I stopped at 7-eleven in Centreville across from I-Hop and after I made my purschase and went outside I got approached by 2 teenagers( maybe 18 yo) and they have asked me if I was 21. I said yes and they proceed to ask if I could by them some alcohol. I said no and said that I was going back to military as an MP and cant afford to do that, not to mention it was exactly midnight. I got in my car and watched the two kids that approached me walk around the corner get into a fairfax police marked suburbian and take off. Que?

It's called operation shoulder tap.

well no wonder the clerk was sweating so much..... I didnt know they made their way to Fairfax

They probably fucked w/ the cashier first, then the customers outside.

thats entrapment right there, if you did bought them the alcohol your lawyer could get all the charges dropped because it was an entrapment. look at it this way, you are approached by two male in the middle of the night in a threatening manner which probably made you fear for your life and you bought them the alcohol. stupid cops. they have nothing better to do than set up people. fuck cops.

I dont think that would fly well with the county. Considering my build and the fact that I was armed at the time. The two that approached me looked like straight from junior high. Skinny tall black guy and a 5 foot tall 100lbs girl. What a threat,huh? Maybe if they were chasing me across the lot with the 5 ton suburbian but just approaching me wouldnt get past the courts

booz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stupid cops.
> they have nothing better to do than set up people.
> fuck cops.

Spoken like a true fucking loser.

booz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thats entrapment right there, if you did bought
> them the alcohol your lawyer could get all the
> charges dropped because it was an entrapment.
> look at it this way, you are approached by two
> male in the middle of the night in a threatening
> manner which probably made you fear for your life
> and you bought them the alcohol. stupid cops.
> they have nothing better to do than set up people.
> fuck cops.


You obviously have no idea how entrapment really works. (in addition to your incorrect grammar usage, case in point: "if you did bought"). Entrapment occurs when, and only if the police provide an opportunity for the offender to commit a crime that would not have otherwise been present under normal conditions. Kids asking adults to buy alcohol happens every day and is a normal occurence, ergo, not a valid case of entrapment. Those kids were probably 20 year old cadets.Now if you said no originally, and then somehow they coerced and convinced you to do it, you might have a case, if you can prove it. However it's your word against theirs and they would probably deny that you initially refused. Since you agreed to do it, you are as good as convicted. In addition, telling the juge that you purchased the alcohol under duress and fear for your life is the dumbest shit I have ever heard. I bet you believe that if you ask an undercover if he is a cop, he can't bust you as well. Unless you wise up, you are destined for legal trouble.

Distrusted...
I look for wires when I'm talking to you!!!

Fugazi



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2008 03:20AM by DeathByCop.

Good Speller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> booz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > stupid cops.
> > they have nothing better to do than set up
> people.
> > fuck cops.
>
> Spoken like a true fucking loser.


you are the only loser here. could you tell me anything else these bigoted "respect ma athority" deficit running, donut eating over.weight, insecure bastards do other than to set up traps for innocent people? you would think with all the rape/murder/theft happening they would pay attention to real crime. but NOO, stupid motherfuckers are busy setting people up. i can't wait until their cases get laughed out of court. yea i said, and will say it again, fuckk them.

booz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you are the only loser here. could you tell me
> anything else these bigoted "respect ma athority"
> deficit running, donut eating over.weight,
> insecure bastards do other than to set up traps
> for innocent people? you would think with all the
> rape/murder/theft happening they would pay
> attention to real crime. but NOO, stupid
> motherfuckers are busy setting people up. i can't
> wait until their cases get laughed out of court.
> yea i said, and will say it again, fuckk them.

It's clear that you are some hippie ass liberal who lives at home with his parents.

Only criminals and immature fucking punks have problems with the police.

People who don't get in trouble with the cops tend to not really stress over them like you seem to, pussy.

DeathByCop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Entrapment occurs when, and only if the police
> provide an opportunity for the offender to commit
> a crime that would not have otherwise been present
> under normal conditions.

