So, mipiace: COPS CAN LIE, DIRECTLY, AND SAY THEY AREN’T COPS.
OK?
- Rick **
[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, PS - How do I know you aren’t telling me a lie?
Because, as your immediately previous post points out, I’m not the only one giving you the same information. Not only the posters above, but the links provided, reveal the same information.
- Rick
Idiot! Never leave home without a vagina!
(And it’s really a good idea to keep a spare, as well.)
Damn Rick you really take this seriously. Are you a cop?
And Thanks SC - I always make sure I never leave home without my vagina.
No, but in my former life, I dealt with dozens, if not hundreds, of people who were arrested because they believed the “cop can’t lie about being a cop” legend.
I was a public defender.
And I wasn’t allowed to scream, “You’re a real moron!” at my clients, alas.
Perhaps a measure of that frustration is still with me today.
- Rick
Ahh, I understand. I thought you must have either been a public defender or a criminal! For a minute I thought I was talking to my ex-husband (who would have been the latter) and also named Rick.
I’m glad in your new life you don’t deal with so many idiots. Sometimes I am an idiot but hopefully not in any respect that will send me to jail. My motto (other than not leaving home without a vagina) is “If you are going to be an idiot - do it on an internet message board and not when you are about to break the law”
Thanks for the smile and go realease some of that stres!!
And how exactly does touching a vagina you are invited to touch break any law?
If you suspect someone is a cop and ask him point-blank whether he is or not, he will give some kind of answer. Maybe he’ll be believable, maybe he won’t. Cops are “allowed” to lie, they’re just not necessarily better at it than anybody else.
As Lady Brett Ashley says to Jake Barnes, “Wouldn’t it be pretty to think so?”
At least these days, the idiocy I encounter at work is of a more sophisticated variety!
- Rick
A cop wouldn’t invite you to touch them, nor would they touch a prostitute, nor would they beat up a passerby, nor would they snort coke, thats my point. If a prostitute you suspect is a police officer won’t let you touch them sexually w/o actually saying in no uncertain terms that you want to pay for sex then that should send up a red flag.
I kindof regret saying this originally because on these boards you have to know everything about something before you can comment on it or you will be eaten alive but…
Its my understanding that it works like this. Ddi you read the post about ‘Ask the guy who used to frequent hookers!’ on MPSIMS? When he went to one hooker, instead of getting in the car, she tried to get him to say he wanted to purchase sex. Basically, logic & non-ficiton information will tell you that an undercover officers first goal is to trick someone into saying they want to break the law.
If you suspect a prostitute is an undercover police officer, you can ask her if you can feel up her breasts or something akin to that before you attempt to negotiate. If she says no, you have to ask yourself ‘why not’ since you will end up doing that anyway. The logical answer is that she never intended to let you do that, that it was a farce. If she does, then she intended to let you do that sooner or later.
read it and weep suckers. From the thread entitled
Ask the guy who used to frequent hookers!
I AM VINDICATED. my ‘touch my vagina’ philosophies have been justified in the eyes of man. Now i can sleep a good nights rest again.
As I said above, the police are limited by particular guidelines imposed by their departments.
Many, if not most, departments forbid their officers from exposing themselves or touching suspects in a sexual manner, even during prostitution stings. This insulates the officers to some degree from sexual misconduct allegations, as well as family friction.
But this is not a matter of law - it’s a matter of policy, and varies from department to department.
If an officer DID expose his genitals to prove he wasn’t a cop, and then later make an arrest, there is no ground upon which to dismiss the charge.
- Rick
"If I dont have coke or a vigina handy? "
You don’t have coke or a vagina? Well, I don’t care about that too much, I accept everyone for who they are.
I think cops wear rubber soles, so I look at their shoes. Also, they usually have a cop license, which is like our drivers license, so ask them to open their wallet.
Sure, police can lie about this. However, their lying COULD add weight to an entrapment defense. Basicly, if they are trying to get you to do something illegal, you wouldn’t normally do- and they insist that what they are trying to get you to do IS legal (and it’s not), then this might increase the defense.
But- the old question “are you a cop” is so bad as a defense, it has in some cases been used against the person asking- to prove they knew what they were doing is illegal. Asking- “is this legal”? may be more of a defense.
