what is entrapment?

[Richards 0]

Quote

I've posted fact, been told that I had my head up my ass for stating that you can have blood forcibly draw on a DUI stop,

Not sure at all what that has to do with the discussion of entrapment?

Quote

You've posted opinion,

As have you with your link between DUI blood draws and entrapment. I have heard of wrongfull arrests and even wronfull convictions yet none of these cases even involved the word entrapment. Every time I hear the word "entrapment" it has something to do with some lowlife who was caught dead in the act of doing something he knew he shouldn't be doing and now wants to cry that the law did not protect him from himself. Examples;

Drug busts- they whine entrapment because the officer approached them. (Wouldn't entrap me because I don't sell drugs)

Undercover cops dressed as hookers to bust johns- they whine entrapment. (Wouldn't entrap me because I don't use hookers)

The show "To catch a predator". They act like little kids on the internet to get pedophiles to come looking for kiddie sex and when the cameras and cops surprise them at the door.......they whine entrapment (Wouldn't entrap me because I don't have such unhealthy interests in children)

It seems today that regardless of the legal definition, in the vernacular of criminals and bar-room lawyers, entrapment=sting-operation. Do they expect narcs/vice/sex-crime officers to announce who they are and what their intentions are in advance in the interest of integrity?

Again. Decent law abiding citizens don't get "entrapped" as I understand the definition of entrapment (based on where and when the term gets used), just scumbags. I will never have to fear being "entrapped"

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[freefalle 0]

Quote

>>>>>>>>>This line sounds like a line of crap, and no offense I think you are talking out of your ass. The only time an officer can order that your blood be drawn without your consent is if you are involved in an accident resulting in serious bodily injury (as deifned by statute) or death. That statute is to protect the rights of the victim or their family and to ensure consequences for your actions.

I'll make a deal with ya, If I can't provide a case where the cops did this and it was upheld by an appellate court, I will leave here forever, if I can provide 1, you leave forever. Trust me, there are several out there, I just need 1. Exactly, crawl back into your hole. As a matter of fact, I personally know a person this happened to. You can pig-love all ya want, but SOME states have this procedure in their disposal, even without an accident. Well, nuts or no nuts? (Hint: ask Masterrig)

>>>>>>>>>>>>As far as the rules of entrampent, they are to protect the public from the police (in a way)

In a BIG WAY, as a matter of fact. The exclusionary rule is there to dissuade police misconduct, meaning the SCOTUS knows pigs are prone to misconduct. So, you are right, sir.

>>>>>>>>>>>>the rule of entrapment states that the police will not do anything to encourage and individual to commit a criminal act that they would not have committed baring the encounter.

I paraphrased by saying that if the behavior is something they wouldn't do anyway - same idea.

>>>>>>>>>>>>In the case in the park yes I agree, that should fall into an entrapment as she (the officer) asked the defendant to expose himself.

I agree in a common sense view, but it won't be dismissed under the rules of entrapment. A cop can ask a person to lill someone, if that peson does it is not entrapment. To fall under entrapment you must go to a nunnery and persuade them to whore out.....entrapment defenses are all but gone under your parties SCOTUS.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Had he simple exposed himself without her making the request, he then should be found guilty of exposure and lewd and lacivious if he subsequently began masterbating after exposing himself

Makes sense, but not the way it works.

The ARTICLE that was quoted was an ARTICLE, not a state statute. Furthermore what it is refering to is the fact that some states gives law enforcement the option to take a blood test rather than a breath test, the artice specifically mentions AZ.

AZ gives law enforcement the option to use a blood test instead of breath test but it also gives the suspect the right to refuse (I can quote the line of the article that references this if you would like)

If they refuse they are going to lose their license,

but Im still wanting to see you show me a STATE STATUTE that allows for officer to use force to draw blood from a suspect arrested for DUI NOT involving serious injury or death regardless of the suspects refusal

Quote me one STATE STATUTE that says if a suspect is arrested for DUI, not involving serious injury or death THAT THE OFFICER CAN USE FORCE TO DRAW THE SAMPLE IF THE SUSPECT REFUSES. If you can do that, and it can be verified by looking up the statute, I will not post in speakers corner again. If you can't, go away.

Im taking my son camping, so I won't be able to check back here until Tuesday evening so will see what you have by then remember quote the STATE STATUTE that says if a suspect is arrested for DUI, not involving serious injury or death THAT THE OFFICER CAN USE FORCE TO DRAW THE SAMPLE IF THE SUSPECT REFUSES.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

a former nemesis

Let's not get too carried away.

