Posted on 12/26/2007 8:55:14 PM PST by hole_n_one
ELAINE: The Good Samaritan Law? Are they crazy?
GEORGE: Why would we want to help somebody?
ELAINE: I know.
GEORGE: That’s what nuns and Red Cross workers are for.
KRAMER: The Samaritans were an ancient tribe - very helpful to people.
Tell me then, if the police are watching the bait vehicle, and they see someone steal from a different vehicle not connected to the operation, is that still entrapment?
Thanks, I like what you said.
It’s the same in California. Burglary is defined as “entering (dwelling, business, auto, etc.) with the intent to steal.” Reaching in to steal the IPOD is entering.
A lot of comments are using terms like “entrapment” and “petty theft” without having had the benefit of study.
If a deer hunter had done the same thing the cops did, they’d take his gun and his license for life.
And if the cops are there and rush in to take him down, a BM occurs.
I thought so, but I wasn’t going to challenge him on it. Thanks.
Oh, I never accused you of stealing - I DID, on the other hand, point out that you, as with all other people on the planet, would be entirely capable of doing so, so pretending to be self-righteous and looking down on others is entirely out of line for you to do.
Doesn't matter. Perversion of the law is still perversion, even if sanctioned by the courts.
Prove that statement! Show me where in the article that the intent of the police is to get people who don't have prior records! The police put the property out there and people are going to make their own decisions regardless of their past. The cops don't have any knowledge who is going to come by and decide to take the property Show me in the article that they know for certain!.
Um, my whole point was that they CAN'T know for certain. I will demand you to show where in the article it says that the police were targeting those who DO have past criminal records. If you can't, then you have to admit that the police were de facto targeting the general population, including those without prior criminal records.
And how can you say with 100% certainty that on the day of the sting that burglars WOULDN'T be working the area? Are you THAT good at predictions? If so, you need to go into law enforcement. Cops can make good guesses based on recent trends that crooks might be working an area, but no cop that I have ever heard of can predict with pinpoint accuracy a day in advance that crimes will or will not happen in a given populated area. In many cities, burglars work the entire city. They are just as likely to hit one residential area or shopping area as another. There is no requirement for the cops to target any particular area. That might be construed as "profiling" and I am sure YOU wouldn't support THAT! It doesn't matter where the sting operation is set up. The only thing that matters is if someone takes the property.
That's just it - there is not a single thing that can be found in the article to show that the police were working this particular shopping centre because of previous criminal activity - none whatsoever. The problem is that the police WEREN'T profiling - they were putting something out there to try to entrap anybody and everybody, in other words, trying to create criminals where none might have existed before. Great, so burglars work the entire city - so everybody is a potential suspect. Of course, that is how many LE agencies work - off the assumption that everybody is a potential criminal, and hence, it's okay to set out entrapments like this to "root them out".
You are hinting around again that the police should be "profiling." Do you support profiling? Anyway, the result is that if no one took any property then no one was stung were they? How can you sting people who don't do anything?
Yes, I do support profiling. Just as with a search warrant, the police ought to have reasonable suspicion that an individual or group of individuals is planning, perpetrating, or has perpetrated a crime before they go and try to entrap them. What the police did in this case is morally and ethically similar to searching random peoples' houses on the off chance that they might have something illegal.
Well it takes a real sucker to take a chance on taking property that doesn't belong to him. The police just might be watching. I, and many of the FReepers here have the common sense God gave us not to take something from a vehicle that doesn't belong to us. If someone else is so jaw droppingly brain dead STUPID that they will commit a crime of opportunity and the police are watching and they get arrested - LOLOLOLOLOL! Screw them!
I agree, if someone steals, punish them as the law prescribes. My objection is to the notion of the police trying to create criminals where they wouldn't otherwise exist by throwing a juicy plum out there for people to pluck. My argument is that the police ought to stick to investigating actual crimes which have already happened, instead of trying to engineer new ones.
Wrong. The police are not initiating any transaction here. They are not in direct communications with anyone. The police are passive and waiting until someone commits a "crime of opportunity." That someone could be an illegal alien, a parolee, a gang member, a drug addict, or just an innocent citizen who happens to come by and can't restrain himself and just has to commit a crime on that particular day. In all cases - TOUGH LUCK YA RETARD!
