# 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:** 11
**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, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/201 "2012-02-24T20:28:09Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > 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. Don’t agree. This is not the first sting operation police have ever done. Similar events have been reported as fact and glamorized as fiction for long enough that the lack of public outcry establishes at least a prima facie case of acceptance. It’s not conclusive, but it certainly shifts the burden to you – right now, the only thing you can point to in favor of the idea that the public doesn’t like it is the fact that you and (presumably) your gaggle of friends doesn’t like it – kinda like the possibly apocryphal story about Pauline Kael, the New York journalist who responded to news of Nixon’s reelection in a landslide to say it was impossible for such a thing to be true: none of her friends voted for Nixon! ---
**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, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/202 "2012-02-24T20:41:52Z")
Yes, I’m terrified. You caught me. And your position is so strong that paradoxically it can’t be debated in a convincing manner. Those of us who debate moral issues never, ever try to make a case for them. And basing claims on religion isn’t inferior because it relies on “God said so, I believe it, that settles it!”. Your inability to carry your case is because of all the nasty, tricksy false Liberals. Your inability to carry your religon’s theology with all the various splinter sects and other religions is also because they are probably wicked, tricksy and false. In fact, basing one’s position on axioms they argue for and religion are both equally useless because nobody can argue morality or ethnics unless they are in an echo chamber for support. Personally, I love how absolutely everybody on the Dope agrees with me about the proper course of action in the Middle East. Why, if they didn’t I’d have to quit trying to provide a cogent, substantiated argument and just start whining like a little impotent bitch. ---
**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, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/203 "2012-02-24T20:45:43Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Yes, I’m terrified. You caught me. And your position is so strong that paradoxically it can’t be debated in a convincing manner. I don’t claim my position is strong or weak. I claim that moral questions cannot meaningfully be debated by people that do not share a moral framework. ---
**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, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/204 "2012-02-24T20:51:11Z")
Yes, they can. Positions can be analyzed for logical coherence. We can debate whether or not axioms make sense or not. And even if you cannot convince your opponent, you can possibly convince onlookers. Your act of conceding defeat before even trying to argue the point strongly indicates that you know, on some level, that your position is indefensible. ---
**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, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/205 "2012-02-24T20:57:16Z")
And finally, at long last, we arrive at Liberal Hypocrisy, the #2 threat to the Republic! ---
**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, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/206 "2012-02-24T21:01:52Z")
"If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend I hope I should have the guts to betray my country”. E.M. Forester, _What I Believe_ He goes on to explain: > [@](#): > > “Such a choice may scandalize the modern reader, and he may stretch out his patriotic hand to the telephone at once and ring up the police. It would not have shocked Dante, though. Dante places Brutus and Cassius in the lowest circle of Hell because they had chosen to betray their friend Julius Caesar rather than their country Rome.” ---
**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, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/207 "2012-02-24T21:03:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In your opinion. > > But your opinion is not a law of nature. You are correct, it is not a law of nature. Well spotted. So what? > [@](#): > > 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. No, it _bores_ the crap out of us. Most people are not lawyers. Arguing the minutiae of the legal code is not something that interests 99% of humanity. What these sorts of discussions are about is not the law, but the moral dimension of the matter. The law enters into the discussion only insofar as it represents the relative success or failure of a particular viewpoint to win mainstream acceptance. The matter of interest here isn’t, “Is this legal?” The matter of interest is, “Is this right?” > [@](#): > > Unless of course those clear, demonstrable, provable, verifiable means favor your position. Then you trumpet the failure of your opponents to accept them. I do? Is this another of those situations where someone with whom I share some vague political leanings once acted in one way, and I act in a contrary way, and somehow that makes us both hypocrites? Because I’ve explained to you more than once why that’s a bullshit argumentative technique that should be beneath you. I’m willing to go over it again, though, if you want. ---
**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, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/208 "2012-02-24T21:06:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t claim my position is strong or weak. I claim that moral questions cannot meaningfully be debated by people that do not share a moral framework. I have seen much stupider things than this posted on this board. I have not, however, ever seen something this stupid posted by someone as smart as you are. ---
**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, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/209 "2012-02-24T21:16:33Z")
Well, he has a point, without a shared moral framework, it is mostly impossible to argue. The only reason he does it is to provide an inspiring and edifying example for the rest of us. Yet, he knows it is futile. _The Man of Butt Muncha_. Man, that’s fucking _existential_! Which in my frame of reference means “Man, that is total horseshit! Worse, its _empty_ horseshit!” ---
**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, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/210 "2012-02-24T21:16:38Z")
No, it is impossible to argue whether or not you should argue something unless someone agrees with your framework of argument. If Bricker tries, his hands will fall off. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2012, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/211 "2012-02-24T22:51:33Z")
> [@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. I formally apologize for all those times I thought ill of you and now proclaim you my hero of the day. ---
**Author:** ![bienville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@bienville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bienville)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2012, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/212 "2012-02-25T02:27:42Z")
Look, I’m cool with anything here as long as we can all agree there are seven Police Academy movies. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2012, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/213 "2012-02-25T03:24:35Z")
Can we alter the wording so we all lament that there are seven Police Academy movies? ---
