# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/81 "2012-02-22T19:51:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, the original story painted the accused as an honors student, trapped by a femme fatale cop. > > Does knowing that the “honors student” has multiple arrests as an adult, apart from this crime, change your mind? > > If not, why do you credit his version and discount hers? It does not change my mind, but I wonder if the other arrests were before, after, or incident to the arrest in question. I credit his version because it is simply a matter of choice. Take two statements: 1 - 18 year old men never lie 2 - Police never lie Both are untrue. The fact that the woman is a police officer does not lend her credibility in my eyes, because she had a vested interest in, first of all, producing a desirable outcome to the sting and second, presenting her side in a favorable light upon scrutiny. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/82 "2012-02-22T20:00:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree. > > It only sounds that way if you completely credit the accused’s version and discount the undercover officer’s version. > > Are you doing that? I did read both accounts. It sounds like the kid was no choir boy, but she still manipulated him into a crime. His past crimes had nothing to do with drugs. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/83 "2012-02-22T20:02:04Z")
> [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > It does not change my mind, but I wonder if the other arrests were before, after, or incident to the arrest in question. > > I credit his version because it is simply a matter of choice. Take two statements: > > 1 - 18 year old men never lie > > 2 - Police never lie > > Both are untrue. The fact that the woman is a police officer does not lend her credibility in my eyes, because she had a vested interest in, first of all, producing a desirable outcome to the sting and second, presenting her side in a favorable light upon scrutiny. Plus, as an undercover officer seeking to entrap … er, ENTICE … high school kids into purchasing/selling drugs, she’s a professional liar to start with. ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/84 "2012-02-22T20:05:58Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > I did read both accounts. It sounds like the kid was no choir boy, but she still manipulated him into a crime. His past crimes had nothing to do with drugs. " Maybe that’s why he was targeted…“Hey, here’s a kid we’ve arrested before, I’ll bet it’ll be easy to nail him for something else. Plus, I remember the little fucker falling asleep in DARE class.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/85 "2012-02-22T20:15:22Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > Chong was selling hand-crafted, blown-glass art pieces that could be used as water pipes. Primary purpose: art. Secondary purpose: water pipe. Intent to use them for illegal drugs: entirely on the purchaser. BWAHAHAHAHA!! Yes, “art.” :rolleyes: One tiny [problem](http://www.laweekly.com/2003-12-04/news/chong-family-values/) with the “art” story: > [@LA Weekly](#): > > …asked Tommy Chong, during an in-store appearance on behalf of Nice Dreams, if the company’s pipes were good for smoking marijuana. Chong didn’t hesitate to answer yes — a reply that would be used against him in court. Also, your claim that intent rests entirely with the purchaser is unmitigated bullshit. As the Supreme Court explained quite clearly in _Posters ‘N’ Things, Ltd. v. US_, 511 US 513 (1994): > [@](#): > > The objective characteristics of some items establish that they are designed specifically for use with controlled substances. Such items, including bongs, cocaine freebase kits, and certain kinds of pipes, have no other use besides contrived ones (such as use of a bong as a flower vase). Items that meet the “designed for use” standard constitute drug paraphernalia irrespective of the knowledge or intent of one who sells or transports them. Do you seriously imagine that the law consists of magic words? That unless the government can read someone’s mind, it is helpless to prove intent, and must sit by, frustrated, as some idiot claims his bongs are artwork? No. The law recognizes what you apparently cannot: that it’s absolutely obvious what the intended use of those glasswork pieces was, and even without Chong’s admission, a conviction could easily have been secured. And you’re utterly dishonest. Because I know you didn’t read the news of Chong’s admission with shock, did you? You didn’t say to yourself, “What?!? Chong said they were good for pot smoking? But…but… I thought they were art!” No, of course not. You knew exactly what they were for, and yet you advance this absurd claim. > [@](#): > > Not to mention the fraud committed by the DEA in order to get the company to ship to one of only two states willing to enforce the statutes. So what? In what way is that remotely legally significant? Every undercover officer engages in fraud, implicitly or explicitly. Or are you one of those morons who imagines the undercover police officer must answer “Yes,” if asked directly if he’s police? > [@](#): > > And the fact that Chong was only peripherally involved. His son owned & ran the business. The feds went for the show. After all, they’d spent $12 mil and had 55 whole arrests to show for it. And how is that remotely legally significant? Chong financed the business. Sure, his son owned it, but it wouldn’t have existed if Tommy Chong hadn’t ponied up the money – and of course Chong knew what the business was. And a raid of Chong’s house produced a pound of marijuana, further undercutting any attempt to place Chong as an innocent bystander for his evil, pot paraphernalia son. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/86 "2012-02-22T20:18:53Z")
