Entrapment?

[ALBPM]

Get a Room already....LOL!!!!

[Jammrock]

Topless sunbathing is legal in Columbus city parks????

Think gender equality. It is not illegal for men to go "topless," or shirtless, and therefore it cannot be illegal for women to go topless. Women fined for indecent exposure by sunbathing topless win overturns with the arguement almost every time.

[Mehen]

What happens if the girl is under 18?

Anyways, if you ask me its playing the "gender card" the same way that people play the "race card."

[NetSnake]

Call me crazy Doc, but entrapment in some circumstances may be the only way to catch theves and criminals or even potentials.

Law enforcement officials say that such sting operations are an extremely effective means of lowering crime rates and stopping the criminally minded before they commit worse offenses. From early 2006 to the spring of 2007, there were 160 citations for public indecency in the city, according to an investigation by 10TV News. Among those who were caught in the stings: an Ohio State University doctor, government employees and a retired highway trooper.

So they waste man-hours to entrap the very ferocious kind of criminals such as a middle-aged fireman who complied to the sexual requests of a half-naked young woman...

[Jammrock]

So they waste man-hours to entrap the very ferocious kind of criminals such as a middle-aged fireman who complied to the sexual requests of a half-naked young woman...

To a MOSTLY naked yound woman. Remember, she was only wearing a bikini bottom, which makes her about 98% unclothed.

[MultimediaMan]

You know, the purpose of the police is to uphold the law and serve the public trust. As such, they should be paragons by leading by example.

The purpose of the police is not to entice people (Lawfully or otherwise) to break the law. It becomes a numbers game at that point, and this is a prime example of funnying the numbers.

[Evildead666]

Nearly all the police forces are now governed by numbers and quotas.

Here, they have to do so many breath tests for drink driving, they have to get so many speeding fines, every month. They also have a quota for arrests, etc...its horrible, but its how they are judged.
This info came from a Police Captain a few years back already....

They end up throwing away hundreds of breath tests, stating they were all used, since they don't even have the time to do the tests and all the other crap most of the time...

[Gurm]

It's like that "To Catch A Predator" show. It's CLEARLY entrapment. It's CLEARLY questionable but they purposely find jurisdictions where the local regulations allow them to entrap people.

For those who are unaware, the show's producers pose as underaged girls (and sometimes boys) online, and set up meetings with pervs who want to have sex with them.

I watched one episode where a guy shows up at the house, shakes his head, and LEAVES. Clearly he has just decided NOT to commit statutory rape, and driven off. They arrested him ANYWAY. WTF? If I go sit in front of a bank, shake my head, and LEAVE... you can't arrest me for attempted bank robbery!

They're going WAY too far nowadays to get people BEFORE they commit a crime. Well, sorry big brother... that's not the way our justice system works. These stories and these well-publicised operations NEVER publish how many of these arrests were thrown out in court, or overturned on appeal. And I'm willing to bet it's a LOT of them.

[Strahd]

I watched one episode where a guy shows up at the house, shakes his head, and LEAVES. Clearly he has just decided NOT to commit statutory rape, and driven off. They arrested him ANYWAY. WTF? If I go sit in front of a bank, shake my head, and LEAVE... you can't arrest me for attempted bank robbery!

But walk into the bank holding a revolver after basically telling them on-line that's what you're coming down to do, and they might have a case.

I don't think some guy in a park that happens to whip it out when someone most likely looking of legal age and 3/4 naked asks you to and chatting on line with someone who's supposed to be 13 yrs old and then going over after the discussion turns sexual is really the same thing.


Sorry if that sentence was a little run on..

[NetSnake]

@Jammrock

even worse. obviously I was being sarcastic.

[Gurm]

But walk into the bank holding a revolver after basically telling them on-line that's what you're coming down to do, and they might have a case.

I don't think some guy in a park that happens to whip it out when someone most likely looking of legal age and 3/4 naked asks you to and chatting on line with someone who's supposed to be 13 yrs old and then going over after the discussion turns sexual is really the same thing.


Sorry if that sentence was a little run on..

No, really it is. They still don't have a case to charge me. I can talk about robbing the bank all day long. I can even talk about it in earshot of the bank tellers. It's called "free speech". I didn't rob a bank, and they can't prove I intended to rob a bank, and talking about robbing banks isn't the same as robbing them.

Talking to a 30-year-old woman who claims to be 15 about having sex with her, and then NOT doing it... isn't illegal either.

Shit, I'm not sure it's illegal to enter the house. Probably not, but in some localities it is - which is where they choose to film. I'm sure this park "sting" is in a similar locale - where entrapment-like activities are specifically allowed by local ordinance.

