# Entrapment - Police whores and stupid fundamentalists **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 19, 2012, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353 "2012-02-19T21:14:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2012, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/181 "2012-02-24T18:32:52Z")
Anxious to change the subject, are you, Counselor? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/182 "2012-02-24T18:43:05Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Nasty as hell about it, too, big guy. After all, I have some dignity! Not as much as _you_, of course, but I don’t need as much. Always found it pretty expensive. > > You made a mistake? Well, yes, mistakes were made. And the “Ha ha!, fuck you, **'luc!** ” dance? Just boyish enthusiasm, nothin’ personal, can’t hold it against a cute little scamp like you… Could you provide links to any clear, unambiguous admissions of errors you’ve made on these boards? Yes, I’ve made errors, and when i do, I admit them. You skip away, spout a few lines of bullshit, and are ready for the next encounter. Or am I wrong about that? Are there posts from you where you simply and unequivocally declare you were wrong? Ever? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/183 "2012-02-24T18:45:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have no idea how big the school is, but 31 students at a school able to procure marijuana on request sounds like a lot to me. You must lead quite the sheltered life. It’s been 40 years since I walked the halls of a high school, but even back then, most of the kids in the majority that didn’t smoke dope certainly knew kids who did. And the kids who smoked obviously knew someone they could buy it from. So yeah, the vast majority of kids in my high school could have scored some dope if they’d been motivated in that direction. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2012, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/184 "2012-02-24T18:56:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Argument by inference. The law permits this activity. Laws are passed by legislators, elected by the people. Laws are thus preemptively the will of the people, and the burden falls on you to rebut that presumption. Approving of a law =/=\> approving of any possible enforcement strategy. Laws can be enforced by a wide variety of means, and be enforced at widely varying levels of rigor. Just because we pass a law declaring some form of conduct illegal doesn’t mean we would be OK with, say, miniature drones monitoring our every movement to ensure that we don’t commit the crime in question. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2012, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/185 "2012-02-24T19:14:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Could you provide links to any clear, unambiguous admissions of errors you’ve made on these boards? Yes, I’ve made errors, and when i do, I admit them. You skip away, spout a few lines of bullshit, and are ready for the next encounter. > > Or am I wrong about that? Are there posts from you where you simply and unequivocally declare you were wrong? Ever? But you hurt my _feelings_, **Bricker**! You know how sensitive and vulnerable us Texans are! There I was, sobbing into my banky, and you were talking out of your ass. Why, if **Arty** hadn’t given me this hanky…hey! This hanky is crusty! What do you mean, used it to wrap some Dunkin’ Donuts? Yeah, well, anyway, here. No, no, I _insist_… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2012, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/186 "2012-02-24T19:18:43Z")
Then there was the embarrassing episode when **Bricker’s** wife took him to \*Les Miserables \*and he was cheering for Javert… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2012, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/187 "2012-02-24T19:23:27Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Approving of a law =/=\> approving of any possible enforcement strategy. > > Laws can be enforced by a wide variety of means, and be enforced at widely varying levels of rigor. The “law” in question is not the law prohibiting marijuana. It’s the law allowing the entrapment defense and laying out its limits, Fl. § 777.201 - Entrapment. Florida passed that law with the assent of its elected legislators. The presumption is that it expresses the will of the people. It’s falls to the person claiming otherwise to shoulder the burden of proof. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2012, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/188 "2012-02-24T19:28:00Z")
I love that slimy little bit of sleight of hand. A few elected officials do something and therefore it’s sacrosanct and The Will Of The People, and prove me wrong if it aint! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2012, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/189 "2012-02-24T19:28:19Z")
You mean that all of this is _entirely_ within the letter of the law? Well, that totally settles that, why didn’t you say so before? Fuck that little shit’s life, it’s the law! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2012, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/190 "2012-02-24T19:30:28Z")
