We live in a small town in central texas…We have a fairly major set of railroad tracks that cross the main hiway right in the middle of downtown. Our local police department (in all their infinite wisdom) decided to disable the RR crossing arms and the bells one morning. This was supposedly done so that they could prove a point that You should never trust the RR warnings and NEVER cross the tracks if the train itself had sounded it’s air horns to warn of a train aproaching…
My question is, was it entrapment for the police to do this and sit on both sides of the rr and hiway intersection and ticket people who could not or did not hear the train horn?? They stopped and ticketed 48 drivers(I think).
I understand that train crossings are dangerous, BUT why disable the crossing warnings and then Brag in the local paper that it was just in the name of public awareness?? If that was the case why not just give out warning tickets??
(BTW I was not ticketed…I passed the intersection before the exercise started… So I am not a pissed off ticket payer!)
I forgot to mention… The railroad was in cahoots on this one… All they did was run a locomotive up and down the track for the police…No trains sceduled for that time period-8:00 am!! Peak traffic in our town!!
Not sure about entrapment, but that sounds like a good way to get someone killed. I know I’d be ripping mad if I lost my family to a train accident because they decided to disable the warning signs and see what happened. It’s kind of like setting all the traffic lights on flashing yellow. You’re supposed to slow down, but 50% of people will just go barreling through, and eventually you’re going to have a bad accident.
I suppose I shouldn’t be ranting like this in General Questions. But boy, that’s one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard.
IANAL either, but entrapment is when a cop encourages you to do something illeagle, then arrests you for it. If the cops had waved people through, then ticketed them, that would be entrapment.
Further, if the prosecutors can prove that the accused was predisposed to commit the crime, the entrapment defense falls apart.
So, assuming you could argue “entrapment” for a traffic violation, (which is doubtful, IMHO,) the accused would have to be actively persuaded to commit the offense, and I believe the accused has to show that they were resistant to the idea. Merely presenting someone with an opportunity is not entrapment.
The RR-crossing sting is still basically unethical, though. I hope people are putting up a stink!
Still it’s better to just get a ticket then to end up nominating ones self for the Darwin Awards (not that they’d win, you need to be a lot more original for that).
Once, I was riding with a friend in her car. As we cross a railroad track with no lights, I look to my left. Holy cow, that train missed us by about two feet. The driver of the car didn’t even notice until I screeched. I mean, what a moron. Why cross a railroad track without even looking?
Entrapment is, as mentioned above, the act by law enforcement of enticing you to commit a crime and then arresting you. Entrapment doesn’t occur merely by making it very easy to commit a crime.
If the police park an unlocked truck full of CD players and speakers in a high-crime district, and then pounce on anyone who comes along and steals one, that’s not entrapment. If the police had an undercover officer hanging out around the corner, and urging people to check out the unlocked truck and take what they want, then that’s entrapment.