> [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > It does not change my mind, but I wonder if the other arrests were before, after, or incident to the arrest in question. > > I credit his version because it is simply a matter of choice. Take two statements: > > 1 - 18 year old men never lie > > 2 - Police never lie > > Both are untrue. The fact that the woman is a police officer does not lend her credibility in my eyes, because she had a vested interest in, first of all, producing a desirable outcome to the sting and second, presenting her side in a favorable light upon scrutiny. Well, that’s why we have judges and juries. They can listen to each witness testify and weigh the credibility of each, assigning any weight that they wish to each person’s story. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/87 "2012-02-22T20:26:45Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Plus, as an undercover officer seeking to entrap … er, ENTICE … high school kids into purchasing/selling drugs, she’s a professional liar to start with. Excellent point to bring to the jury’s attention. Amazingly, though, this often fails to persuade juries to disregard undercover police officers’ testimony. I wonder why that is? Oh, yeah. I think I know: because the jury realizes that the undercover officer doesn’t lose his or her job for failing to snag any given defendant, but would if it were shown he was lying under oath. In a target-rich environment like this one, the officer didn’t particularly care if she got this kid or not. When I was a PD, I can tell you that I encountered lying police officers. It was very rare, but it happened. On the other hand, the vast majority of my clients lied. I’m curious to know what, if any, experience you have in the criminal justice world that allows you your insight here. ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/88 "2012-02-22T20:28:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, that’s why we have judges and juries. They can listen to each witness testify and weigh the credibility of each, assigning any weight that they wish to each person’s story. Indeed. But that wasn’t your question. The question I answered is: > [@Bricker](#): > > Does knowing that the “honors student” has multiple arrests as an adult, apart from this crime, change your mind? > > If not, why do you credit his version and discount hers? This reminds me of the Larry Craig thread from a week or so ago. There’s no question that this subject committed an illegal act. There is some question as to whether he was ‘entrapped’ or just…hmm…‘creatively stung’. Barring opinion on the type of offense, the clear, long-term emotional manipulation of a person, whether it rises to the level of entrapment or not, should be viewed with extreme distaste. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/89 "2012-02-22T20:30:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, that’s why we have judges and juries. They can listen to each witness testify and weigh the credibility of each, assigning any weight that they wish to each person’s story. That’s nice, but who wants to have one’s freedom come down to a jury’s decision as to whether to grant its continuance or take it away? I think you’ve got to have a damned good reason to put someone at that risk of losing their freedom. Did the policewoman have reason to believe this guy was a drug dealer before she struck up this faux friendship and flirtation with him? Should anyone go to jail who can, given enough time and attention, be manipulated into committing a rather pedestrian and victimless crime? What percentage of guys in that age range would have been caught if they’d been the ones she decided to go after? ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/90 "2012-02-22T20:31:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Excellent point to bring to the jury’s attention. > > Amazingly, though, this often fails to persuade juries to disregard undercover police officers’ testimony. I wonder why that is? > Oh, yeah. I think I know: because the jury realizes that the undercover officer doesn’t lose his or her job for failing to snag any given defendant, but would if it were shown he was lying under oath. In a target-rich environment like this one, the officer didn’t particularly care if she got this kid or not. > > When I was a PD, I can tell you that I encountered lying police officers. It was very rare, but it happened. On the other hand, the vast majority of my clients lied. > > I’m curious to know what, if any, experience you have in the criminal justice world that allows you your insight here. Let me get this straight: You aver that the undercover officer has no interest, career, personal or otherwise, in arresting any particular subject. The thing is…it would be impossible, in some cases, to PROVE the officer was lying under oath, wouldn’t it? As you said, it’s his word against hers. Good job security. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/91 "2012-02-22T20:37:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Every undercover officer engages in fraud, implicitly or explicitly. Or are you one of those morons who imagines the undercover police officer must answer “Yes,” if asked directly if he’s police? Well, duh. You have to ask them _three times_, and then they have to admit it. One of those secrets they don’t want you to know. This dude I know who knows someone whose friend is a cop told me that. So is that cashed, or what? You’ve been sitting there holding it for like, ever. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/92 "2012-02-22T20:43:43Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > That’s nice, but who wants to have one’s freedom come down to a jury’s decision as to whether to grant its continuance or take it away? > > I think you’ve got to have a damned good reason to put someone at that risk of losing their freedom. Did the policewoman have reason to believe this guy was a drug dealer before she struck up this faux friendship and flirtation with him? Should anyone go to jail who can, given enough time and attention, be manipulated into committing a rather pedestrian and victimless crime? What percentage of guys in that age range would have been caught if they’d been the ones she decided to go after? I disagree. And fortunately for everyone, the law in this country generally does not conform to your belief about how these things should be. In my view, he could have, and should have, simply said, “I don’t do that,” when asked about getting pot for her. That’s what we expect people to do. People who reply, “OK, honey,” and then follow through on it are committing crimes, and I have no heartburn whatsoever in seeing them charged. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/93 "2012-02-22T20:46:55Z")
> [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > Let me get this straight: You aver that the undercover officer has no interest, career, personal or otherwise, in arresting any particular subject. > > The thing is…it would be impossible, in some cases, to PROVE the officer was lying under oath, wouldn’t it? As you said, it’s his word against hers. Good job security. I don’t say ‘no interest’ – but typically, much less interest than an accused has of lying about his innocence. In other words, the risks for her in lying are profound, especially today when everyone has a voice and video recorder in their pockets. The risks in telling the truth are small – she simply doesn’t arrest him. She can hardly be expected to arrest every kid she met. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/94 "2012-02-22T20:48:29Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > So is that cashed, or what? You’ve been sitting there holding it for like, ever. Huh? ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/95 "2012-02-22T20:54:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, the original story painted the accused as an honors student, trapped by a femme fatale cop. > > Does knowing that the “honors student” has multiple arrests as an adult, apart from this crime, change your mind? > > If not, why do you credit his version and discount hers? When were the other arrests? What were the other arrests for? Was he convicted? You’ve already been asked the first two questions, I know, but you seem to be dodging them. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/96 "2012-02-22T20:55:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Huh? he’s jokingly suggesting that you’re parking on a joint ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/97 "2012-02-22T21:09:35Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > he’s jokingly suggesting that you’re parking on a joint AKA, “Don’t bogart the joint man! Pass it over!” **Bricker** , you’d suck as an undercover drug purchaser. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/98 "2012-02-22T21:12:10Z")
The correct term is to “Bogart”. Kids these days, I swear… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/99 "2012-02-22T21:26:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …Amazingly, though, this often fails to persuade juries to disregard undercover police officers’ testimony. I wonder why that is?.. No, you don’t “wonder”. You know perfectly well why that is. You have, if I recall, some experience in criminal law. So, no, you are not amazed, nor even surprised. Now, if you take off the _faux_ naivete, and look me straight in the monitor and tell me that you believe that juries are paragons of reasoned deliberations, I will be willing to accept that you believe it. I won’t, mind you, but would be willing to accept that you do. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353/100 "2012-02-22T21:29:37Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > The correct term is to “Bogart”. Kids these days, I swear… whatever, hippie [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrapment-police-whores-and-stupid-fundamentalists/613353.md?page=6)