Are long-term sting operations wrong?

[erislover]

@Bricker

Well, this is actually a cogent and highly defensible argument.

If I were you, I’d drop everything else you’ve said in this thread and just go forward with this paragraph.

Not to flog a dead horse, but when I began the OP, I made no such claims. I used the word “shady” and specifically said my objection was not against all long-term stings. I said I didn’t know what to do about it. To turn around now and ask me to drop what I have said assumes that I put forth a substantial position in the first place. You may think I did, but it was not my intention as I admitted specifically I did not have one.

As the thread progressed, it was increasingly questioning me on two things. One was my characterization of police running con games, and another was a line of questioning based on the mistaken notion that I was of the opinion that long-term stings were factually unconstitutional. I never held such an opinion, and there was no support for assuming I did in the OP. Were it not ascribed to me, I believe at least 50% of this thread could have been avoided.

That said, the ensuing arguments, pointless as they may have been directly, did encourage me to find some resources on the matter and finally stumble upon the legal doctrine which surrounds this kind of activity (among other activities). So, that is a great positive, and it enabled me to resolve the issue personally to make such a statement.

But it wasn’t there at the beginning. I started with, “I must end this thread with the admission that I do not have a good opinion on what to do about it…” and now that is amended to the position in question.

[curioushat]

@Irishman

You got a cite for that? Or is that just your opinion?

I’ll have to look. This is common sense to most people, hence the actions of the police earlier in the thread. To the layperson it is highly inappropriate for police to try to force high schoolers to sell them pot, or to take advantage of an emotionally disturbed boy.

I doubt the police would ever subject themselves to a legitimate study on this.

If I can’t find an actual source, let me give you a fictional, unreliable source that is representative of urban police: The Wire. No, that’s not where I get my facts from but it is an accurate portrayal that people can understand.

@Irishman

We don’t use police to break up riots? Breaking up riots doesn’t require the police?

I’m not talking about a few rowdy people, in general the national guard is called in. Call them the national police if you would like, but they have an entirely different role than to protect and serve.

@Irishman

You seem to think that the cops in the investigations have free rein and have no oversight. They do have superior officers, and do have to submit the results of their investigations to the Prosecuting/District Attorney’s office. And the Prosecutor has the authority to evaluate if the methods used violate the letter or spirit of the laws. And ultimately, if prosecuted, the defence can appeal to the judge on the merits of the methods.

No, I don’t think they have complete free reign. The way it works is, the undercover officers report to their supervisor, who then reports to a major, who reports to the district attorney. The system is corrupted on all of these levels. Despite being completely illegal, officers will go into neighborhoods in order to do shake downs. Arrest random people with no charges, take them in for questioning, and then release them (because they have no charges). Officially, the way it is written out to the district attorney it appears legal but is highly illegal and contrary to American values.

In the end, as long as it looks good on paper, individual officers often honestly do not give a fuck about rights.

@Irishman

As I understand it, there are various levels of responsibility. There’s the cop on the street. There’s the cop’s supervisors. There’s the District Attorney’s office, that decides whether they can prosecute. And then there is a judge. Each level of review brings a different party into the equation, and a different level of scrutiny to the operation. Is it reasonable for the responsibility beforehand to rest with the police supervisor? The DA’s office? Require a judge to review and sign off on methods before the investigation begins?

Where is the appropriate level of scrutiny? Is it possible to provide stronger standards for whomever, say DA’s, so they won’t feel inclined to prosecute situations such as the one in the article?

It’s very difficult to say. When the system is corrupt on pretty much all of those levels, putting the faith into one unit is hard. Judges tend to be the best at this, but they can only work with the information that is given to them.

[Irishman]

One thing I have to remind myself is that police is blue collar work. These aren’t doctors and lawyers and engineers and businessmen, they’re machinists and auto mechanics and construction workers. The mentality and culture is just something I’m not in tune with.

@curioushat

I’ll have to look. This is common sense to most people, hence the actions of the police earlier in the thread.

So in other words, a few specific incidents that get high publicity for the legitimacy questions it raises get the whole industry painted with the same brush?

If I can’t find an actual source, let me give you a fictional, unreliable source that is representative of urban police: The Wire. No, that’s not where I get my facts from but it is an accurate portrayal that people can understand.

So fiction is your cite.

I’m not talking about a few rowdy people, in general the national guard is called in. Call them the national police if you would like, but they have an entirely different role than to protect and serve.

Most urban police forces have their own riot teams trained in breaking up riots. The reaon why the National Guard is called in is because the manpower of even a large urban center is tiny compared to the population as a whole, and riots of that scale involve huge numbers of people overwhelming the ability of a local force to do the job. That isn’t a question of the police’s training or legitimacy or authority, it’s simply a manpower issue.

Furthermore, the National Guard is acting in a police function in those situations, just like in disaster recovery the National Guard is serving in the capacity of aid workers, etc. That doesn’t mean that riot dissipation is a military action, any more than searching for victims of a hurricane is a military action.

And I have encountered criticisms of using National Guard in this manner precisely because riot control is not the same as battlefield confrontation. The ends are entirely different, and the means are very different.