You’re hanging your hat on “simply?”
Fine. I withdraw “simply.”
Okay, then your question is:
“Your problem is not the conduct of the officer. You don’t believe the conduct should be illegal. Right?”
That’s now two questions. The answer to the first is, “wrong.”
I’m OK with that.
OK. And the answer to the second?
Is “it’s irrelevant.” See my jaywalking analogy. The behavior of the police was unacceptable regardless of one’s position on marijuana legalization.
Sounds like a lovely community, if high school kids smoking pot is up towards the top of their list of problems.
It’s so much easier when you answer yourself like this…
I’m a little curious Bricker as to where you draw your line on entrapment and what you consider a valid use of taxpayer resources. I’m not arguing the legality of marijuana (although I personally believe the current drug laws are the height of absurdity).
What constitutes entrapment to you?
You actually asked Bricker for a lecture on the finer points of legality? You asked for it?
Aha. So if the federal government can put more folks in federal prisons then…somehow this helps states keep state prisons 90% full for CCA?
No. CCA and GEO group already have both state and federal contracts.
CCA is looking for expand the state prisons that it runs and requires a 90% occupancy rate guarantee as part of the sale contract.
Hey, it’s a slow day around here, I got nothing to kill on the farm and I’m avoiding cleaning the kitchen.
I figure it would help while away the afternoon.
So the terrorists, incompetent or otherwise, continue to do dick-all for stuffing prisons.
I’m not all that bothered by the high school sting, provided that the undercover cops were only on the buying end. If the cops were also on the selling end and pushing the kids to buy in order to become dealers, I’d have a problem.
In fact, that’s the problem I have with some of the terrorism cases, such as the Hemant Lakhani case. When all the parties surrounding the target – the buyers, the sellers, the instigators – when they’re all government agents who are providing the motives, the impetus, the egging-on, and creating a situation of possible transactions that otherwise simply wouldn’t have existed – that sounds a lot more like entrapment to me.
Entrapment happens when the subject is not predisposed to commit the underlying crime, and when the genesis and execution of the crime arises wholly from the urging of the government agent.
Entrapment does not occur merely because the government agent offers a favorable – even a very favorable – opportunity to commit the crime.
Enforcement of the criminal code is generally a valid use of taxpayer resources.
OK.
I harbor a suspicion that if the underlying crime were something that you felt strongly about, like child porn, your distaste at the police actions would vanish.
Which is exactly what this sounds like to me.
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?
Yes
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?
Highly questionable.
Here’s the code. Similar to the laws in my state, it requires that the items being sold are primarily intended for drug use. There’s a list of relevant factors.
Otherwise, it would be illegal for me to buy my cigarette papers, or for my friend to own his meerschaum, because without the “intent” factor, those would also be illegal under the pertinent regulations.
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.
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.
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.