Entrapment - Police whores and stupid fundamentalists

[newcomer]

@Bouncer

I will bet you one nickel that after the fact, there will have been tangential information that would’ve led to discovery of the real plot, had they not been so focused on their own made up plot-designed-to-justify-the-budget.

Like say, the owner of a flight school calling in to the FBI about some suspicious dudes wanting to learn how to fly 757’s.

Only next time it’ll be a maritime school and liquid natural gas carriers. Or a truck driving school and how to handle chemical trucks. Something minor, like that.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

It’s been 11 years.

It looks like inflation has eaten that nickel, if you round it, to $0.00

[gamerunknown]

@kaylasdad99

i agree that in this age of “quotes that give one the ability to direct back to the referenced post,” that’s kind of a dick move.

Sorry, I tend to copy and paste tidbits to respond to in case my browser crashes. I should utilise the multiquote function instead I suppose.

My apologies if you find that my action here has been the opposite of “assistance.”

Looks good on my end.

[Bricker]

@gamerunknown

@Bricker

…so-called “victimless crimes”…

Care to expand on this?

No need; I see now that I did expand on it in the post from which you snipped the phrase. Here it is, expanded again, courtesy of kaylasdad99:

@Bricker

We, as a society, have an interest in prosecuting people who commit crimes, even minor ones such as drug possession. But as a rule, we wait until they actually commit crimes, then charge and try them. We don’t continually test the potential or propensity of each member of the citizenry to commit crimes, because the number of persons who can probably be pressured, suckered, or conned into doing something illegal under various unusual circumstances is undoubtedly far larger than the number who will actually commit those crimes, left to their own devices.

Your premise is not correct. Some crimes, especially the so-called “victimless” crimes, do not lend themselves to reporting. Prostitution, for example, is almost always caught by an undercover officer pretending to be a john or a hooker, because it’s not feasible to “wait until they actually commit crimes, then charge and try them.”

So we pick areas that appear to suffer from the problem – say, a well-known “stroll” for prostitutes, or a high school with reported drug traffic – and place undercover officers there to offer opportunities to people to commit crimes, these opportunities being similar to what they would get even if the officers were not involved.

@gamerunknown

@Bricker

I am instead prepared to accept society’s extant judgment

Asked and answered…

No, not really what I actually said was:

@Bricker

No, it’s just that I recognize the futility of debating how much value to society an arrest for marijuana possession has with a cadre of people that are convinced marijuana laws are themselves of no value to society. I am instead prepared to accept society’s extant judgment, expressed through our laws, and content to let you and your ilk wail in the wind.

(emphasis added)

[gamerunknown]

@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.

@Bricker

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.

If people think marijuana possession should be decriminalised, then presumably they are not content for people to be entrapped and imprisoned as a result of marijuana possession.

@Bricker

No need; I see now that I did expand on it in the post from which you snipped the phrase.

But you haven’t once explained why you consider the crimes “victimless” rather than victimless.

[Steve_MB]

@FinnAgain

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.

But he will insist that it is naught but a flesh wound.

[Bricker]

@gamerunknown

If people think marijuana possession should be decriminalised, then presumably they are not content for people to be entrapped and imprisoned as a result of marijuana possession.

Some people may feel, as I do, that the law should be changed, but that until it is, people should obey the current law rather than craft their own.

But you haven’t once explained why you consider the crimes “victimless” rather than victimless.

I think that for many drugs, the victim is the user himself. For prostitution, the victim is often the prostitute, forced into the life. While I concede that the $5,000 per night Sheen-tier call girls are not in this category, I don’t concede that prostitution as a whole is a victimless crime. Thus the "so-called’ qualifier.

[gamerunknown]

I agree on both counts. I personally support decriminalisation of marijuana possession, yet comply completely with the law. I have a feeling many of those opposing the criminality of marijuana do so precisely because of the extent to which it is prosecuted in the US (and I think the example given in the OP is one of the harsher examples of prosecution).

I also think prostitutes are victims of their economic circumstances, but I would contend that for marijuana possession any harm derived from the crime comes solely from the prosecution of the crime (including the necessity to associate with/fund unsavoury characters and ventures).

[BigT]

See, I disagree. I don’t believe you should feel required follow a law you think is wrong. You have to weigh it against the chances of being caught breaking said law, but there’s no moral compulsion not to perform the action if you would not be caught.

And, no, this isn’t a free-for-all. There are other moral compulsions that take care of other laws. You are not free to make up your morals willy-nilly. Right and wrong have meaning beyond just “what I like” and “what I don’t.” It involves “does what I’m doing hurt other people”? And morality does require at least some level of consensus. The problem is that a morality against marijuana does not have any more consensus that one that does not. And the law, which often lags behind morality, does not break the tie.

Following the law no matter what your morality says means that you are willingly being immoral, and thus are not a moral person. At that point, you’re no more good than someone who follows the law because they fear punishment.