A metaphire meaning someone who disagrees!!! Yea, not like that

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The Scotus allows cops to forcibly hold you down on a DUI stop and draw blood against your will. So keep voting R, keep seeing BS like the park incident happen.

This line sounds like a line of crap, and no offense I think you are talking out of your ass. The only time an officer can order that your blood be drawn without your consent is if you are involved in an accident resulting in serious bodily injury (as deifned by statute) or death. That statute is to protect the rights of the victim or their family and to ensure consequences for your actions.

As much as it pains me to agree with Lucky on anything, this time he's correct.

http://www.motorists.org/blog/duidwi/motorists-forced-to-let-officers-draw-blood-sample-at-dui-stops/

As a reprieve, he's wrong that the SCOTUS is allowing it.

A co-worker of mine had blood forcefully taken a couple yrs. ago. It's alive and well in Ca. as well. Nobody hurt and no property damage. Simple DUI stop. Here is some shit going on in Tehas>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945437/posts Ca> "Once an arrest is made, the driver must submit to chemical testing under a provision in the California Vehicle Code. California’s implied consent law means that anyone licensed to drive in the state consents to taking either a blood or breath test if arrested on suspicion of drinking and driving. If a driver is suspected of driving under the influence of drugs (DUID), a blood or urine test may be required.

If a person fails to submit to the required chemical testing, a number of serious repercussions follow, including fines, mandatory imprisonment if the person is convicted of DUI, and DMV suspension of the person’s driver’s license. Even if a person refuses to take a chemical test, courts have given leeway to arresting agencies to take the defendant’s blood by force. Therefore, submitting to the chemical test is in the best interests of someone arrested for DUI."

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The Scotus allows cops to forcibly hold you down on a DUI stop and draw blood against your will. So keep voting R, keep seeing BS like the park incident happen.

This line sounds like a line of crap, and no offense I think you are talking out of your ass. The only time an officer can order that your blood be drawn without your consent is if you are involved in an accident resulting in serious bodily injury (as deifned by statute) or death. That statute is to protect the rights of the victim or their family and to ensure consequences for your actions.

As much as it pains me to agree with Lucky on anything, this time he's correct.

http://www.motorists.org/blog/duidwi/motorists-forced-to-let-officers-draw-blood-sample-at-dui-stops/

As a reprieve, he's wrong that the SCOTUS is allowing it.

Yeah, um if some pig comes at me with a needle it will be HIS blood that gets drawn.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[happythoughts 0]

To me, this seems to be different from a DUI though.

She was topless in the park, he approached her and they started talking and getting comfortable, the woman smiling and resting her foot on his shoulder at one point. Eventually, she asked to see Garrison's penis.

Now... for Normal people... when a topless woman is smiling, chatting, and making physical contact with a man - that is a green light. Then, she asks to see it.

It wasn't the typical hooker/john setup. She asked to see his penis.

From the same article:

Quote

In New York City, nearly 300 people, many of whom had no criminal record, have been snared this year through the NYPD's Operation Lucky Bag, in which undercover officers leave a wallet, iPod or cell phone in a subway station and wait to see who picks it up.

The "we only catch criminals" BS doesn't really hold up here. All you have to do is pick it up.

Quote

Although deputy police Commissioner Paul Browne says the program has helped cut subway grand larcenies by half, critics say that the police have gone too far.

"It's pretty straightforward that this is a police-created crime," said Legal Aid Society lawyer Alex Lesman, who defended a man arrested for taking a bag containing an Xbox video game box, a Sprint cell phone and cash.

I guarantee you that if I abandon a bag with $20,000 in cash in a park, a law-abiding citizen will pick it up.

If an attractive woman in a park is obviously coming on to a man, a lot of law-abiding men will take her up on any suggestions that she has.

It is actually illegal to have sex in parked cars, but I'll bet that every cop on that force has taken a trip to their local lovers lane at one point in their life.
They should admit their crime and resign.

This has gotten to the point of idiocy.

[Zipp0 1]

What kind of a world do we live in where showing your penis to a topless woman is a crime?!!!

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

What kind of a world do we live in where showing your penis to a topless woman is a crime?!!!

That's pretty much the question.

Especially if it is her idea!