Then by your definition this is exactly entrapment. Did the 7-11 customer approach the kids and say "I am 21, can I buy you beer?" or did two kids (against 1 person) approach him and ask if he commit the crime?

This has already been discussed before on this thread and it IS entrapment.

Good Speller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> booz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > you are the only loser here. could you tell me
> > anything else these bigoted "respect ma
> athority"
> > deficit running, donut eating over.weight,
> > insecure bastards do other than to set up traps
> > for innocent people? you would think with all
> the
> > rape/murder/theft happening they would pay
> > attention to real crime. but NOO, stupid
> > motherfuckers are busy setting people up. i
> can't
> > wait until their cases get laughed out of court.
>
> > yea i said, and will say it again, fuckk them.
>
> It's clear that you are some hippie ass liberal
> who lives at home with his parents.
>
> Only criminals and immature fucking punks have
> problems with the police.
>
> People who don't get in trouble with the cops tend
> to not really stress over them like you seem to,
> pussy.

I have had four encounters with the police in my life and two were for traffic. I have found them to be pig headed, insensitive, argumentative, and self righteous.

On one occasion a cop was plain wrong in his assessment of a traffic situation. When I tried to tell them the whole story, he said "are you calling me a liar?" I said "no, and that is black and white thinking." He then said "What are you talking about." Great, a cop that has never been trained in logic. What could possibly go wrong?

You passed the test, good job.

Yup, Cadets do two sting operations. Operation Shoulder tap which they attempt to get somebody outside a 7-Eleven to buy them alcohol and business compliance checks where they go into a store or restaurant and try to buy alcohol.

It's not entrapment. Entrapment is if you pull up to a red light, a cop car is next to you, and the cop says something like "Let's race, don't worry it's cool". If you race him, then get pulled over for it, THAT'S Entrapment.

If two kids asking you to purchase alcohol for them is Entrapment, then anyone who get's busted by an undercover female officer for soliciting a prostitute can get off under the same logic. Like the earlier poster said, it's their word against yours.

One thing I heard you can do in situations like that is ask if the kids are either police officers or associated with law enforcement. From what I understand if it is a sting operation, they are required to say if they are when you ask. I'm not sure if this was something established in a federal case or if it is allowed to deviate between states. I could be wrong though.

Joseph Wrote:
>>if it is a sting operation, they are required to say if they are when you ask

That's not true. There is no obligation that they answer truthfully if you ask if they are law enforcement.

I also agree with the others who consider this to be entrapment. The police are actively manufacturing a crime.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Joseph Wrote:
> >>if it is a sting operation, they are required to
> say if they are when you ask
>
> That's not true. There is no obligation that they
> answer truthfully if you ask if they are law
> enforcement.
>
> I also agree with the others who consider this to
> be entrapment. The police are actively
> manufacturing a crime.

Yeah, I had a feeling it was BS. Thanks for clearing that up. I guess it makes sense, considering the police are even allowed to lie to you in an interrogation room telling you that your buddy just fessed up or accused you of something, even when he/she didn't.

I'm sorry Pediophile, but check w/ a lawyer. I think it should be entrapment, but the courts don't think so. Although it seems to fit the letter of the law in regards to entrapment, the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. It all depends on how the courts "interpret" entrapment. When it comes to law enforcement, they use a means to an ends doctrine when it comes to these and other drug related operations. Their theory is that if a random kid had asked, they still would have done it, and that's precisely how the courts interpret it. I knew someone who got set up by the ABC in this manner, and the entrapment defense did not work for them. Prosecutors normally don't go ahead w/ cases unless they are rock solid (i.e. the adult never said no) gauranteed conviction cases. That's why a lot of undercovers are so adament about the intricacies of their operations (i.e. making sure they have an actual hand to hand exchange) in order to have a solid and irrefutable case for the prosecutor.

Why else do you think the jails have doubled in size over bs non-violent petty drug charges during the Clinton/Bush years????



ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.



Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DeathByCop Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Entrapment occurs when, and only if the police
> > provide an opportunity for the offender to
> commit
> > a crime that would not have otherwise been
> present
> > under normal conditions.
>
> Then by your definition this is exactly
> entrapment. Did the 7-11 customer approach the
> kids and say "I am 21, can I buy you beer?" or did
> two kids (against 1 person) approach him and ask
> if he commit the crime?
>
> This has already been discussed before on this
> thread and it IS entrapment.

If you are a bartender or cashier at a place that sells alcohol, just ask for an ID. The cadets never have one, and are not allowed to use fake ones. No ID...No problems!

absolutely horrid tactic employed by the FCPD to create criminals out of ordinary citizens.

what if...

what if a man walks out of 7-11. He is approached by teenagers. Let say this man is afraid of teenagers because he knows about South Lakes. Lets say this man is "intimidated" by teenagers. Lets say he doesn't want to buy them beer, but is afraid to say, because he fears for his physical safety. So...he goes in and buys them their beer. Basically, against his will, and as a safety precaution in order to avoid a potential conflict with dangerous teenagers.

this man is a criminal? No, this man is a coward that is a victim of the circumstance. He is not a criminal.

way too many people on here defending this act. probably all cops or cadets....

i would never buy a young person beer. and if I was ever approached by a person asking me to buy them beer, I would punch them square in the nose, and say "don't ask me to break the law". Or I would pull my can of mace and mace their face because the person was acting fidgety and I feared for my safety. I thought he had a weapon and was about to pull it on me because I refused to buy them beer. I wonder how that would go over with FCPD...

Fuck "operation shoulder tap" and fuck all of its supporters. Go to hell. Use my tax dollars to catch real criminals instead of using it to teach cadets how to commit borderline "entrapment" against the citizens theyre paid to protect.

I agree it is BS Gestapo tactics, however it is not entrapment if you willingly agree to do it. It is only entrapment if you say no and then they convince or coerce you to comply w/ their request. Even if this was the case, it would still be hard to prove in court, considering it would be your word against the 2 cadets.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2008 11:40AM by DeathByCop.

Wow, cracking down hard on the classic shoulder tap...

Come on, let the kids booze.

Who cares if someone puts something into their body?

I'll be turning 21 very soon and I would have def hooked up a youngster in need. Now, I'll have to be a dickhead and refuse to buy for fear of a criminal charge. LAME.

If this is such a problem, why not have the cadets hang out outside the 7-Eleven and then go after genuine teenagers (and their adult booze purchasers) who are doing this?

The problem is that our liberty and happiness dangles from a thin wire. On one side we have the forces of raw criminality and on the other we have the forces of police becoming criminals.

Native Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I stopped at 7-eleven in Centreville across from
> I-Hop and after I made my purschase and went
> outside I got approached by 2 teenagers( maybe 18
> yo) and they have asked me if I was 21. I said yes
> and they proceed to ask if I could by them some
> alcohol.

you should have punched them right there and then.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

You should have taken their money, bought the beer, then taken it home with you.

You should have said "You want to give me this money to buy beer, right?" Then I would have said "THANKS!", gone inside bought said beer, and gone home!LOL

cville Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You should have taken their money, bought the
> beer, then taken it home with you.


thats interesting actually...

hey all you cops and/or lawyers out there:

what if the "potential criminal" did exactly this:

Cadet: "Mister are you 21? Can you buy me beer?"

Centreville criminal: "Yes, no problem. Give me your money".

Cadet: "Here you guy -- case of Bud Light please"

Then, you go into 7-11, buy the beer, and walk out. When the cadet asks you for the beer, you say "I know you are not 21. Your money and this beer is mine now. Do not take one step closer to me".

So the question is, are you arrested for being a criminal *after* taking the money -- or are you a criminal when you hand the beer over to the cadet?

Or just take the money and buy them something real stupid, like come out of the store and just give them 15 loaves of bread.