A freind of mine got a solictation bust dismissed for that. He asked the cop/decoy in Vegas- “this is legal here, isn’t it”, and she said “yes”. Since prostitution is legal in Nevada, but not in Vegas, he had a reasonable defense. Basicly, the judge surmised that he might very well have not commited the crime if he knew it was a crime. Thus- 'entrapment".
Bricker is mostly right. But, in some cases 'whipping it out" could be 'entrapment", if the arrestee could show that the cop soliceted her. Like “hey, I’ll give you $50 to suck on this” would be usually entrapment.
Best thing to do is to NOT “solicit”. Nothing wrong with asking for sex. It is illegal to offer sex for cash, or cash for sex. Besides, dudes- stay away from streetwalkers. Try a massage parlor, or one of those outcall “private strippers”. Or a lapdance. Hard to catch VD from a lapdance.
Umm, Handy, oh-ye-of-many, many-posts? Why would you be concerned about someone being an undercover cop? Besides- yes, you’re right about good comfy shoes (like those with rubber soles, Clarkes desert boots were faves for a while), but now most dudes wear running/athletic shoes, so that doesn’t help.
Bricker wrote:
Listen to Bricker. He knows whereof he speaks.
I remember reading a Georgia Court of Appeals opinion a few years back that arose out of a prostitution arrest. Vice squad police officers had gone to a massage parlor where they sought, and received, masturbation for hire. The officers in question actually completed the act to their full, um, “satisfaction” before making the arrest.
The Court of Appeals included the officers’ full names in its opinion, with the obvious intent of embarrassing them. (The court clearly didn’t approve of cops getting their jollies at the massage parlor “in the line of duty.”) HOWEVER the prostitution convictions were upheld, and there was no indication that the police officers had been prosecuted for their conduct.
First of all, Bricker is completely right.
If you want to add facts to my hypothetical, it doesn’t make my original one wrong.
More to the point of the discussion, remember that entrapment is only available as an affirmative defense if the accused can prove by preponderance of the evidence that she would not have committed the crime except for the undue persuasion of the police, or that the encouragement was such that it created a risk that persons not inclined to commit the crime would commit it. It can be defeated by a showing that the accused had a predisposition to commit the crime.
In Virginia, to take an example of a jurisdiction I’m most familiar with, entrapment is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer, and his procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion, or fraud of the officer. Stamper v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 707, 715, 324 S.E.2d 682, 687 (1985) (quoting Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 454 (1932)); see McCoy v. Commonwealth, 9 Va. App. 227, 231, 385 S.E.2d 628, 630 (1989).
However, “[t]here is nothing improper in the use, by the police, of decoys, undercover agents, and informers to invite the exposure of willing criminals and to present an opportunity to one willing to commit a crime.” Id.; see Pannell v. Commonwealth, 9 Va. App. 170, 173, 384 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1989). Moreover, “[r]eluctance to engage in crime is not transformed into entrapment whenever a person hesitantly, but willingly, acquiesces in the request of a close ally to commit a crime.”
As an example, the Virginia Court of Appeals found no entrapment in a man who was hailed by two undercover drug officers, shown what appeared to be drugs, and encouraged to buy them, even though the man had not asked about drugs first, because he was predisposed to commit the crime. A conviction will not be barred on grounds of entrapment because the police merely afford an opportunity to commit a crime to one already willing to commit it.
- Rick
I think we should state, clearly and for the record, that if you ask a cop whether he/she is a cop, he/she must absolutely tell you the truth. Any failure to do so will mean that your case will be thrown out of court, under … uh… the Miranda Act.
So, go ahead with your illegal drug deals, and remember that you’re perfectly safe from undercover cops as long as your remember to ask. Keep saying that to yourself. Believe it. Trust it.
Now, now. We’re here to fight ignorance, not crime.
Can’t I do both at the same time?
… after all, the best learning often occurs experientially, rather than just from some dry dull lecture on a Message Board.
Ok,OK!
I’ll get one of those battery powered ones ALRIGHT!?
Me: “Are you a cop?”
Cop:“no”
Me: "then will you touch this for me? ::buzzzz,buzzz::