Women have been using their special "sex lures" to entrap drunken men for centuries, just to claim their innocence in guilt-court at a later time.

This sucks because they don't even get the sex before they are pronounced guilty.

If a hot topless woman is coming on to a man and asks to see his penis, in 96% of the cases, the man will comply. (In 4% of the cases, the men are gay.)

In another 8%, they are gay, but will still do so because men know that it is fun to have your penis out at every opportunity to discuss it.

[b1jercat 0]

Think FBI and ruby ridge, the local pigs are amateurs.

J

[skycop 0]

Quote

What kind of a world do we live in where showing your penis to a topless woman is a crime?!!!

We finally agree!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yea.............

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[skycop 0]

Quote

Yeah, um if some pig comes at me with a needle it will be HIS blood that gets drawn.

Bring it!!!!! ( I don't like needles much either), did ya have to go so quick to the pig thing.........


Seriously, I never seen or heard of such a thing, except in Europe. Implied consent (at least where I work) has it's limits.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Yeah, um if some pig comes at me with a needle it will be HIS blood that gets drawn.

Bring it!!!!! ( I don't like needles much either), did ya have to go so quick to the pig thing.........


Seriously, I never seen or heard of such a thing, except in Europe. Implied consent (at least where I work) has it's limits.

Unconscionable to slam someone to the ground, hold their arm out and shove a needle in there. I understand the need thing, but where does protection from crime cross-over to protection from government? I think they've passed it here and hopefully things go back after we shift the country left again. Damn pi.......cops.

BTW, it's the courts that are fucked, not as much teh cops, but the cops are the deliverers of the govs BS, so who is really worse? But if the courts fixed shit, then those cops would be weeded out, as of now, most of the courts condone that behavior.

[Lucky... 0]

Here's a Wisconsin case where there was no urine or breath test offerred, worse no warrant obtained. Then becuase the subject didn't have a religious card handy, they refused to acknowledge his religious affiliation. BTW, no accident either.

http://www.wisbar.org/res/capp/2003/02-2681.htm

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

April 30, 2003

Cornelia G. Clark

Clerk of Court of Appeals
NOTICE

Appeal No.
02-2681-CR
Cir. Ct. No. 01-CT-532

STATE OF WISCONSIN
IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT II



State of Wisconsin,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

Robert H. Miller,

Defendant-Appellant.




APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Waukesha County: MARK GEMPELER, Judge. Affirmed.

CIRCUMSTANCES

¶1. ANDERSON, J.1 Robert H. Miller appeals from a judgment of the trial court denying a motion to suppress the results of the analysis of a blood sample. Miller argues that the arresting officer used unreasonable force to secure the blood draw and that a forcible blood draw over religious objections is unconstitutional. Because we find that the amount of force was not unreasonable under the circumstances and that Miller has not shown an honestly held religious conviction, we affirm.

¶2. The parties stipulate that there was probable cause to arrest the defendant for drunk driving. When Deputy Ty Dick informed Miller that he would be taken to Waukesha Memorial Hospital to have blood drawn for testing, Miller refused the test. When Dick said that since it was Miller's second offense, the blood would be taken by force, Miller said he would "resist or fight ... all the way."

¶3. Miller then objected to the blood test on the grounds of being a Jehovah's Witness. Dick asked if Miller had any proof of that. Members of the Jehovah's Witness sect are known to object to blood transfusions and many carry church-supplied cards to that effect, lest in the event of an accident or illness they be given medical treatment incompatible with their beliefs. Miller said he had no card and offered no other evidence of membership in the church.

¶4. On the way to the hospital, Dick notified his dispatch center that Miller was going to resist the forced blood draw. The dispatcher contacted the City of Waukesha Police Department and when Miller and Dick arrived at the hospital's police escort room, they were met by two officers and a sergeant from the police department and by Deputy Carini from the sheriff's department. Dick instructed Miller to sit down. Miller said that he would stand; the deputy repeated his instructions, and one of the officers from the city escorted Miller to the chair.

¶5. Dick issued citations to Miller, read him the Implied Consent form, and asked if he would submit to the blood test. Miller refused. When the phlebotomist arrived to take the blood sample, Sergeant Engel advised Miller that either he could submit or the officers would remove the equipment from the room, immobilize him on the floor, and take the blood sample. Miller repeated that it was against his religion to give a blood sample.