You asked " You are giving me this money to buy beer?" w/o refrence to it being for them, then it was a gift, and technically yours. Otherwuse it would be theft by deception.

Depending on the vibe, especially that late at night, I would have tried to find a way to get back into the store and call the cops from there fearing a "no" answer would get me knifed. If you say "okay" do they bust you at that point, or do you have to hand them beer? IOW how do I get back into the store without being arrested by these idiots with nothing better to do?

You need a hand to hand exchange of money and goods, just like in a drug deal sting.

DeathByCop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You need a hand to hand exchange of money and
> goods, just like in a drug deal sting.

thats makes sense, but in the case of a prostitution sting, I was arrested after the undercover male officer got into my vehicle. There was no exchange of money or sex.

Maybe the law differs between these two scenarios.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or just take the money and buy them something real
> stupid, like come out of the store and just give
> them 15 loaves of bread.


lol - i was halfway through this thread when i thought the same thing to myself... what if i took their money and came out with 2 bottles of milk (one for each of them)...

is that allowed?

or more importantly, do they wait to ticket you until after the purchase? or after you take the money?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2008 02:25PM by bdimag.

A lot of great arguments here, like go after real crimes theft/rape/embezzlement (nah, not real)/murder or how about, underage kids drinking and driving...umm let's say a VW Cabriolet and hypothetically, it's driving on 495, and again shot in the dark, unsafe lane change in front of a tractor trailer and then all kinds of dead people.

Of course that is all hypothetical and undoubtedly that is not the real crimes the police should be targeting. Because there can be no correlation between those deaths and underage drinking. And the creating criminals out of ordinary citizens line earlier in the chat, give me a break.

Propositioning is a different deal, because, unlike a drug deal, the act is the evidence, and since that's not going to happen, you do not need as much burden of proof. The verbal agreement will suffice in that situation, ergo the money and act are not necessary for evidenciary purposes.

BTW...Is this you, 496?????LOL


A John Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DeathByCop Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You need a hand to hand exchange of money and
> > goods, just like in a drug deal sting.
>
> thats makes sense, but in the case of a
> prostitution sting, I was arrested after the
> undercover male officer got into my vehicle. There
> was no exchange of money or sex.
>
> Maybe the law differs between these two scenarios.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2008 02:39PM by DeathByCop.

rickybobby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A lot of great arguments here, like go after real
> crimes theft/rape/embezzlement (nah, not
> real)/murder or how about, underage kids drinking
> and driving...umm let's say a VW Cabriolet and
> hypothetically, it's driving on 495, and again
> shot in the dark, unsafe lane change in front of a
> tractor trailer and then all kinds of dead
> people.
>
> Of course that is all hypothetical and undoubtedly
> that is not the real crimes the police should be
> targeting. Because there can be no correlation
> between those deaths and underage drinking. And
> the creating criminals out of ordinary citizens
> line earlier in the chat, give me a break.


yes, be condescending about this. So, so, many tragedies could have been prevented by practices identical to the immoral and unethical "operation shoulder tap".

take a look at how many "criminals" this tactic nets. these figures are publicly available as I can remember back to the last "operation shoulder-tap" thread where the cops were stationed out in herndon/sunrise valley area. (a very low # of people apprehended)

and let me know if the ends justify the means.

shoulder tapping by teenagers is hardly even done anymore. if kids want beer, they can get it w/o resorting to going up to 7-11 and asking strangers to purchase them alcohol. they will steal it from their parents. they will have their older friends/brothers/sisters/parents buy it. they will use their fake IDs. they will go into your open garage and steal it straight from your fridge.

if i am going up to seven eleven, to buy a dozen eggs, or a pack of marlboros, or a six pack of beer, MINDING MY OWN BUSINESS -- then stay the fuck away from me cops and let me live my life. without stepping into MY path, and ASKING ME to BREAK THE LAW. A cop, asking me, to break the law...its as simple as that.

as much as i hate to say it -- go set up a fucking DUI checkpoint. Go respond to some noise complaints where there is a high school party where at least 40% of the kids will be driving away drunk. Go set up a speed trap on 123 and let the cadets work the radar gun. But when I am minding my own goddamn business, living well within the law, DO NOT APPROACH ME AND ASK ME TO DO OTHERWISE.

