes is entrapment. There's a difference between setting bait and waiting to see if anybody takes it and actively trying to get people to take the bait.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:You're misreading what I said. I never said that passively offering something and catching people actively searching for that is entrapment. That isn't at all entrapment. No, again, it is not entrapment. Did some cop trick you when you were 19 or something? Is that why you're so mad about something and trying to be extremely wrong about what entrapment is?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 04:48
|
|
|
My favorite guide on entrapment: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633 That being said, IANAL but it's matched everything else I've seen on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
"You looking for (drug)?" "Yes" "I have some" "Here's my money" "Here's your drugs. SIKE HERES SOME HANDCUFFS" Also by your ridiculous standard of entrapment, rules of evidence would bar the wife's text messages from being used against her after calling the 'hitman'. e: do you consider the above conversation entrapment? Corsair Pool Boy fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Apr 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
Of all the things you could point to as the problem with American justice, you picked the thing that actually loving works right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 06:11
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:- A police officer actively trying to sell drugs, a person says, "No, thanks." A police officer says, "C'mon, just do it." The person says, "Okay." This is pretty much what happened in Sorrells. But you're right that this wouldn't be seen as entrapment today
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 08:08
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:
Jacobson, 1992 those of you that think it's ok for cops to run around committing crimes over low level drug busts are sick in the head and don't seem to realise that the supreme court has been dissenting on this point ever since entrapment was recognised
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 11:12
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Jacobson, 1992 In Jacobson, the police went "Cmon, just do it" for a solid two and a half years before the defendant gave in, manufacturing an entire cast of fictional characters, advocacy groups, and magazines in order to entice the defendant, and it was the extreme lengths that law enforcement went to that formed the basis for Jacobson's entrapment defense. It's not really analogous to anything that Toxicslurpee is talking about; nobody is arguing that the police are allowed to do literally anything without it being entrapment, just that mounting a successful entrapment defense involves something more than Toxicslurpee's comically dumb notions of the law. The police can ask you to commit a crime (more than once even), they can allow you to commit a crime, and they can even help you to commit a crime, but they can't trick, coerce, or compel you to commit a crime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 13:48
|
|
|
If you want to know how entrapment works, just watch the 1999 documentary Go
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 13:59
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Jacobson, 1992 Lol, if you think that: quote:White, reiterating what he had written in Ferber, acknowledged that child pornography was a social evil and that the government could use undercover investigations to enforce laws against it. After reviewing the previous cases on entrapment, he said that the more than two years in which investigators had tried to get Jacobson to buy various child-porn offerings had suggested he did not have a predisposition to do so. Is the same as saying, "C'mon, it's fine." Jacobson's case was entrapment because he said, "No." to committing a crime every single time for 2 and half years to the same investigation, before eventually deciding to do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
Like I said, Sorrells is a much better example
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 14:21
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Those things should be entrapment for the reasons I stated; it's entirely possible that the person would normally not be the kind of person to buy drugs but suddenly decide to. I want to live in a word where the first crime you commit is a mulligan. "I pulled you over because you're driving a stolen car, you're under arrest." "But I don't normally steal cars, this is my first time." "Oh my mistake, of course you're free to go."
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:I want to live in a word where the first crime you commit is a mulligan. Blowing my free one on assassinating one of the Kochs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 16:28
|
|
|
The correct response for a law-abiding person to someone repeatedly asking them to help them commit a crime is "i already told you no, shut the gently caress up about this already" If they persist: "ask me one more time and I'll report you to the police for harrassment" And if they continue to persist: "excuse me officer, this person is repeatedly asking me to break the law and won't leave me alone. Can you ask them to stop?" Any other answer makes you by definition a non-law abiding person. How is this difficult?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 16:28
|
|
|
Cactus posted:The correct response for a law-abiding person to someone repeatedly asking them to help them commit a crime is "i already told you no, shut the gently caress up about this already" Its not unreasonable to think you're being robbed at a certain point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
Oh I'm sorry, I must have walked into the entrapment thread. My bad, I thought this was the thread for laughing at chuds
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
Rape Stink posted:Oh I'm sorry, I must have walked into the entrapment thread. My bad, I thought this was the thread for laughing at chuds The real question is, were you made to go into the thread against your better judgement?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:The real question is, were you made to go into the thread against your better judgement? I asked the user control panel if it had any new posts about MAGA chuds for me and it said yes. Lots of them. Then I got this bullshit. Pretty clearly entrapment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Unlike a lot of derails it's a reasonably interesting discussion  Feel free to quote some Freep posts if you want the thread back on track. I'll read them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
In a desperate attempt to pull the thread back from entrapment: Melania Trump’s Radiant Smile For Barack Obama at Barbara Bush’s Funeral Lit Up the Internet Oh gross... quote:it Was the smile of a Prom Queen gently letting down the dweeby math geek. Over a picture of Michelle: quote:"Yo cracka...you bes' not be eyeballing my man." As opposed to every other photo of her? quote:The picture in question look to me like a very strained smile. Smiling through nausea. I imagine she thought she was representing the USA and needed to be cordial. quote:Wonder what President Obama just said to Mrs. Trump.... quote:
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
Yes, between Trump and Obama, Trump seems like the one who would've been Prom King, not the guy who was a star athlete.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
Any threads on the Nashville mass shooting yet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 21:59
|
|
|
Ubiquitous_ posted:Any threads on the Nashville mass shooting yet? quote:Failure of law enforcement again. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3649555/posts
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
The unfortunate part is that this Freeper is totally correct.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
Ubiquitous_ posted:The unfortunate part is that this Freeper is totally correct. There's already Freepers saying they "heard" the shooter is AntiFa.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:There's already Freepers saying they "heard" the shooter is AntiFa. I'd love to see their sources.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Yes, between Trump and Obama, Trump seems like the one who would've been Prom King, not the guy who was a star athlete. And liked by far more people Ubiquitous_ posted:The unfortunate part is that this Freeper is totally correct. Not really. the law worked. His old man gave him his gun back
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
Ubiquitous_ posted:I'd love to see their sources. the guy like 5 posts above
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:There's already Freepers saying they "heard" the shooter is AntiFa. The shooter is a SovCit with a bunch of mental issues (beyond a propensity to get nude and light up lovely diners). He thinks Taylor Swift was behind a gangstalking conspiracy towards him and he threatened to kill himself in a public parking lot a year or so back. His actual political beliefs don't really appear to be much of a factor here - although SovCits tend to be more than averagely right-wing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
Oh so it's another young southern white guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
MANime in the sheets posted:Oh so it's another young southern white guy. he's from the midwest orig
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:The shooter is a SovCit with a bunch of mental issues https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RfVbiefMdNU
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:You repeat yourself, but this always needs to be posted P. Barnes: hero of the people!