¶6. Dick then removed the tables and chairs from the room and the other officers placed Miller face down on the floor with one officer holding each limb. As the phlebotomist attempted unsuccessfully to draw blood from Miller's left arm, he began to move his arm. The phlebotomist decided she needed a smaller needle, and while she was getting one, Miller said that he would cooperate if he were allowed to sit up. Dick told him that he had been given an opportunity to cooperate and "this is the route that we were taking and that this is what we were going to do."

¶7. When the phlebotomist tried again with a smaller needle, Miller again began to move. At that point, Carini took hold of Miller's head to hold him still. Miller objected that what was happening was "not natural" based on his experience of giving blood six years ago. The phlebotomist was finally able to draw two vials of blood from Miller.
_________________________________________________________


So does it really matter if it's codified? Hell, they didn't even get a telephonic warrant, so what does it matter if it's law or not? That is a huge fucking cop-out to worry if it's law, that i just a lame escape. Point is, it is policy and they do this shit all the time.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not sure at all what that has to do with the discussion of entrapment?

Drawing a parallel.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>As have you with your link between DUI blood draws and entrapment.

It was a sort of analogy, not really an opinion. Furthermore, when I do post opinion, I usually attach some supporting evidence with it, not, "my dddiy said we do it that way" etc....

>>>>>>>>>>>>>I have heard of wrongfull arrests and even wronfull convictions yet none of these cases even involved the word entrapment.

OK, and your point? Some case are pig misconduct, some are prosecutorial misconduct, some are witness lying, so there doesn't have to be entrapment for them to wrongful, that 's just one facet. One theory as to why you haven't heard the word, "entrapment" is due to the appellate courts limiting the defense of entrapment since the 70's.

>>>>>>>>>>>>Every time I hear the word "entrapment" it has something to do with some lowlife who was caught dead in the act of doing something he knew he shouldn't be doing and now wants to cry that the law did not protect him from himself.

I think you don't understand the concept of refusing to admit evidence that is ill-gotten. I realize you want to fry em all and let this fantasy of God sort them out, but just in case the .00000000001% there isn't a god (I puke), maybe we should do things right here on earth. Ernesto Miranda was a rapist and was convicted even w/o certain evidence that was excluded. Point is, pigs and the gov are also dirty and will set people up or when they realize the erred, continue the process and cover up their errors and let innocent people go to jail to avoid a scandal. The exclusionary rule was put into place to deter police misconduct. What would be your resolution if pigs are found to have entrapped, set up or otherwise acted with such misconduct that a person would have been wrongfully convicted if the fix wasn't caught? Would kick down a memo and ask all involved to apologize? Put a letter in their file? Pigs are inherently dirty and think everyone criminals, so these pigs would just go on and continue their good work. You fucking throw out all their evidence and the case, that will be the supposed deterrence that might make them act right some of the time.

But I know, good ole boy conservatives focus on the criminals, not the other criminals in blue.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Drug busts- they whine entrapment because the officer approached them. (Wouldn't entrap me because I don't sell drugs)

That s/b entrapment if the pig approaches and advances the deal

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Undercover cops dressed as hookers to bust johns- they whine entrapment. (Wouldn't entrap me because I don't use hookers)

If the hooker approaches and offers, that s/b entrapment

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The show "To catch a predator". They act like little kids on the internet to get pedophiles to come looking for kiddie sex and when the cameras and cops surprise them at the door.......they whine entrapment (Wouldn't entrap me because I don't have such unhealthy interests in children)

The predator goes to kids forums, that is not entrapment

>>>>>>>>>>>>>It seems today that regardless of the legal definition, in the vernacular of criminals and bar-room lawyers, entrapment=sting-operation. Do they expect narcs/vice/sex-crime officers to announce who they are and what their intentions are in advance in the interest of integrity?

I think it has to do with who approaches and advances the deal who in the former years, now it's just whatever the pig wants. They can whine entrapment all they want, these defenses are just about extinct to your pleasure.

>>>>>>>>>>>>Again. Decent law abiding citizens don't get "entrapped" as I understand the definition of entrapment (based on where and when the term gets used), just scumbags. I will never have to fear being "entrapped"

And this comes from a person who has probably never read one case where entrapment was alleged or even knows the legal definition of the same or history thereof.

[happythoughts 0]

Regardless of the general tactics for the other crimes, this just struck me as a special case. This is not drugs, sex with prostitutes, theft, etc.

These are law-abiding citizens who are conducting their life as honest people. They are living according to normal expectations.

