If a female police dresses as a prostitute and gets someone to offer her money for sex, is that entrapment?
If the FBI pretend to offer assistance to a potential bomber, is that entrapment?
If a Cop radios ahead to another Cop that someone in a blue Ford escort is speeding, is that entrapment?
Message Board Archives
What is considered entrapment?
In reply to black
You want opinion or the law?
Just so everyone is super clear going in....
How do the real prostitutes GET people to offer them money?
Do they become a potential bomber after or before this 'entrapment'?
What if they used a telegraph? Or horse carrier?
Or just outrun the driver to the next cop and tell him by mouth?
In reply to Ayenmol
Opinion, but if you can offer some insight on the law, that would be fine.
In reply to black
Can you at least clarify the above? That way everyone knows for sure what opinion is needed.
In reply to Ayenmol
Does it matter? If I am not inclined to buy pum pum, I don't think anyone can make me do it.
Again, someone cannot make you do something that you are not inclined to do, unless it is forced.
In reply to black
In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent or agent of the state induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit
So lay out why you think your scenarios raise doubt in light of the law.
In reply to black
I see...so?
So how are the people in your scenario forced?
In reply to Ayenmol
They are not forced, in the scenarios above.
In reply to black
So then it is not entrapment?
In reply to Ayenmol
You Tell me.
How the cops conduct themselves in the scenarios where they are offering assistance to the criminal element is important to get a conviction.
For example, the female cop cannot make the proposition. She has to allow the perp to offer.
Same would apply for the bomb perp...otherwise he could get of with he was placed under stress.
The speeding scenario is just not thought out at all...the cop did not make him speed in any way and cops have a radio for a reason!
So tell your crack pot lawyer he could fight the first two but you need to pay up for the speeding ticket.
In reply to black
But, if you were planning to buy some and the police women interpreted your offer as an intent to so, it doesnt matter that the prostitute was a police woman. It was your intent and you were caught red-handed in the act of solicitation.
Slammer for you. No entrapment for your thoughts buddy.
In reply to Ayenmol
I disagree, in most cases, the FBI received a tip that a person (potential bomber) may have become radicalized.
In the case with the female cop, they are usually approached and then they engage that person. It is not a crime until money is offered.
In reply to Casper
Half the time the man argue against his own point.
You just have to give him rope.
In reply to Casper
Slammer for you. No entrapment for your thoughts buddy
I agree. That was my point when so said it did not matter.
In reply to black
You disagree with what?
In reply to black
I agree. That was my point when so said it did not matter
You just come up with stuff in your mind and argue with yourself.
In reply to black
If suspicion of radicalization was sufficient for conviction why is a sting necessary?
In reply to Ayenmol
Because you have to have proof?
Look Dude, I know how law enforcement works, they have to build strong cases to get convictions.
Judges will simply throw out weak cases.
In reply to black
So then it's not entrapment?
Or is this thread the entrapment?
In reply to black
Sooo, entrapment is ok as long as it bolsters a weak case?
In reply to Ayenmol
Why are you being so difficult? I ask for your opinion and you are making this about me. That is why you and a lot of people on here don't get along.
In reply to black
But it is about you.
Did any of your scenarios happen?
You come up with three scenarios that are obviously not entrapment, and ask for opinions.
So either you trying to entrap somebody or you lack imagination.
In reply to Ayenmol
Some people view them as entrapment. All I wanted was your opinion.
In reply to black
Some people does not matter...the law matters..plus I gave you the scenarios where doubt can be sown.
But the act of law enforcement engaging a perp to catch him in the act of a crime is not in itself breaking the law.
Btw the law is called entrapment...it is the law!
So you can't discuss a law without considering the LAW!
And again, the speeding one...what?
The only trap that I sometimes find offensive idps where the car is left running.
I do not like that at all.
In reply to Ayenmol
It's called a "speed trap", it happens all over the U.S. People speed when they don't see cops or they think that cops are not around. That is the point of a speed trap, the cops are hidden or disguised.
In reply to black
Yeah it is called that and it happens all over the US!
What does that tell you?
So if a cop is hidden or not around you are not breaking the law?
In reply to Ayenmol
Oh geez dude!! It's obvious thst we agree on most of these scenarios, that is why I wanted different views. Some people still think that it's entrapment, regardless of what the law says.
In reply to black
What different views...?
So you were trying to entrap some dufus?
A rapid fire post out between black and ayenmol. Do both of you work in Government?
In reply to nick2020
Don't you have some 5 yr old post to go dig up?
In reply to nick2020
You missed one of the stooges ... check again
In reply to Ayenmol
In this scenario, (speed trap) what if the cop ahead didn't actually catch you speeding but gave you a ticket, is that entrapment?
In reply to black
It depends on the law in that situation.
But generally any officer can testify in court under oath!
Additionally, you don't get to simply put 'en' and 'ment' with whatever you feel is a trap and call it entrapment.
I can lay food in a trap for a mouse and end it's life...is that entrapment?
An employer can leave money where it can be found to catch a thieving employee, is that entrapment?
In reply to black
Why do you always engage in subjects you know nothing about?
Where did you ever get the idea from that it is not a crime until money is offered?
Try researching the section in law dealing with "solicitation"
In reply to Star
What are you going to charge them with JACKASS?
Men approach women on the streets everyday.
The offer of money is what makes it prostitution.