**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 25, 2012, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/214 "2012-02-25T03:42:08Z")
Look, whether or not there were any Police Academy movies is besides the point. What’s important is that a dangerous single-joint-seller has been duly fucked over, he has the same name as a badguy anyways, and hey it’s the law so that’s the end of the discussion. It’s not as if we have any possible, nay, conceivable way to discuss whether or not it makes any sense to throw the book at a teen boy who gave a girl a joint when she asked for it, and then refused payment from her. We must simply accept that it’s The Law and go on with our days while he’s fed to the tender mercies of the system. The system which, we must recall, is beyond reproach, objective and above all savory. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2012, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/215 "2012-02-25T04:55:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Since entrapment is a defense, then, I would imagine these folks don’t need to worry about conviction? > > Say, here’s a fun question: how many arrests would you expect honor roll student Justin Laboy to have on his record? I was making a moral argument, not a legal one. I as saying that the reason the OP was upset about this is not because the guy wasn’t hurting anyone, but because he felt the police were doing something wrong. The allegation was entrapment, and that’s clearly what was upsetting. Whether it would legally be entrapment, and whether the case is actually as described was not my concern when making that statement. In fact, I just got linked to this comment and haven’t read the rest of the thread, so I don’t know if the guy’s claim held up. I expect that, by your question, there is evidence that the kid had past run-ins with the law, and possibly even actual drug convictions. And, yes, that would color my opinion of the case, assuming I also had a reasonable explanation by the cop for what actually happened. I’m not married to the idea that this was actual entrapment, but merely trying to get across why the stories, if true, were disturbing. The last thing I want are law enforcement officers who actually cause crime to be committed. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2012, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/216 "2012-02-25T06:15:05Z")
> [@](#): > > … Undercover officers posing as students spent the school year at Jupiter, Royal Palm Beach and Park Vista high schools, Police Chief Jim Kelly said Monday … > [@Bricker](#): > > Since the operation was initiated in response to complaints about pot being sold at the school, I imagine the expected haul was “potheads.” … The entire year at three schools in response to complaints about pot being sold? No, I’d expect the arrests of, ya know, the actual dealers that were supplying those High-schoolers. > [@](#): > > … The arrest list included 11 students from Royal Palm Beach, 10 from Jupiter, three from Park Vista, three from William T. Dwyer High, one from Independence Middle School and two home-schooled students. In addition, a 20-year-old adult education student and an 18-year-old dropout were charged. … Not just the kids that were, probably, just picking up an extra eighth for a friend. But thank the gods that for all that work, and money, we’ve managed to put 31 students in jail, that’s some might impressive police work that is! I’m sure the Pablo Escobar of southern Florida marijuana is shaking in his boots over just how close he came to being busted! :rolleyes: Too bad _I_ don’t get to set priorities for police, huh? CMC fnord! ---
**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 25, 2012, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/217 "2012-02-25T06:53:38Z")
It’s The Law. It’s impossible to argue whether or not it was a good idea to be devoting enough manpower to investigate three separate schools for a year in order to catch folks who’d give a girl a free joint. It’s The Law, Bricker wins, obviously. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2012, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/218 "2012-02-25T11:53:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Don’t agree. This is not the first sting operation police have ever done. Similar events have been reported as fact and glamorized as fiction for long enough that the lack of public outcry establishes at least a prima facie case of acceptance. It’s not conclusive, but it certainly shifts the burden to you – right now, the only thing you can point to in favor of the idea that the public doesn’t like it is the fact that you and (presumably) your gaggle of friends doesn’t like it – kinda like the possibly apocryphal story about Pauline Kael, the New York journalist who responded to news of Nixon’s reelection in a landslide to say it was impossible for such a thing to be true: none of her friends voted for Nixon! That doesn’t work. You’ve stated a general principal and applied it to this particular situation. I’m saying your general principal is bad. You can’t defeat that by arguing the particulars of this situation. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2012, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/219 "2012-02-25T12:11:46Z")
And damned if I didn’t use the wrong word. ‘Princip **le** ,’ dammit. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2012, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/220 "2012-02-25T19:05:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Since entrapment is a defense, then, I would imagine these folks don’t need to worry about conviction? Given that the Innocence Project has exonerated nearly 300 people [after they’d been convicted](http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php) of murder, I think it’s quite possible for much lower-stakes cases to be decided incorrectly. This relatively small group of people, taken together, served **38 centuries** for crimes they didn’t commit. Our justice system gets it right more often than not, but it still fucks up A LOT. It fucks up big, and it fucks up small. No, there’s no reason why I or anyone else should assume that a trial will automatically set them free if they have not committed a crime. Nor should someone assume, just because they were tricked by law enforcement agents into committing a crime that they wouldn’t have otherwise committed (whether or not that’s what happened here), that a jury will see it that way and exonerate them. If you believe the system will almost automatically exonerate you, then show up in court without an attorney, or maybe with a recent law school grad who knows enough to get you through the procedural stuff. Would you recommend that to someone charged with a crime, that you believed to be innocent? Neither would I. You’d recommend getting the best lawyer possible. Why? Because the difference in outcomes resulting from hiring the best lawyer possible, versus a barely competent lawyer, could be rather substantial. No matter how great the evidence of my innocence, and no matter how good a lawyer I could afford, if a prosecutor liked his case enough to take it to trial, I’d worry like hell; I’d barely sleep most nights. The threat of depriving someone of their liberty is no trivial thing, and we shouldn’t wave that threat around without a damned good reason. Going fishing to test people for their susceptibility to commit minor, victimless crimes, and bringing them to trial with a prison sentence as a potential outcome if they should fail the test, is simply wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353.md?page=12)