If an attractive topless woman is physically touching a man and guides the conversation towards sex, and asks to see a mans penis, normal men will most likely show her.

Lawrocket can probably explain where, but there is a sub-text of "reasonable expectation" in the law.

In the context of what the woman was doing, it sounds reasonable.

I don't think that other sting operations are relevant or similar. This is a woman, doing everything to arouse a man, and then getting him arrested for it.

This isn't just entrapment, it is kind of a sad commentary on where society has arrived at.

It isn't just speeding tickets for "revenue enhancement", now it is the criminalization of everyone for monetary gain. It feeds the "arrest as an industry" theory.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>Regardless of the general tactics for the other crimes, this just struck me as a special case. This is not drugs, sex with prostitutes, theft, etc.

"this" being the park matter? A little unclear. As for special case, they all differ a bit, even the identical ones, and the lawyers hash that out. But as for police misconduct, there is a common thread in most cases in a general way and that is what case law is supposed to universally protect citizens from.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>These are law-abiding citizens who are conducting their life as honest people. They are living according to normal expectations.

We are all law abiding citizens who break the law, then become not-so law abiders. Do I think the park incident was entrapment the way I would interpret it? Yes. Do I think the law would interpret it that way with the Nazification (Bush word) we've undergone? No. The law adiding rhetoric is meaningless, except upon conviction and sentencing. WHat if you found this guy was a convicted kiddie molester once you've already decided the matter was entrapment? I bet ypu would change your mind. This is the kind of thinking we need to quell, entrapment is entrapment, even if it happens to Charles Manson or Mother Theressa; it's a standard, not a subjective title.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Lawrocket can probably explain where, but there is a sub-text of "reasonable expectation" in the law.

That term usually refers to reasonabe expectations of privacy, meaning would a reasonable person expect privacy in the park, at home, in their cars while driving, etc...

>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't think that other sting operations are relevant or similar. This is a woman, doing everything to arouse a man, and then getting him arrested for it.

You must think I think this case was legitimate in their tactics and should not be deemed entrapment. I don;t see how you get that, but I have the ability to objectively critique my own beliefs and calm bias. I can critique the politicians I viote for, I can critique aspects of my core beliefs, as there is no perfect system, just a best one for the envionment. Most people cheerlead and go down with the ship refusing to admit they were wrong, or things changed.

To be objective, even tho she was teasing his cock, he should have known to not pull it out in public. Have I pissed behind a dumpster before? Sure, and it's the same thing. For her to have yanked it out is different for her to have coaxed it out with words, but she did play a role in it. Other side, had she not been there, would he have pulled out his cock? Very doubtful with what I know, and this is why I call this entrapment. Back again, did he play a role? Yes. Most things are not that clear and that's why we have a SCOTUS and other appellate courts. Fortunately we have Nazi's here to keep them packed with conservatives so we get support for BS that is entrapment, but gets justified away.

>>>>>>>>>>>>If an attractive topless woman is physically touching a man ...

If she's an ugly pig it's different? It sounds as tho you're justifying male sex drive, which would likely be stronger with an attractive woman. Seriously, if you were at the nude beach somewhere and saw a beached whale, you would look away so you could have lunch later, but if she was a Hooter's girl you would put on the sunglasses and find a way to ditch the old lady - me too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This isn't just entrapment, it is kind of a sad commentary on where society has arrived at.

If you knew of other tyrpes of entrapment and forfietures under RICO you might think this is child's play.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>It isn't just speeding tickets for "revenue enhancement", now it is the criminalization of everyone for monetary gain. It feeds the "arrest as an industry" theory.

WHat I would pay to be naive again?

[Richards 0]

Quote

As have you with your link between DUI blood draws and entrapment.

It was a sort of analogy, not really an opinion. Furthermore, when I do post opinion, I usually attach some supporting evidence with it, not, "my dddiy said we do it that way" etc....

You gave examples....I gave examples. I do not see the difference. Where exactly did I say "my diddy said...."?

Quote

I have heard of wrongfull arrests and even wronfull convictions yet none of these cases even involved the word entrapment.

OK, and your point?

My point is that the only time I ever hear the word entrapment it is from some guy who knew that he shouldn't have been doing what he is doing.

Quote

Some case are pig misconduct, some are prosecutorial misconduct, some are witness lying, so there doesn't have to be entrapment for them to wrongful, that 's just one facet.