And the Law is the handjob of Justice! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2012, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/191 "2012-02-24T19:37:17Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I love that slimy little bit of sleight of hand. A few elected officials do something and therefore it’s sacrosanct and The Will Of The People, and prove me wrong if it aint! How is it any better to say to me that I must prove it is the will of the people? You say “a few elected officials,” but the fact is that the legislature in Florida passed this law in 1987, so each and every subsequent session has had the opportunity to change it. You would think, if there were widespread discontent, you could point to something - a poll, perhaps – that showed how the people were really against this thing. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2012, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/192 "2012-02-24T19:41:15Z")
Instead, neither invoke the mythic Will Of The People, nor assume that any and all legislators’ actions are automatically in accordance with it, nor hide behind arguments that it’s the law and that’s the end of the discussion. Instead craft an actual cogent, compelling argument for why something _should be_ the law or why the law is _being enforced in the manner_ it is. Someone whose reaction to the Nuremberg Laws was “Well, it’s the Will of the People and besides it’s the law, so shaddup, hippie” would not, I hope you’d agree, be putting forward a quality argument. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2012, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/193 "2012-02-24T19:44:00Z")
In Maryland, the legislature just approved same-sex marriage. That was “just a few elected officials,” right? Now the law is on hold until a public referendum can be completed. I think the public will show they agree with their elected officials. But let’s say they don’t. Let’s say that they reverse that law. I assume, **FinnAgain** , that you’ll show the same reverence for the actual will of the people that you’re expressing here? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/194 "2012-02-24T19:45:43Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Instead, neither invoke the mythic Will Of The People, nor assume that any and all legislators’ actions are automatically in accordance with it, nor hide behind arguments that it’s the law and that’s the end of the discussion. Instead craft an actual cogent, compelling argument for why something _should be_ the law or why the law is _being enforced in the manner_ it is. Someone whose reaction to the Nuremberg Laws was “Well, it’s the Will of the People and besides it’s the law, so shaddup, hippie” would not, I hope you’d agree, be putting forward a quality argument. I can’t do that here, **FinnAgain** , because I don’t share with the majority of commentators here the same axoims about social policy. So any argument that is based on what the law should be will die a quick death. I’ve learned that lesson far too often over the years here. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2012, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/195 "2012-02-24T19:59:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I can’t do that here, **FinnAgain** , because I don’t share with the majority of commentators here the same axoims about social policy. What a copout. If you can only debate your beliefs with those who agree with you then you can only debate in an echo chamber, and you’re showing anybody reading along that, at least subconsciously, you don’t think your beliefs are persuasive enough, nor your arguments compelling enough, to carry the day in an open debate. You _can_ do that, you _choose not to because it’s difficult_, and you _pretend_ to both yourself and others that you cannot do it. Seriously, you’re trying to tell me about posting amongst an overwhelmingly liberal audience? Telling me that someone _would be unable to martial a reasoned argument having to do with a topic that go against political assumptions?_ Are you seriously unaware of the flack I draw whenever I post on the Middle East? > [@Bricker](#): > > I assume, **FinnAgain** , that you’ll show the same reverence for the actual will of the people that you’re expressing here? You mean, pointing out that it’s mythic and isn’t worth a fly’s spit when it comes to actually figuring out what the right thing to do is? Yep. Civil rights for gays is the right thing to do even if the majority disagrees, just like civil rights for blacks was the right thing to do when the majority disagreed. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2012, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/196 "2012-02-24T20:01:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The “law” in question is not the law prohibiting marijuana. It’s the law allowing the entrapment defense and laying out its limits, Fl. § 777.201 - Entrapment. > > Florida passed that law with the assent of its elected legislators. The presumption is that it expresses the will of the people. It’s falls to the person claiming otherwise to shoulder the burden of proof. No argument there. But here’s the deal: the section of the code you cite forbids entrapment. And that tends to be the way of criminal codes: they forbid and penalize certain forms of conduct. Conduct not forbidden by statute is allowed. There’s no presumption that people think highly of all allowed conduct, just that - _to the extent they’ve even thought about it_ - they believe it isn’t so bad that laws are required to keep that conduct from being conducted. And the italicized phrase is very important. When you bring up conduct specifically mentioned by statute, I agree that there’s a presumption about public attitudes toward that conduct. But there’s a hell of a lot of unsanctioned conduct under heaven and earth that people haven’t thought about, or aren’t aware that it’s happening. So I don’t see where a presumption concerning public attitudes can be derived from a blank space in the statute books. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2012, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/197 "2012-02-24T20:02:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The “law” in question is not the law prohibiting marijuana. It’s the law allowing the entrapment defense and laying out its limits, Fl. § 777.201 - Entrapment. Actually, I think the issue here is the intersection of those two laws. I think most people agree that pretending to be friends with someone for the express purpose of betraying them and causing them significant harm makes someone a Bad Person. Most of us are also willing to make allowances for being a Bad Person to an Even Worse Person. So, pretending to be friends with a mafia hitman, for the purpose of putting him in jail, is considered acceptable, even laudable. The idea of pretending to like a teenager, for the express purpose of fucking him over for life because he bought a single joint, is much less defensible. It may be _legal_ - but I can’t help but feel that anyone who agreed to go along with this plan is, on some level, morally defective. Yes, the kid broke the law. On this subject, and most particularly, in this application, the law is an ass. And anyone defending the law, much less applying it, is an asshole. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2012, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/198 "2012-02-24T20:10:35Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > So I don’t see where a presumption concerning public attitudes can be derived from a blank space in the statute books. Missed edit window; meant to add: And that’s where this police operation took place, assuming _arguendo_ that it didn’t cross the line into entrapment. It wasn’t forbidden by statute, so it was allowed without being mentioned at all in the statutes. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2012, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/199 "2012-02-24T20:22:41Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Actually, I think the issue here is the intersection of those two laws. I think most people agree that pretending to be friends with someone for the express purpose of betraying them and causing them significant harm makes someone a Bad Person. Most of us are also willing to make allowances for being a Bad Person to an Even Worse Person. So, pretending to be friends with a mafia hitman, for the purpose of putting him in jail, is considered acceptable, even laudable. > > The idea of pretending to like a teenager, for the express purpose of fucking him over for life because he bought a single joint, is much less defensible. It may be _legal_ - but I can’t help but feel that anyone who agreed to go along with this plan is, on some level, morally defective. Yes, the kid broke the law. On this subject, and most particularly, in this application, the law is an ass. And anyone defending the law, much less applying it, is an asshole. In your opinion. But your opinion is not a law of nature. This is the point: you and your ilk make these sweeping pronouncements: this is morally defective, that isn’t – without any particular moral framework that is also accepted by your interlocutor. You rightly decry those that seek to enshrine their religious beliefs as law, but you don’t hesitate to do essentially the same thing: declare by fiat that a particular moral law or code exists, and proceed as though you have announced the Second Law of Thermodynamics, unassailable in its truth. So in an effort to combat this, I don’t haul out my own moral framework, because i know you don’t share it. Instead I gravitate to objective standards, lines that can be measured and defined by relatively clear, demonstrable, provable, verifiable means. Naturally, this scares the crap out of you. Unless of course those clear, demonstrable, provable, verifiable means favor your position. Then you trumpet the failure of your opponents to accept them. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2012, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/200 "2012-02-24T20:23:43Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > What a copout. If you can only debate your beliefs with those who agree with you then you can only debate in an echo chamber, and you’re showing anybody reading along that, at least subconsciously, you don’t think your beliefs are persuasive enough, nor your arguments compelling enough, to carry the day in an open debate. You _can_ do that, you _choose not to because it’s difficult_, and you _pretend_ to both yourself and others that you cannot do it. > > Seriously, you’re trying to tell me about posting amongst an overwhelmingly liberal audience? Telling me that someone _would be unable to martial a reasoned argument having to do with a topic that go against political assumptions?_ Are you seriously unaware of the flack I draw whenever I post on the Middle East? > > You mean, pointing out that it’s mythic and isn’t worth a fly’s spit when it comes to actually figuring out what the right thing to do is? Yep. Civil rights for gays is the right thing to do even if the majority disagrees, just like civil rights for blacks was the right thing to do when the majority disagreed. Everything I said in post #199 goes for you, too. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353.md?page=11)