In reply to black
Kindly research the law on solicitation my friend.
Enlighten yourself. As I said you have no idea what you are talking about.
In reply to Star
Dude, without the offer or exchange of money, the case will be thrown out in court.
In reply to black
Don't want to come down too hard on you. Trust me on this one.
The word "inchoate" in law should help you to understand what you are dealing with.
I won't prolong this discussion any further.
In reply to Star
Dude, you cannot prove solicitation of prostitution unless money is offered or exchanged.
If that's the case, every man that approaches a woman could be charged with a crime.
In reply to black
Mr Black, I did not write the following piece of legislation, ok. Do a little research, I am not going to help you with this one.
In reply to Star
Dude, the law is written that way but you cannot arrest someone on assumption.
When the police arrest a prostitute it is because she is a known prostitute and was observed taking money for her services.
In reply to black
You are on your own mate. The following quote is right out of the law books , ok.
Find a first year law student to explain it for you because I can see you really need some help with this one.
In reply to Star
The law is written that way for a reason
That is what I have been saying all along.
The OFFER or exchange of money.
That is why the law states that money does not have to be exchanged.
Money is the key, whether it's offered right away or after services are rendered.
Defenses to Solicitation of Prostitution Charges
For a basic solicitation charge, the defenses are usually focused on whether or not an agreement actually existed. Essentially the defense is that the two people were discussing having a sexual encounter, but the encounter was not contingent of the exchange of a fee. Another defense is to simply counter that the solicitation was not for sexual relations, but rather a flirtation. This defense strives to refute the intent and fee requirements of a basic solicitation of prostitution charge.
This is why the offer or exchange of money is crucial. Defense lawyers can easily win cases without the things above occurring.
In reply to black
Google isn't going to help you with this one.
You have to know the law and you have to know what you are looking for. Once again you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Why do you think the offer or exchange of money is crucial?
In reply to Star
Dude, this part of the law was written to cover what I stated above.
The money might not have been exchanged but it was OFFERED.
MONEY IS THE KEY.
In reply to Star
Black got you there bro, you tried a ting but got lost in the wording.
The money does not have to physically exchange hands, but there has to be an agreement or understanding of a transactional emgagement.
In reply to Ayenmol
My friend you are wrong. I think I am in a position to know what I am talking about.
Let's put it this way, if you or Mr Black were in my first year class you all would get a big fat zero.
Go to the law library tomorrow and stop guessing and googling and still getting it wrong.
In reply to Star
Where do you teach? You know that the laws are not the same everywhere, right?
Wiki
As I understand this goes back to the original discussion as to entrapment.,which is that even if the crime of purchasing sex has not been completed the agreement has been made, thus the crime, or inchoate...no?
But if someone is walking around in town offering free livations for the person who buys them a drink...not sure that passes in court as solicitation.
In reply to Star
Let's put it this way, if you or Mr Black were in my first year class you all would get a big fat zero.
Go to the law library tomorrow and stop guessing and googling and still getting it wrong.
Dude, laws are written to cover as many scenarios as possible. With today's technology, people could be setting up payment arrangements online.
You are not looking at the total picture.
In reply to Ayenmol
Star does not seem to understand that proving intent would be almost impossible without the offer or exchange of money.
In reply to black
A known prostitute can be arrested just for walking the streets...so I get his point,
But the charges don't usually stick and usually result in a week or so in jail depending on jurisdiction laws.
In reply to Ayenmol
Known is the key word.
In reply to black
You can't arrest a known thief for walking the streets.
In reply to Ayenmol
Like I said before, laws are written to cover as many scenarios as possible. A case could be made that she is actually working the streets or some other law comes into play that would facilitate her arrest. Most of the time they are released after a few hours.
In reply to Ayenmol
So if she's headed for the pharmacy to buy a new pack of condoms they could arrest her?
This thread is hilarious....
In reply to Larr Pullo
The term walking the streets is used to refer to something specific.
Which is why I posted the second scenario to black's implication of known...
In reply to Ayenmol
I think the point is that prostitution usually has a "loitering" component to it....
In reply to Larr Pullo
Really? Is that what they hit the drug dealers with too?
In reply to Star
Money is the only way to determine intent.
Sex between two consenting adults is not illegal, it is only when money is offered that it becomes a problem.
What if a woman was engaged in prostitution without her boyfriend's knowledge? Would you arrest her or him if she had sex with her boyfriend?
By the way, the "inchoate" would take affect after the money is offered. The crime (physical act) still would not have been completed at that point.
In reply to Star
I see you disappeared mofo.
Ya forkane idiot!!!
Does anyone have animal spray?
Too many cockamamie ideas.
The hosting rights were awarded in April 2006, after England and Wales withdrew from the bidding to host the 2015 ICC Cricket World Cup, which was held in Australia and New Zealand. The first match will be played at The Oval while the final will be played at Lord's. It is the fifth time that the Cricket World Cup will be held in England and Wales, following the 1975, 1979, 1983 and 1999 World Cups.
<snipped by your friendly moderator>
<snipped by your friendly moderator>
In reply to asad664
This some kinda joke?
Moderator we need a sticky in the Rum Shop.
In reply to nick2020
only an admin can make stickies
In reply to asad664
How is it snipped by the moderator if it's still there?
Are you ok?
Search
Live Scores
- no matches