The discussion is about entrapment, not wronful arests. I was trying to stick to that discussion. You are going on a tangent.

Pigs? Nice.

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>Every time I hear the word "entrapment" it has something to do with some lowlife who was caught dead in the act of doing something he knew he shouldn't be doing and now wants to cry that the law did not protect him from himself.

I think you don't understand the concept of refusing to admit evidence that is ill-gotten.

If the cop does something wrong while getting the evidence then the cop should pay some sort of penalty. This should not suddenly make the evidence invalid.

Quote

I realize you want to fry em all and let this fantasy of God sort them out,

Where do you come up with this stuff? Have my words on this matter really presented such extremity or are you just desperate for any straw man argument you can come up with? Anyone who does not categorize all cops as pigs and seek way to make it harder for the cops to protect the average Joe is living some sort of vigilante fantasy? Believe it or not there is such a thing as middle ground. Just because I do not hate cops like you do does not mean I place them above reproach.

Quote

Point is, pigs and the gov are also dirty and will set people up or when they realize the erred, continue the process and cover up their errors and let innocent people go to jail to avoid a scandal.

Some police officers have done that, just as some soldiers have committed abuse of prisoners or even murder, some black people are gang-banging drug dealers...etc.

Quote

The exclusionary rule was put into place to deter police misconduct. What would be your resolution if pigs are found to have entrapped, set up or otherwise acted with such misconduct that a person would have been wrongfully convicted if the fix wasn't caught? Would kick down a memo and ask all involved to apologize? Put a letter in their file?

If the cop set up an innocent person then the cop should be prosecuted. If the person was doing something illegal then if the cop used misconduct to catch the guy, penalise the cop but the evidence should still exist. As a matter of fact a judge here in ontario ruled that in a case where a pistol used in a crime was obtained with an illegal search. the cops weer reprimanded but the evidence was still allowed and the offenders were convicted on that evidence. I think that is a good thing (does that fit your image of me being some charles bronson wannabe creaming my pants over a vigilante fantasy?)

Quote

Pigs are inherently dirty and think everyone criminals, so these pigs would just go on and continue their good work.

Oh the irony. Love the way you just generalised all cops for having a tendency to generalize.

Quote

You fucking throw out all their evidence and the case, that will be the supposed deterrence that might make them act right some of the time.

Or you can reprimand the cop in a manner that doesn't reward the criminal for the cops misconduct. I don't want abusive cops but I also don't want criminals getting a free pass.

Quote

But I know, good ole boy conservatives focus on the criminals, not the other criminals in blue.

Oh here we go again. Another rant about neo-con, chicken-hawck....etc. Stick to the discussion please.

Oh and yes, I do think we ned to prosecute corrupt cops, but as I have already said we should not do so by rewarding criminals.

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Drug busts- they whine entrapment because the officer approached them. (Wouldn't entrap me because I don't sell drugs)

That s/b entrapment if the pig approaches and advances the deal

Why. Some guy who has never sold drugs will spontaneously be overwhelmed with an urge to sell drugs just ebcause a cop approached them (and of course have drugs in distribution quantities on them)? Boo-hoo. Don't break the law.

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Undercover cops dressed as hookers to bust johns- they whine entrapment. (Wouldn't entrap me because I don't use hookers)

If the hooker approaches and offers, that s/b entrapment

Why. I have been approached by hookers and never felt trapped into using thier services. You make a choice to either breakl the law or not break the law.

Quote

They can whine entrapment all they want, these defenses are just about extinct to your pleasure.

My disagreeing with your stance upsets you?

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>Again. Decent law abiding citizens don't get "entrapped" as I understand the definition of entrapment (based on where and when the term gets used), just scumbags. I will never have to fear being "entrapped"

And this comes from a person who has probably never read one case where entrapment was alleged or even knows the legal definition of the same or history thereof.

[funjumper101 15]

I think that the actions of the woman are entrapment. The plantiff should find a decent lawyer and file a civil suit for damages. The criminal charges should go to a jury trial. Hopefully the jurors will include at least ONE person with a brain and a healthy disrespect for authority.

This sting reminds me of what happened in Westford, Massachusetts, many years ago.

MA is the only state I have ever been in that has freeway rest areas that do NOT have bathroom facilities. That's right, A rest area without a legal place to piss. Pretty pathetic, but true. At the time, there were no signs anywhere that there were no bathrooms. You found out after you pulled in, parked, and started looking for a place to go.