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
MANime in the sheets posted:"You looking for (drug)?" What I'm going to say here is "maybe." If it's a case where somebody regularly purchases drugs or is actively trying to purchase drugs then what I'm going to say is no it is not. If somebody is actively trying to commit a crime then it literally can't be entrapment. In the example of somebody trying to find somebody to murder their spouse, well...that's why I brought up that example. By the definition of entrapment it can't be entrapment if somebody is already trying to commit a crime. In that case if somebody is actively searching for somebody that is a hitman to commit a hit then, well, that's proof enough that somebody is in fact somebody that would commit said crime. Hiring somebody to murder somebody else is crime. If the police get wind that somebody is actively trying to hire a hitman then they have an undercover cop sting them then that isn't entrapment because that person was actively trying to commit a crime. If said person was not previously trying to murder their spouse than it would be entrapment. If, say, somebody just wanted a divorce with no murder or just really disliked who they were married to but wasn't seeking murder then it would be entrapment, I think. At least according to the actual wording of what entrapment is. The core, far as I know (I am not a lawyer) is if this is something somebody in question would actually do. If it's just the police randomly targeting random people then yes you could argue entrapment. In cases such as "this person regularly commits <crime> and we wanted evidence against them to make it easier to prosecute" then that isn't entrapment; that is a sting operation. So in that case if it's a person who already has been trying to buy drugs then no. It is not. If it's a case where the police just targeted some random person without evidence that they're looking for drugs then yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 06:01
|
|
|
Shut the gently caress up about entrapment already.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 06:09
|
|
|
Khizan posted:Shut the gently caress up about entrapment already. For real. Isn't there an IANAL thread somewhere you can take that to?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 09:32
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:In a desperate attempt to pull the thread back from entrapment: The funniest thing about Freeps hate boner for Obama is that while Obama was an ok to slight decent president, thanks to people on Freep and people like them his 8 years are smack between George Bush and Trump so history is gonna have him remember as one of our great presidents thanks to the idiots his term will be compared to before and after him 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:The funniest thing about Freeps hate boner for Obama is that while Obama was an ok to slight decent president, thanks to people on Freep and people like them his 8 years are smack between George Bush and Trump so history is gonna have him remember as one of our great presidents thanks to the idiots his term will be compared to before and after him It'll just be yet another graph they'll ignore that goes "good thing up during democrats, good thing down during republicans" or "bad thing down during democrats, bad thing up during republicans"
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 05:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 02:03 |
|
|
The great exodus out of America’s blue cities America's large cities: famous for nobody living there anymore. quote:Am I the only one in my spinning class at Equinox in Manhattan who’s fed up paying $200 every month for a gym with clean showers, $3,000 in rent every month for an apartment without cockroaches and $8 every morning for a cup of coffee? Am I the only one moving through the greater part of New York City boroughs and seeing an inexorable march of urban decay matched with the discomfort of crowding and inexplicable costs? I know I am not. quote:Positive of Exodus: Fewer electoral votes for the blue states. An interesting take on immigration: quote:Reminds me of the Dennis Prager video intended for immigrants who vote socialist: “Immigrants, don’t vote for what you fled!” This is an extremely common conservative talking point: Liberals gently caress up blue areas and then move to NV/TX/NC to gently caress them up too. quote:Liberals move to other states and recreate the environment they left behind. The true weakness of blue cities: lack of human rights violations. quote:I think it's spinning delusional tales that one's so smarter than everybody else while paying to ride a stationary bike that goes nowhere. This one post kinda says it all: these people associate living in the middle of nowhere with no walkable anything, massively disproportionate infrastructure per household, strip malls and lack of cultural institutions as "quality of life." quote:Unfortunately, developers are colluding with politicians to urbanize suburban and rural areas, lowering quality of life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 00:29
|
|