Wrong again. The police ARE initiating the transaction because absent the initiatory action of the police in putting the unlocked cars full of doodads out there, there would be no possibility of a crime taking place. No car = no crime, and the car wouldn't be there except the police put it there.
Nope, because it then becomes, legally, like the speed trap issue mentioned above - the police are watching an area, and see a criminal break the law in a way that the police had not specifically engineered for them to do.
I’m sorry I didn’t communicate that well at all. I’m not talking about high speed police chases, but rather police here do not go after car thieves. If, when, a stolen car is recovered nothing is done about it other than notifying the owner. The car could have tons of evidence to who did it but they don’t even look for the guy.
Isn’t that nice! However people do get the government they deserve, after all it was the people who voted them into office.
This is as they say, a distinction without a difference. Also, the police are "legal" to be in a public place watching for speeders, and they are just as "legal" to be in a public place watching for thieves, whether or not they have a bait car.
This is just plain nonsense and you know it! No perversion has been demonstrated.
"I will demand you to show where in the article it says that the police were targeting those who DO have past criminal records."
That is not in the article. I was responding to another piece of your nonsense - but you obviously forgot what you posted:
"Yes, and that seems to be what is going on here - trying to get people who don't have previous criminal records (at least none that the cops involved in the sting operation knows about) to commit a felony crime." " they were putting something out there to try to entrap anybody and everybody, in other words, trying to create criminals where none might have existed before."
LOL - that's actually funny. Someone without a criminal record takes the property and uses as a defense: "It's not my fault. The police created my criminality." Good luck with that!
" What the police did in this case is morally and ethically similar to searching random peoples' houses on the off chance that they might have something illegal."
Nonsense. First the police cannot do random searches of peoples homes and you know that! Second, passive surveillance in a public place is not a search. Sheesh!
" My objection is to the notion of the police trying to create criminals where they wouldn't otherwise exist by throwing a juicy plum out there for people to pluck."
Again, the police can't create a criminal if the criminal doesn't break the law.
" My argument is that the police ought to stick to investigating actual crimes which have already happened, instead of trying to engineer new ones."
Fine. Put a bait car in a public parking lot with valuable property in it. Wait until someone takes the property, and investigate a crime that just happened.
"The police ARE initiating the transaction because absent the initiatory action of the police in putting the unlocked cars full of doodads out there, there would be no possibility of a crime taking place."
Wrongo again. It is the same as the store owner putting property for display outside the store. If it weren't on display then no one would take it. If a bank didn't have so much money, no one would rob it. If people didn't have valuable property in their homes, no one would burglarize them. It is the criminal who initiates the criminal deed. You can't blame a crime on the police because someone willingly to violate the law. Your arguments are baseless.
In California if someone reaches in an unlocked vehicle and steals something it is not a vehicle burglary, despite the fact than "entry" was made. If the property is over 400 dollars value it is a grand theft. Below that amount it is a petty theft. If all the doors are locked and the windows are rolled up and entry is made with force, it is a vehicle burglary regardless of what is taken.
Most of time when we do these bait stings, it is part of an investigation that leads us to target specific people that will be exposed to the bait, or targeting a problem area. To utilize the man power and the costs of man hours, it is usually part an an investigation that can justify it. But different areas have different budgets and regular operations, so I say that strictly from my experience.
A passing citizen securing the vehicle isnt unusual in these situations. Honest people ignore an unlocked vehicle with a camera (or something of value in the front seat), or they report it to the property manager of the parking lot, or they lock the car. Thieves steal it.
Also, you was making some good points in you your discussion with Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus about "entrapment". To take the discussion another step, entrapment takes effort to get someone to do something they normally would not do. If an undercover was making an effort to get someone to steal the items, and that otherwise honest person showed reluctance, but the UC persisted with pressure to get them to steal it, then they would have an entrapment argument. This is not an off the cuff opinion, this is something we deal with in court and we go over all the time. Texas Law Defines Entrapment:
Texas Penal Code § 8.06. ENTRAPMENT.
(a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the conduct charged because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement agent using persuasion or other means likely to cause persons to commit the offense. Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment.
(b) In this section "law enforcement agent" includes personnel of the state and local law enforcement agencies as well as of the United States and any person acting in accordance with instructions from such agents.
Again, I cant speak for your State.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.