The Westford town police were making a ton of money hanging out in the bushes and arresting people who did the normal, natural thing, IE, pissing in the woods at the lame rest area with no bathrooms. This bullshit went on for years, so I am told.

The sleazy LEOs finally picked on the wrong person. IIRC, it was high powered lawyer from NYC that was also a member of the bar in MA. He lit up the town and the Commonwealth of MA for some serious cash via civil suit. MA still has freeway rest areas without bathroom facilities, but there are signs that say so. The signs were part of the settlement of the lawsuit. I think he donated the money from the suit to charity, but I may be wrong.

Next time you get a jury summons, show up and try to get on a jury.
I once managed to get a jury to vote to not convict a kid that was charged with some really bullshit charges. I was amazed at how STUPID most of the jurors were. The morons were all set to convict, even though the kid's lawyer had totally blown up the case against him. The argument I heard was that "He wouldn't have been charged if he hadn't done "something wrong". Too much respect for the law, too few functioning brain cells, ZERO critical thinking skills. I wouldn't have made the jury, but the DA had used up all of his "punt the intelligent juror for no good reason" cards.

[akarunway 1]

Well I was going to cite A LOT of cases but. Fuck THAT. It's all about money folks if you haven't figured that out. Pigs' (and the whole judicial system)gotta earn their paychecks.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

what is entrapment?

What is butt secks?

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[Richards 0]

Quote

This sting reminds me of what happened in Westford, Massachusetts, many years ago.

MA is the only state I have ever been in that has freeway rest areas that do NOT have bathroom facilities. That's right, A rest area without a legal place to piss. Pretty pathetic, but true. At the time, there were no signs anywhere that there were no bathrooms. You found out after you pulled in, parked, and started looking for a place to go.

The Westford town police were making a ton of money hanging out in the bushes and arresting people who did the normal, natural thing, IE, pissing in the woods at the lame rest area with no bathrooms.

There is no doubt that there are some chickenshit stunts to pull in revenue out there. I was more referring to criminal cases. I agreed with photo radar but our cops up here abused it just to make a quick buck.

I was thinking of cases involving drugs and such.

No doubt that there are some who just love to convict everyone and hang-em-high, but the other extreme I am seing here is the "fuck the pigs...lets aquit everyone because cops are all liars" that I have seen in this thread that also is concerning.

I do not beleive that people should not question the cops or arrests. I just find that in all the cases in the media where lawyers have used the term entrapment or people on this board have, the case just looks pretty cut and dry.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[ExAFO 0]

What is the Matrix?

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[happythoughts 0]

On the right side of the link to the story is a link that shows the actual surveillance video.

In viewing the actual video, I see an adult, topless woman and an adult man sitting in a large grassy area under a tree.

There are no other people in the video area.

At one point, the woman lays on her back and throws her legs into the air and kicks her feet. Shortly, she puts her foot on his shoulder and caresses him.
Then, she lays back (with her leg still on his shoulder) and drops the other knee a little to spread her legs.

According to the report, at some point, she asks to see his penis. He was sitting upright and you cannot see it on the video.

Watch the video. See what you think.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

On the right side of the link to the story is a link that shows the actual surveillance video.

In viewing the actual video, I see an adult, topless woman and an adult man sitting in a large grassy area under a tree.

There are no other people in the video area.

At one point, the woman lays on her back and throws her legs into the air and kicks her feet. Shortly, she puts her foot on his shoulder and caresses him.
Then, she lays back (with her leg still on his shoulder) and drops the other knee a little to spread her legs.

According to the report, at some point, she asks to see his penis. He was sitting upright and you cannot see it on the video.

Watch the video. See what you think.

I am with family over the holidays. Is the video suitable or should I wait for a private moment?

Anyway, my comments were more general in nature and not specific to this incident. From what you describe it sounds like a chickenshit charge, but I will watch it when I am alone. I still think people throw the word entrapment around somewhat gratuitously.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[happythoughts 0]

The woman is topless, but the video is shot from a distance with a long range lens, so it is not apparent (I tried, I couldn't see anything.)

Another interesting item is the comments posted about the article. The women were overwhelmingly amazed at the body language of the woman.

Lying on her back, kicking her legs, and spreading them. I wouldn't bet money on what (if) she was wearing under the shorts.

I can almost guarantee that if a woman came onto me like that, I'd probably have done the same thing in the same discreet fashion.