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.
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.
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.
"
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.”
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):
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Indeed. But that wasn’t your question. The question I answered is:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.