For all you people shouting "go after "real" crime like murder, rape and theft" hopefully you understand those are crimes of opportunity. No matter what the police are doing those crimes have always and will always continue to happen.

How many murders and rapes occur on the actual streets of Fairfax County in full view of the police? This isn't Detroit or the District. Almost all murders in this county are domestic related or the victim has a prior relationship with the suspect. It's not as if murderers and rapists are wantonly roaming the streets of Fairfax County. Besides, what does one look like, anyway? Can you tell?

On the rare instances where a crime like that does take place in front of the police the suspects are usually quickly apprehended. Didn't the FCPD station some plain clothes dectectives in an area of Falls Church a few months ago where assaults on women were taking place? Didn't said detectives witness a pervert attempt to abduct a woman and then they pounced on him and arrested him?


Unless you are proposing that we start to station police officers in private residences, crimes like murder and rape as we know them in Fairfax will likely continue to occur.

Further, the police department has several functions. Detectives usually investigate murders and they are usually the ones who follow up on leads, not patrol officers.

All you "real crime" types who like to give the police little pointers on how to do their job really crack me up.

I'm sure the cops would get pissed and try to bust you for something. Criminal mischief, maybe? Cops don't like being fucked with, I'm sure they'd find something to charge you with.

It'd still be funny though: "Beer? Oh, I thought you said you wanted 20 dollars worth of bacon and cat litter."



bdimag Wrote:
-------------------------------
>
> lol - i was halfway through this thread when i
> thought the same thing to myself... what if i took
> their money and came out with 2 bottles of milk
> (one for each of them)...
>
> is that allowed?
>
> or more importantly, do they wait to ticket you
> until after the purchase? or after you take the
> money?

I AM NOT A DUDE

Well then they should be trying to solve these crimes instead of creating crime to prosecute. Good ole operation shoulder tap, making beer less accessible to the underage and cocaine and weed that much more attractive. Why don't they shoulder tap a 21 year old and ask him to buy them a gram??

good grief Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For all you people shouting "go after "real" crime
> like murder, rape and theft" hopefully you
> understand those are crimes of opportunity. No
> matter what the police are doing those crimes have
> always and will always continue to happen.
>
> How many murders and rapes occur on the actual
> streets of Fairfax County in full view of the
> police? This isn't Detroit or the District.
> Almost all murders in this county are domestic
> related or the victim has a prior relationship
> with the suspect. It's not as if murderers and
> rapists are wantonly roaming the streets of
> Fairfax County. Besides, what does one look like,
> anyway? Can you tell?
>
> On the rare instances where a crime like that does
> take place in front of the police the suspects are
> usually quickly apprehended. Didn't the FCPD
> station some plain clothes dectectives in an area
> of Falls Church a few months ago where assaults on
> women were taking place? Didn't said detectives
> witness a pervert attempt to abduct a woman and
> then they pounced on him and arrested him?
>
>
> Unless you are proposing that we start to station
> police officers in private residences, crimes like
> murder and rape as we know them in Fairfax will
> likely continue to occur.
>
> Further, the police department has several
> functions. Detectives usually investigate murders
> and they are usually the ones who follow up on
> leads, not patrol officers.
>
> All you "real crime" types who like to give the
> police little pointers on how to do their job
> really crack me up.

job well done FCPD!

yes, i think Op. Shoulder Tap is an overwhelming success and fantastic use of time. Don't you all agree?? Just look at these staggering statistics.


-
Attachments:

what shouold I do if those two teens were armed?(guns or knives)

second question,

what if I agree to do it, take their money... then leave the scene?

