• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Entrapment - Golf? or Life?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tritium

Member
What is the name of your state? Michigan

I noticed a posting was set to close. I can probably understand why when a question seems to only produce negative responses, none of which are helpful. I will admit though, I skipped page 2. And for Omicron, I believe your acquired friend can easily use the entrapment defense. But tell your friend that he should realize he was stupid to trust a friend/dealer/person of the night to have gone through all that trouble. And I wouldn't have personally gone so far as to buy drugs and end of delivering them too. I would've have been the first to say.. ugh... you don't suspect anything weird? I'm sure the guy who needed your acquired friends assistance, and since your friend was the least likely to put a hit on him, he won! yay. It's nice when being nice pays off.

The critical factor in the defense of entrapment is that the person would not have committed the crime but for the actions of the government, in other words that the person was *otherwise unwilling*. That is to say, if the actions of the government were the critical factor which converted an otherwise uninterested person into a criminal, then it will be entrapment. But if the government merely provides the opportunity for a person to act on their own criminal intentions, then it is not entrapment.

A good example is the use of bait cars by some urban police departments, which will park an ordinary looking car by the side of the street and keep it under surveillance. When a person hot-wires the car and tries to drive off, they cut the ignition by remote control and move in. Courts have ruled this procedure is not entrapment. Since the bait car was parked in an ordinary way, such that it did not stand out from other cars, it is clear that any person who tried to steal it was already intent on stealing a car, and that notion was not planted in their minds by anything the police department had done.

On the other hand, if the police department had left the car with the windows open, the doors unlocked, and the keys hanging out of the driver's-side door with a sign that said "be back tomorrow", a situation would be created whereby the notion of stealing the car might be implanted into the mind of a person who otherwise might never have stolen a car. Such a case would be entrapment.

In the case of child molestation, the same reasoning applies, and police must be very careful how they develop the online relationship with the potential molestor: If they go on the internet and say, "Hi im a 17 yr old girl looking for sex! I sure am horny! I really want some sex! call me at this # right away!!!", the very idea of having sex with the girl might be implanted into the mind of a person who otherwise might never have thought of having sex with an underage person. That would be entrapment.

On the other hand, if the police are careful to allow the online relationship to develop so the molestor is the one who brings up the idea of having sex, un-prompted by anything that the child has said online, then it will be clear that the molestor was already intent on committing the crime, and the police could clearly not be accused of putting the idea there. In other words, in such a case the person was not "otherwise unwilling."

There has been a conviction overturned on grounds of entrapment, where child pornography was actively and repeatedly marketed to a person by a government agency. But if a person is already looking for sex online, then it is clearly not entrapment.

Reference:
Jacobson vs. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1124.ZD.html
 


Tritium

Member
I would also like to make note, that the views and opinions expressed are not to be misconstrued as legal advice, not should it be the determining factor when choosing your defense. I am not qualified by any states standards to conduct business as legal representation in any way. I will not be held responsible for any action taken in response to this or any other post.

Thank You

-Trit,
LOPWPTS
 

fairisfair

Senior Member
how exactly is it that you are able to "notice that a post is setting to close"?

I have been here a long time, I am not able to see when a post is setting to close.

I can however see when the administrator of the site has determined that a thread has run it's course and closes it. Perhaps you might want to notice up on that.:rolleyes:

and if you are NOT an attorney, whyever are you using a signature line that infers that you might be???
 

fairisfair

Senior Member
What is the name of your state? Michigan

I noticed a posting was set to close. I can probably understand why when a question seems to only produce negative responses, none of which are helpful. I will admit though, I skipped page 2. And for Omicron, I believe your acquired friend can easily use the entrapment defense. But tell your friend that he should realize he was stupid to trust a friend/dealer/person of the night to have gone through all that trouble. And I wouldn't have personally gone so far as to buy drugs and end of delivering them too. I would've have been the first to say.. ugh... you don't suspect anything weird? I'm sure the guy who needed your acquired friends assistance, and since your friend was the least likely to put a hit on him, he won! yay. It's nice when being nice pays off.

