Comments on: New frontiers in police entrapment

By: TC

TC — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 01:36:18 +0000

Ya gotta love all that extra $$ via homeland security for depts that in reality had/have very little to do, and will do anything other than REAL police work as well.

This case is a total crock of manure.

As to the NBC cases, somebody needs to sue NBC, but I imagine there is at least one of those in progress already. IIRC, as well most of the charges were dismissed against the alleged crooksters.

By: Captain Spaulding

Captain Spaulding — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:07:12 +0000

How would that be a defense to a charge of, for example, crossing state lines with the intent to have sex with a minor? Or how would that be a defense to a charge of attempting to solicit sex from a minor?

You claim that you knew the person being contacted wasn’t a minor and that you were role-playing (pretending that the person was a minor).

By: markm

markm — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:55:51 +0000

duaneage: She was already showing hers…

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 06:01:28 +0000

Has anyone tried, as a defense in a setup like this, that the person being contacted as [supposedly] an underage kid is NOT underage and therefore no crime can be committed?

In some jurisdictions, the law specifically states that it is not a defense that the person solicited was not actually a minor!

By: duaneage

duaneage — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:22:51 +0000

His correct response should have been” you go first” or “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours”

that would have either flushed out the cop in her or left him with an out (or an in)

By: Reformed Republican

Reformed Republican — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:53:21 +0000

It was not clear from the story that the topless woman was a cop. If she is not, perhaps she should also be arrested for inciting the man to commit the offense?

If it was a cop asking the guy to take his junk out, then it seems like it would clearly be entrapment, unless I do not understand the legal definition of that term.

By: nevins

nevins — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:12:15 +0000

This has all the signs of a thought-police state. People who might very likely never commit a sex crime can find themselves maneuvered into an unlawful situation.
If this guy’s willie was displayed discreetly enough and no one without magnified viewing could witness it (excluding the topless police officer who had apparently consented to the viewing of the penis by asking for its exposure) then he did not violate the exposure rule.

By: Melvin

Melvin — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:11:33 +0000

Surprising someone hasn’t tried to set up (trap) NBC et al., regarding their ongoing series to entrap(?) men by luring them to a house with a young woman posing as someone underage.

Has anyone tried, as a defense in a setup like this, that the person being contacted as [supposedly] an underage kid is NOT underage and therefore no crime can be committed?

By: OBQuiet

OBQuiet — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:56:32 +0000

I wonder if the defense asked the woman to reenact the events up to the exposure in front of the jury? Certainly some grainy recording would not capture what the victim, sorry I meant the accused actually experienced.

Quite a sight to see a half naked woman seducing a man in open court. And to then have to say he was the one committing the crime.

Silly me, I thought it was the police’s job to catch criminals, not to manufacture them. I think I’d better avoid Columbus.