legally speaking will is correct. the definition of entrapment hinges on intent. if someone has the initial intent to perform an illegal act and law enforcement simply enables it, it's not entrapment. on the other hand law enforcement enticing someone to perform an illegal act, which seems pretty obvious in this case, is entrapment. the difference:
case A walking up to LEO in park asking for guns/drugs/want to see my penis get arrested, not entrapment
case B LEO initially asking you if you want guns/drugs/show your penis and you agree, entrapment
dateline fits into case A, they dont go around the internet posing as a 13 year old kid who wants to have sex with someone, they just pose as a 13 year old kid and random guys try to entice them into sex/send them porn etc.
now the question of whether these type of stings are justified, legal or not, is another matter. generally I don't think so, because the government takes away far more of my freedom in the course of trying to prevent criminal harm than the harm criminals will ever do to me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by canuckguy
okay something is missing here. did the cops not know this was entrapment? not sure about the law for that state but sounds like it too me.
just seems odd to me like how could they be that dumb on such a large scale. i could see a spurr of the moment type thing, but to do this planned out is just stupid. makes you think about all the other stuff they do.....
whoever organized this "sting" should be fired for not knowing basic law.
|
it seems odd that law enforcement can be dumb on a large scale? the only human institution that is generally dumber, and on a larger scale than law
enforcement is law
making