The critical factor in the defense of entrapment is that the person would not have committed the crime but for the actions of the government, in other words that the person was *otherwise unwilling*. That is to say, if the actions of the government were the critical factor which converted an otherwise uninterested person into a criminal, then it will be entrapment. But if the government merely provides the opportunity for a person to act on their own criminal intentions, then it is not entrapment.

A good example is the use of bait cars by some urban police departments, which will park an ordinary looking car by the side of the street and keep it under surveillance. When a person hot-wires the car and tries to drive off, they cut the ignition by remote control and move in. Courts have ruled this procedure is not entrapment. Since the bait car was parked in an ordinary way, such that it did not stand out from other cars, it is clear that any person who tried to steal it was already intent on stealing a car, and that notion was not planted in their minds by anything the police department had done.

On the other hand, if the police department had left the car with the windows open, the doors unlocked, and the keys hanging out of the driver's-side door with a sign that said "be back tomorrow", a situation would be created whereby the notion of stealing the car might be implanted into the mind of a person who otherwise might never have stolen a car. Such a case would be entrapment.

In the case of child molestation, the same reasoning applies, and police must be very careful how they develop the online relationship with the potential molestor: If they go on the internet and say, "Hi im a 17 yr old girl looking for sex! I sure am horny! I really want some sex! call me at this # right away!!!", the very idea of having sex with the girl might be implanted into the mind of a person who otherwise might never have thought of having sex with an underage person. That would be entrapment.

On the other hand, if the police are careful to allow the online relationship to develop so the molestor is the one who brings up the idea of having sex, un-prompted by anything that the child has said online, then it will be clear that the molestor was already intent on committing the crime, and the police could clearly not be accused of putting the idea there. In other words, in such a case the person was not "otherwise unwilling."

There has been a conviction overturned on grounds of entrapment, where child pornography was actively and repeatedly marketed to a person by a government agency. But if a person is already looking for sex online, then it is clearly not entrapment.

Reference:
Jacobson vs. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1124.ZD.html
do ya think that if a person is already involved in drugs, and has his own drug dealer, that might not be entrapment either?

Since when does this case equate with child porn and molesters? sssssssstttttttrrrreeeettttccchhhhh
 

racer72

Senior Member
I would also like to make note that I am an idiot, that the views and opinions expressed are not to be misconstrued as anything even close to legal advice, not should it be the determining factor when choosing your defense. I am not qualified to give a correct answer to anything by any states standards to conduct business as legal representation in any way. I will not be held responsible for any action taken in response to this or any other post because I am blowhard with nothing better to do.

Thank You

-Twit,
LOPWPTS
I took the pleasure of correcting your second post.
 

Tritium

Member
I took the pleasure of correcting your second post.
Well, doesn't surprise me really. Ultimately, your opinion does not harm me in any way, other then to bring to light a truth about yourself. While I may not be licensed to practice law, that does not mean I cannot understand it, and provide actual facts that are otherwise missing from the most senior of members in this forum. The problem with a person like yourself is, you misrepresent yourself as being a master of law, when your instinctual response is only to grunt like a pig, and leave behind a trail of feces mysteriously spewing from a hole in your head.

Why not try to provide something useful, rather than your vulgar ego?

Or would that require something more than what you are capable of?
:eek:
 

Tritium

Member
do ya think that if a person is already involved in drugs, and has his own drug dealer, that might not be entrapment either?

Since when does this case equate with child porn and molesters? sssssssstttttttrrrreeeettttccchhhhh
Ahhh, so because he was able to acqure illegal drugs under the impression that this guys life could be in jeopardy if he couldn't come through for him? That in turn invalidates the qualifying factors in determining whether or not if it is Entrapment?

To be honest, It's not difficult to find illegal drugs in todays world. All it takes is pulling over to the side of the road to ask for directions.

Entrapment is when a person is arrested for commiting a crime that was conspired by officers of the law. Since they had a person in custody that was acting on the Law Enforcers instructions to coax a person to break the law, especially if the person initially refused, but upon implying or even blatantly stating his life was in danger if he did not 'help' him out. That would fall into the same category in my opinion.

Also, the baking soda caplets, sounds to me like he couldn't come up with ALL of the money or he didn't know anyone, so acquired the next best thing... fakes.