[MultimediaMan]

The lady in the sting operation was a civilian not employed by the police department: If she was coached in any way to entice a response from someone who approached her, it is the police who could be guilty of conspiracy.

Here's where it gets dodgy: the lady, if it turns out she was not coached by the police, could and should be charged with a crime because she asked someone to perform what she knew to be an illegal act.

Example: If I ask you to kill someone and you agree, we are both guilty of the crime of conspiracy.

No, really it is. They still don't have a case to charge me. I can talk about robbing the bank all day long. I can even talk about it in earshot of the bank tellers. It's called "free speech". I didn't rob a bank, and they can't prove I intended to rob a bank, and talking about robbing banks isn't the same as robbing them.

Free Speech does not give you the right to yell fire in a theater if there is no fire...

Jason, the example you have used has repeatedly resulted in sending a person to prison: The act of speaking within earshot about someone who could be the victim of what you are discussing, hypothetically or not, is terroristic threatening. This is usually a felony.

Verbally laying out the specifics of your hypothetical crime can be conspiracy - even if the crime itself was not perpetrated, the act of verbalizing it's possibility is conspiracy. There are many outs for this, but if you make the statement as fact, you are in BIG trouble. Amending your statement after the fact is a lot like "un-robbing" someone after a theft is discovered... it cannot be done, and in fact can be used to prosecute on even more charges (Obstruction of Justice). Conspiracy and Obstruction are both Felonies.

Your example of the 30 year old woman is also incorrect: If you, as the perpetrator, believe the person you are talking to is not of a legal age to be talking about a particular subject, and you instigate an inappropriate conversation with said person, then you are guilty of attempting to corrupt a minor at the minimum. There is no victim in this case, but you have crossed the line in attempting to make someone a victim. This is a serious crime, because it is done so willfully in the eyes of the law.

[Gurm]

The lady in the sting operation was a civilian not employed by the police department: If she was coached in any way to entice a response from someone who approached her, it is the police who could be guilty of conspiracy.

Here's where it gets dodgy: the lady, if it turns out she was not coached by the police, could and should be charged with a crime because she asked someone to perform what she knew to be an illegal act.

Example: If I ask you to kill someone and you agree, we are both guilty of the crime of conspiracy.

Bingo. This is the same problem as the "to catch a predator" thing. The volunteers are NOT detectives. They "deputize" them prior to the operation to try to get around this, but I just can't believe it holds up under intense legal scrutiny.

Free Speech does not give you the right to yell fire in a theater if there is no fire...

Jason, the example you have used has repeatedly resulted in sending a person to prison: The act of speaking within earshot about someone who could be the victim of what you are discussing, hypothetically or not, is terroristic threatening. This is usually a felony.

Ah, yes. But it's NOT the felony of doing it. You can't charge me with bank robbery. You can charge me with conspiracy to commit bank robbery, which is a COMPLETELY different crime.

Verbally laying out the specifics of your hypothetical crime can be conspiracy - even if the crime itself was not perpetrated, the act of verbalizing it's possibility is conspiracy. There are many outs for this, but if you make the statement as fact, you are in BIG trouble. Amending your statement after the fact is a lot like "un-robbing" someone after a theft is discovered... it cannot be done, and in fact can be used to prosecute on even more charges (Obstruction of Justice). Conspiracy and Obstruction are both Felonies.

Right, but as you said you can get around it a lot of ways. I can write a book on how to rob a bank. I can make a TV documentary entitled "robbing banks for fun and profit". Both can be filled with real honest-to-goodness techniques for robbing banks. Neither are illegal.

Your example of the 30 year old woman is also incorrect: If you, as the perpetrator, believe the person you are talking to is not of a legal age to be talking about a particular subject, and you instigate an inappropriate conversation with said person, then you are guilty of attempting to corrupt a minor at the minimum. There is no victim in this case, but you have crossed the line in attempting to make someone a victim. This is a serious crime, because it is done so willfully in the eyes of the law.

I understand this. I really do. But my example was the guy who decided NOT to do it. He talked about it, sure that's "corrupting a minor" or "attempting to corrupt a minor". It is NOT statutory rape, it is NOT aggravated sexual assault. Attempting to corrupt a minor doesn't get you on the Level 3 sex offender list. It doesn't follow you around for the rest of your life. It doesn't get you KILLED in your holding cell by another inmate. It doesn't get you KILLED 20 years later because some parent found out that you're a level 3 sex offender and moved into the neighborhood and beats you to death with a baseball bat.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. There's a reason that's how our legal system is set up.