Post by propagandist on Apr 16, 2013 8:03:25 GMT -7
As I've said in the past, "It doesn't matter what you consider to be right or wrong or moral; what matters is what is considered "lawful" or "unlawful" by the courts."
Consider this case:
"Attempt" to commit a crime is a charge brought, even though at the time and considering the circumstances such a crime would have been impossible to commit. There was no drug dealer; it was a police officer. There were no drugs; only the promise of drugs, and that promise was made by a police officer.
And, remember, it was the police officer who initiated the process, made the call to a suspected drug buyer, and made the offer to sell drugs. That sounds like a clear case of entrapment to me.
Entrapment:
If the person arrested can be charged with "attempting to buy drugs," why can't the police officers be charged with "attempting to sell drugs?" In this case, there were no drugs to buy; no drugs were bought; and both the person charged with attempting to buy drugs and the police officer impersonating a drug dealer selling drugs were the two necessary components for a fake drug deal to even occur. Without the police officers offering to sell drugs, there would have been no drugs offered for the defendant to "attempt" to buy.
Consider this: Police can flat out lie to you during an investigation in an "attempt" to gain information.
But you lie to a cop during questioning, that is a separate offense you can charged with, even though you have done nothing else remotely criminal that you could be charged with.
Why are police considered immune from being charged with same criminal conduct that they routinely arrest people for?
Consider this case:
After police in Washington seized the iPhone of a “suspected drug dealer,” Detective Kevin Sawyer scrolled through the phone’s recent calls and text messages. One of the text messages from contact “Z-Jon.” Sawyer responded asking Z-Jon if he “needed more.” Unaware that his drug dealer had been arrested, Z-Jon replied “that would be cool” and that he would “prefer to just get a ball.”
Z-Jon and “his drug dealer” continued to text one another, and agreed to meet in the parking lot of a local grocery store to make the exchange. But instead of getting a ball, Z-Jon, a.k.a. Jonathan Roden, got arrested. He was later convicted of attempted possession of heroin.
www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/07/05/yes-the-cops-can-text-you-from-your-drug-dealers-iphone-to-bust-you/
Z-Jon and “his drug dealer” continued to text one another, and agreed to meet in the parking lot of a local grocery store to make the exchange. But instead of getting a ball, Z-Jon, a.k.a. Jonathan Roden, got arrested. He was later convicted of attempted possession of heroin.
www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/07/05/yes-the-cops-can-text-you-from-your-drug-dealers-iphone-to-bust-you/
An inchoate offense, inchoate offence, or inchoate crime is a separate crime of preparing for or seeking to commit another crime. The most common example of an inchoate offense is "attempt". "Inchoate offense" has been defined as: "Conduct deemed criminal without actual harm being done, provided that the harm that would have occurred is one the law tries to prevent."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense
An Impossibility defense is a criminal defense occasionally used when a defendant is accused of a criminal attempt that failed only because the crime was factually or legally impossible to commit. An impossibility occurs when, at the time of the attempt, the facts make the intended crime impossible to commit although the defendant is unaware of this when the attempt is made. An act that is considered legally impossible to commit is traditionally considered a valid defense for a person who was being prosecuted for a criminal attempt. An attempt is considered to be a "legal" impossibility when the defendant has completed all of his intended acts, but his acts fail to fulfill all the required in elements of a crime in common law. A borderline case is that of a person who shot a stuffed deer, thinking it was alive as was the case in State v. Guffey, (1953) in which a person was originally convicted for attempting to kill a protected animal out of season. In a debatable reversal, an appellate judge threw out the conviction on the basis that it is no crime to shoot a stuffed deer out of season.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_defense
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_defense
"Attempt" to commit a crime is a charge brought, even though at the time and considering the circumstances such a crime would have been impossible to commit. There was no drug dealer; it was a police officer. There were no drugs; only the promise of drugs, and that promise was made by a police officer.
And, remember, it was the police officer who initiated the process, made the call to a suspected drug buyer, and made the offer to sell drugs. That sounds like a clear case of entrapment to me.
Entrapment:
Entrapment is a defense to criminal charges when it is established that the agent or official originated the idea of the crime and induced the accused to engage in it. The rationale underlying the defense is to deter law enforcement officers from engaging in reprehensible conduct by inducing persons not disposed to commit crimes to engage in criminal activity. Some states have excluded it as a defense, reasoning that anyone who can be talked into a criminal act cannot be free from guilt.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/entrapment
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/entrapment
If the person arrested can be charged with "attempting to buy drugs," why can't the police officers be charged with "attempting to sell drugs?" In this case, there were no drugs to buy; no drugs were bought; and both the person charged with attempting to buy drugs and the police officer impersonating a drug dealer selling drugs were the two necessary components for a fake drug deal to even occur. Without the police officers offering to sell drugs, there would have been no drugs offered for the defendant to "attempt" to buy.
Consider this: Police can flat out lie to you during an investigation in an "attempt" to gain information.
Are the Police Allowed to Lie to You (During a Criminal Investigation)...
…and if they do, will a judge toss out any evidence they obtain as a result? The short answer is: police in almost all circumstances are allowed to say whatever they want to get you to incriminate yourself.
blog.austindefense.com/2006/10/articles/war-on-drugs/are-the-police-allowed-to-lie-to-you-during-a-criminal-investigation/
…and if they do, will a judge toss out any evidence they obtain as a result? The short answer is: police in almost all circumstances are allowed to say whatever they want to get you to incriminate yourself.
blog.austindefense.com/2006/10/articles/war-on-drugs/are-the-police-allowed-to-lie-to-you-during-a-criminal-investigation/
But you lie to a cop during questioning, that is a separate offense you can charged with, even though you have done nothing else remotely criminal that you could be charged with.
Why are police considered immune from being charged with same criminal conduct that they routinely arrest people for?