Assuming the original post was accurate and other details weren't left out, he should pursue. I would just make sure that the person in question understand the definition of key components of the law as defined by your state.
----
I don't really see how my signature implies that I am deceitful.

Okay, time to start making dinner.
 
Last edited:

fairisfair

Senior Member
Ahhh, so because he was able to acqure illegal drugs under the impression that this guys life could be in jeopardy if he couldn't come through for him? That in turn invalidates the qualifying factors in determining whether or not if it is Entrapment?

To be honest, It's not difficult to find illegal drugs in todays world. All it takes is pulling over to the side of the road to ask for directions.

Entrapment is when a person is arrested for commiting a crime that was conspired by officers of the law. Since they had a person in custody that was acting on the Law Enforcers instructions to coax a person to break the law, especially if the person initially refused, but upon implying or even blatantly stating his life was in danger if he did not 'help' him out. That would fall into the same category in my opinion.

Also, the baking soda caplets, sounds to me like he couldn't come up with ALL of the money or he didn't know anyone, so acquired the next best thing... fakes.

Assuming the original post was accurate and other details weren't left out, he should pursue. I would just make sure that the person in question understand the definition of key components of the law as defined by your state.
----
I don't really see how my signature implies that I am deceitful.

Okay, time to start making dinner.
I am well aware of what entrapment is and is not. This is not entrapment. The idea that a drug dealers life is in danger. Oh, my, what a newsflash THAT must have been. Yes, why of course, any normal law abiding citizen would immediately change their normal method of operation in daily activities and run right out to purchase crap drugs to protect him. WHATEVER:rolleyes::rolleyes:

BS on the baking soda. It just means that he was not above dealing drugs, or dealing crap.

Your signature implies that you are someone of the legal profession, simply by it's denial in a convoluted manner. However, I did notice that you seem to have changed it.

by the way, I have yet to see a pig who spewed feces from it's head. But then, I have not seen all of Michigan.
 

Tritium

Member
I am well aware of what entrapment is and is not. This is not entrapment. The idea that a drug dealers life is in danger. Oh, my, what a newsflash THAT must have been. Yes, why of course, any normal law abiding citizen would immediately change their normal method of operation in daily activities and run right out to purchase crap drugs to protect him. WHATEVER:rolleyes::rolleyes:
I don't believe it was stated that the person dealt drugs specifically, only that he knew someone who had access to such. And though his action may not have been well thought out, he did decide to try and be helpful. I don't know many people who would have stayed on the phone long enough to be annoyed by them, let alone the trouble of obtaining and delivering. Heck, I'm happy if my Pizza guy remembers to show up with everything I ordered. .

BS on the baking soda. It just means that he was not above dealing drugs, or dealing crap.
Ultimately, the question is, by having baking soda pills, was he breaking the law. I may be wrong, however, If a person is pulled over, and you are asked to submit to a search and they find drugs underneath the drivers seat, and you didn't know, you just borrowed it, ignorance of it does not exclude you from responsibility. Nor should it include you. But again, states could have laws in place the specifcally deal with these claims.

Your signature implies that you are someone of the legal profession, simply by it's denial in a convoluted manner. However, I did notice that you seem to have changed it.

by the way, I have yet to see a pig who spewed feces from it's head. But then, I have not seen all of Michigan.
Oh, that wasn't part of my signature, it was just a statement I added to the original post to hopefully be sure they were informed, and not running out the door half ****ed.

And now, your regularly scheduled program.

P.S. Summertime - Try Mackinac Island. (Pronounced Makinaw) It's really a pleasant place, no cars allowed, except for 1 fire truck, and a cop car that hadn't been used for quite some time. They have the Grand Hotel, which is the Hotel from the movie "Somewhere in Time" starring Christopher Reeves.
 
Last edited:

fairisfair

Senior Member
On behalf of all of Michigan, I apologize for Tritium.

:)
Michigan should be proud to have you Quince.

Michigan is rather large, perhaps it is big enough for both you and Tritium.

