Entrapment is a practice in which a law enforcement agent or agent of the state induces a person to commit a “crime” that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit.[1] It “is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer or agent, and the procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer or state agent”.
I think the discussion is that in all common sense, what the cops did was absolutely reprehensible and should have a) led to severe repercussions for them and b) not gotten that citizen any legal repercussions whatsoever.
But the problem is that in the USA, cops can do whatever they want and get away with it and so it doesn’t count as entrapment because it has been made almost impossible to prove. Honestly knowing what they get away with, they could probably charge you with robbery if they forced you at gunpoint to take their watch and run away with it (just a few steps though, before they empty their clip in you).
There’s nothing to suppose that he wouldn’t be willing to deliver packages for $500 though. They didn’t hold him hostage, the cops didn’t pre-approve the delivery and then tell him “tough luck for you, we lied, that was always illegal”.
You’re using a pocket dictionary definition, when I linked to a licensed attorney’s nuanced explanation of how it wouldn’t ever be entrapment. Did you even check it out? It has pictures for the people who have trouble reading things without pictures.
Definitions are tourist guides to words, where they give you pithy little phrases that describe things you’ve never heard of well enough that you can continue reading the paragraph.
You need the “comprehensive history of X” and dictionaries can’t ever give you that. The comic strip does much better than your Webster’s third-grader nonsense. Maybe you should try it. He’s absolutely guilty, there is no entrapment.
Entrapment is more than that, it’s a difficult defense to use.
https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633
Nothing about this was entrapment. (Then again, nothing about it was philosophically illegal, as far as I can tell.)
It is the literal definition of legal entrapment:
I think the discussion is that in all common sense, what the cops did was absolutely reprehensible and should have a) led to severe repercussions for them and b) not gotten that citizen any legal repercussions whatsoever.
But the problem is that in the USA, cops can do whatever they want and get away with it and so it doesn’t count as entrapment because it has been made almost impossible to prove. Honestly knowing what they get away with, they could probably charge you with robbery if they forced you at gunpoint to take their watch and run away with it (just a few steps though, before they empty their clip in you).
There’s nothing to suppose that he wouldn’t be willing to deliver packages for $500 though. They didn’t hold him hostage, the cops didn’t pre-approve the delivery and then tell him “tough luck for you, we lied, that was always illegal”.
You’re using a pocket dictionary definition, when I linked to a licensed attorney’s nuanced explanation of how it wouldn’t ever be entrapment. Did you even check it out? It has pictures for the people who have trouble reading things without pictures.
You linked a comic strip, not a definition.
Definitions are tourist guides to words, where they give you pithy little phrases that describe things you’ve never heard of well enough that you can continue reading the paragraph.
You need the “comprehensive history of X” and dictionaries can’t ever give you that. The comic strip does much better than your Webster’s third-grader nonsense. Maybe you should try it. He’s absolutely guilty, there is no entrapment.
didn’t we ban you like a week ago for Nazism?
edit: we did