Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by aomagrat, Jan 28, 2010.
This is going to be one expensive BJ.
Oh brother, sailors and whores go hand in hand.
Misdemeanor conviction and upcomming retirement, all for $20.
At least it wasn't in the Oval Office of the White House.
Amazes me that the police can commit a crime themselves when working a sting. If it's against the law to solicit, it should be against the law for anyone. Shouldn't be allowed to setup someone by breaking the law yourself.
A little entrapment-esque if I say so myself.
One of the things that really bothers me about the military. If that were an enlisted guy (let's say E-7), he would get busted down to E-3 or lower and get no retirement benefits. For this guy (officers) they just sweep it under the rug and retire them at the rank they currently hold.
I think we can all agree that for the most part officers are held to higher standards due to education and training and so on, but in cases like these it is the exact opposite and really bothers me...I know the whole rank has its priveleges deal applies often, but I can't stand how the mil handles situations like these as far as officer/enlisted goes. Ah well life ain't fair...
Alright, I'm no lawyer, but why isn't this entrapment?
If memory serves me correct, buying whores was a common and popular past time of years past.
My, how times have changed.
Where is former governor Eliot Spitzer again? After using .gov funds to aid in soliciting whores?
Providing someone with the opportunity to break the law is not entrapment. Forcing someone to break the law.
Not the first guy who got in trouble following his "little head" around..
LE can present a favorable opportunity for a suspect to break the law. Seems the CAPT was willing and had intent to break the law. Based SOLELY on the news article, the UC Officer never offered sex for money, rather the suspect offered money for sex. Simple undercover op. The prosecutor will need show that entrapment did not occur.
+1 welcome to the "good ol boy network".
It happens in the civilian world too
Human male has two heads, but only enough blood to use one at a time...
While I really don't have a problem with the morality of the act itself, it's a personal matter, I think the dumb#ss should be fired then retired for having his head up his "donkey" for his tactical sense.
I expect leaders at that level not to expose themselves to the element that is generally present around sellers of the $20 BeeJay. This clown greatly increased his chances of assault and robbery and given his tactical sense, may have had a goverment laptop or important documents in his car.
This ranks right up there with the officer clown that lost the laptop on top of his car near the Pentagon, the laptop with the Iraq invasion plans shortly before the war.
Maybe this can explain some of you guy's misunderstandings. "Entrapment" doesn't mean the cops caught you while you were driving home and pinned a false charge on you. The guy had to had been predisposed to commit the crime, something approaching a hooker and asking her for "business" pretty well spells out, ya think? In other words, he was already going to commit the crime, no one "made" him do it or "forced" him to commit it.
I know all you guys who seem to think there's nothing wrong with committing "small" crimes, or crimes you may like to commit yourselves. But alas, what the commander did was against the law, he got zapped and is now going to pay the price of a crime he decided to commit. Where's the "entrapment"?
Entrapment is a complex legal term. It's isn't easily explained, or perhaps it's too easily explained. In simple terms, if you were already going to commit the crime and a cop gave you a better opportunity to do so, there's no entrapment. But if the cops made you do something you didn't want to or were never going to do, that's illegal and that's entrapment. Funny how every guy caught in a prostitution sting always yells, "Entrapment!", yet almost no murderers do. Of course the women don't say much, hard to speak with their mouths full I suppose.
Moral of the story, don't commit crimes and no problem.
Highlights are mine.
The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon On
ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.
In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:
- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.
They can't. They "lure" you, but try to get you to do the actual soliciting, at least in theory anyway. If the defense can ;prove that it didn't happen that way, then that is often the basis for an entrapment defense.
"According to the report, Little asked the undercover officer several times if she was a cop and then confirmed he was interested in "business." Little told the officer he wanted oral sex and, when asked, said he was willing to pay $20 for the sex act."
Ummm, sounds like entrapment to me. He asked her flat out and apparently she responded negative. So that's a commission of a crime on her part AND a lack of moral character displayed by openly lying. I would have a hard time believing anything she said, even under oath. But... let the lawyers haggle this out.
If the Muslim puritans don't put us out of business, the Christain puritans surely will.
How you figure?
It's not against the law for a police officer to lie to you, not against the law at all. Now, you may think it should be, needs to be, or will be. But it just isn't. Really, it isn't.
Most folks believe all the junk they see on TV and base their "legal opinions" on it. The real law just never enters their mind. Not "dissing" you by any means, just noting that most folks don't have a clue as to what the law actually is, they base all their beliefs on something they've "heard", "been told", or "assume" is correct.
If you or anyone wants to know what the law is, or what it says............read the darned law. How hard is that?