Maybe we need to introduce Tritium to Bored Attorney?? It has worked before. ROTFL

He does seem to have at least a modicum of sense, however misplaced.
 

fairisfair

Senior Member
I don't believe it was stated that the person dealt drugs specifically, only that he knew someone who had access to such. And though his action may not have been well thought out, he did decide to try and be helpful. I don't know many people who would have stayed on the phone long enough to be annoyed by them, let alone the trouble of obtaining and delivering. Heck, I'm happy if my Pizza guy remembers to show up with everything I ordered. .
one giant leap for mankind, from user to dealer


Ultimately, the question is, by having baking soda pills, was he breaking the law. I may be wrong, however, If a person is pulled over, and you are asked to submit to a search and they find drugs underneath the drivers seat, and you didn't know, you just borrowed it, ignorance of it does not exclude you from responsibility. Nor should it include you. But again, states could have laws in place the specifcally deal with these claims. it may nt have been illegal for him to possess the baking soda caplets, it WAS illegal for him to participate in the selling of them



Oh, that wasn't part of my signature, it was just a statement I added to the original post to hopefully be sure they were informed, and not running out the door half ****ed.splitting hairs, not my favorite pastime

And now, your regularly scheduled program.

P.S. Summertime - Try Mackinac Island. (Pronounced Makinaw) It's really a pleasant place, no cars allowed, except for 1 fire truck, and a cop car that hadn't been used for quite some time. They have the Grand Hotel, which is the Hotel from the movie "Somewhere in Time" starring Christopher Reeves.
thanks for the grammar lesson, I am also quite aware of the pronounciation of the word Mackinac, are you telling me that is where the spewing pigs are located??:p
 

omicron

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Michigan

I noticed a posting was set to close. I can probably understand why when a question seems to only produce negative responses, none of which are helpful. I will admit though, I skipped page 2. And for Omicron, I believe your acquired friend can easily use the entrapment defense. But tell your friend that he should realize he was stupid to trust a friend/dealer/person of the night to have gone through all that trouble. And I wouldn't have personally gone so far as to buy drugs and end of delivering them too. I would've have been the first to say.. ugh... you don't suspect anything weird? I'm sure the guy who needed your acquired friends assistance, and since your friend was the least likely to put a hit on him, he won! yay. It's nice when being nice pays off.

The critical factor in the defense of entrapment is that the person would not have committed the crime but for the actions of the government, in other words that the person was *otherwise unwilling*. That is to say, if the actions of the government were the critical factor which converted an otherwise uninterested person into a criminal, then it will be entrapment. But if the government merely provides the opportunity for a person to act on their own criminal intentions, then it is not entrapment.

A good example is the use of bait cars by some urban police departments, which will park an ordinary looking car by the side of the street and keep it under surveillance. When a person hot-wires the car and tries to drive off, they cut the ignition by remote control and move in. Courts have ruled this procedure is not entrapment. Since the bait car was parked in an ordinary way, such that it did not stand out from other cars, it is clear that any person who tried to steal it was already intent on stealing a car, and that notion was not planted in their minds by anything the police department had done.

On the other hand, if the police department had left the car with the windows open, the doors unlocked, and the keys hanging out of the driver's-side door with a sign that said "be back tomorrow", a situation would be created whereby the notion of stealing the car might be implanted into the mind of a person who otherwise might never have stolen a car. Such a case would be entrapment.

In the case of child molestation, the same reasoning applies, and police must be very careful how they develop the online relationship with the potential molestor: If they go on the internet and say, "Hi im a 17 yr old girl looking for sex! I sure am horny! I really want some sex! call me at this # right away!!!", the very idea of having sex with the girl might be implanted into the mind of a person who otherwise might never have thought of having sex with an underage person. That would be entrapment.

On the other hand, if the police are careful to allow the online relationship to develop so the molestor is the one who brings up the idea of having sex, un-prompted by anything that the child has said online, then it will be clear that the molestor was already intent on committing the crime, and the police could clearly not be accused of putting the idea there. In other words, in such a case the person was not "otherwise unwilling."

There has been a conviction overturned on grounds of entrapment, where child pornography was actively and repeatedly marketed to a person by a government agency. But if a person is already looking for sex online, then it is clearly not entrapment.

Reference:
Jacobson vs. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1124.ZD.html
The difference between you and the rest of the immature idiots spewing garbage on this (and the last) thread is that you are looking at it objectively, without judging and spitting insults and assumptions about "drug dealers" "people in the world of drugs" etc etc.

The point of the entrapment law is that people should not be coaxed into crime by police officers or their lackeys. In this situation, that is exactly what happened and it doesn't matter if the 13 year olds on this forum think he's a big junkie bad guy he was still entrapped and we will see if this defense holds up. You know it wasn't a random guy that called him, it was a guy he knew to be a drug dealer who was also KIND OF a friend, well he turned out to be a snitch but before everyone found out about that he was pretending to be in dire peril and begging people for favors/drugs whatever and this is what came of it.

I DON'T EVEN DEAL DRUGS. The dude called ME around the same time all of this was happening. He asked ME to get him some pot. The difference is I said no. The police tried to entrap ME. I have no priors. Do you understand why I find the whole situation offensive now? Suppose I did go and get the guy some pot from a buddy, I would be facing jail time and the destruction of my professional record and the rest of my life because the police coaxed me into a crime. How is this even remotely reasonable? I work, go to school, pay my taxes. I shouldn't be begged into crime by police informants. I got NUMEROUS phone calls from the guy and I knew something was up, it's unfortunate the other dude didn't pick up on it and hes now facing prison time because the police here can't find real drug dealers to bust.

We are all in the "same circle" because we all went to the same few highschools and know each other through other people. This isn't a situation with just a bunch of "drug addicts that know each other getting busted by the cops." This is young adults being lured into crime by the police. It's sickening.
 
Last edited:

fairisfair

Senior Member
The difference between you and the rest of the immature idiots spewing garbage on this (and the last) thread is that you are looking at it objectively, without judging and spitting insults and assumptions about "drug dealers" "people in the world of drugs" etc etc.

The point of the entrapment law is that people should not be coaxed into crime by police officers or their lackeys. In this situation, that is exactly what happened and it doesn't matter if the 13 year olds on this forum think he's a big junkie bad guy he was still entrapped and we will see if this defense holds up. You know it wasn't a random guy that called him, it was a guy he knew to be a drug dealer who was also KIND OF a friend, well he turned out to be a snitch but before everyone found out about that he was pretending to be in dire peril and begging people for favors/drugs whatever and this is what came of it.

I DON'T EVEN DEAL DRUGS. The dude called ME around the same time all of this was happening. He asked ME to get him some pot. The difference is I said no. The police tried to entrap ME. I have no priors. Do you understand why I find the whole situation offensive now? Suppose I did go and get the guy some pot from a buddy, I would be facing jail time and the destruction of my professional record and the rest of my life because the police coaxed me into a crime. How is this even remotely reasonable? I work, go to school, pay my taxes. I shouldn't be begged into crime by police informants. I got NUMEROUS phone calls from the guy and I knew something was up, it's unfortunate the other dude didn't pick up on it and hes now facing prison time because the police here can't find real drug dealers to bust.
And the difference between tritium and the rest of us, is even greater than you think.

your idea of entrapment is getting caught in a trap. That is totally incorrect.

Apparently, the police there DID in fact find a real drug dealer tto bust, in fact two or three of them. Just because he is telling you what you want to hear, does not make him correct.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

omicron

Junior Member
Nobody called you a dealer idjit.

And the difference between tritium and the rest of us, is even greater than you think.

your idea of entrapment is getting caught in a trap. That is totally incorrect.

Apparently, the police there DID in fact find a real drug dealer tto bust, in fact two or three of them.
No, my idea of entrapment is the police forcing someone to do crime by verbally coaxing them. You don't think words can be convincing, or have power? How is this any different than holding someone at gunpoint and making them commit a crime? It's NOT.

Calling me on my personal cell phone and begging me to go get some pot is WRONG for a police informant to do. It's sad that you can't see this. Appealing to my younger / empathetic side "dude we're so bored, there's nothing to do. come on man i know you can get some pot." There's lots of kids that would fall for that ****, and you're telling me its perfectly fine for the cops to do this? Where do you get off? Maybe you should be living in Stalinist Russia.

And no, they only found 1 real dealer, who they dropped charges down for as he ratted out several non drug-dealers who are currently being tried for drug dealing crimes when they don't deal drugs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top