That would be theft by deception.

good grief Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For all you people shouting "go after "real" crime
> like murder, rape and theft" hopefully you
> understand those are crimes of opportunity. No
> matter what the police are doing those crimes have
> always and will always continue to happen.
>
So why dont we focus on those crimes and trying to lessen them rather than creating un-important crimes. Everyone knows the drinking age should be 16 just as it is in europe. Lawmakers are afraid to enact such a law because then they might not get elected again. It would certainly make the budget-crunched state more money, with many more people purchasing taxed beverages. And police could devote more resources to important crimes.



> How many murders and rapes occur on the actual
> streets of Fairfax County in full view of the
> police? This isn't Detroit or the District.
> Almost all murders in this county are domestic
> related or the victim has a prior relationship
> with the suspect. It's not as if murderers and
> rapists are wantonly roaming the streets of
> Fairfax County. Besides, what does one look like,
> anyway? Can you tell?


The murderers look like Mike Kennedy and Cho-Shung Whee!

Would it be wrong if the shoulder tapping at the 7-11's involved day laborers and those who hire them? Shouldn't that be a crime?.....I know wrong thread, but still,... Hi sir, Chirs Hansen with Dateline, did you just really offer that undocumented individual a job? Have a seat.......

Moral terpitude is a bigger issue than immigration when it comes to enforcement.

Do they actually tap you on the shoulder? If so, I would think that one would be within one's rights to slap the shit out of them.

No actually they tap your feet, just don't keep a wide stance...

Good Speller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> booz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > you are the only loser here. could you tell me
> > anything else these bigoted "respect ma
> athority"
> > deficit running, donut eating over.weight,
> > insecure bastards do other than to set up traps
> > for innocent people?

They are no longer innocent people when they break the law by buying alcohol to minors.....

4wheeler Wrote:
>> They are no longer innocent...


If it were not for the direct actions of the police, the crime would have never been committed in the first place.

Meep, unless they are coerced into it, it is not entrapment in the eyes of the courts, since it was done willingly, w/o duress or intimidation.

Also, this cannot be considered entrapment for one other reason:

these are "cadets" that are indeed "entrapping" people and creating criminals. They are doing this under the guidance and supervision of police officers -- but remember, a cadet is not a COP. Therefore, the "police" are doing no wrong, technically. It is the cadets....so that is where a potential loop-hole lies, and probably what is used in court in most cases.

Not that I am endorsing this stupid fucking practice but stating it just to provide clarification on how the police are manipulating the law to be able to commit these what I consider to be "crimes" against the citizens they should be protecting rather than trying to coerce them into breaking the law...

fortunately according to the stats, screen-shotted above, the people of Fairfax County are not as fucking stupid as they think we are...

Also, pay close mind to those stats -- notice on average there is ONE arrest per location. Now imagine these "teams" of cops and cadets...shouldertapping....one innocent citizen after the other.....and having no luck. They probably got VERY aggressive when it came down to the wire and an "arrest" needed to be made, wouldn't you think? Spending several hours at 7-11 at FairOaks with no results wouldn't reflect too well on "opshouldtap" right? Yes...

And notice the addresses of the spots they were stationed at. A trained and area-savvy individual would notice they started in a somewhat safe area...midddle/upper class...people pulling up in their lexus's and bimmers....none stupid enough to buy these fucking cop cadets beer...

with little to no luck there...

then they progress to a slightly more "ethnic" area where they ran a better chance of picking up some naive hispanics who don't even know better....to pad their stats with a whopping "2 arrests". Also, a majority of the arrests made, are NOT EVEN for contribution to the delinquency of a minor, but rather other offenses that the cops catch or manufacturer in the process of conducting these "sting operations"...

I realize that the courts do not see it that way, I just don't blindly accept their interpretation as being correct.

I also don't agree that it's not entrapment because it is a cadet instead of a cop. It is being done under the guidance of the police and they are therefore complicit. Same thing would hold true if they were guiding cadets to steal, or murder- they would be a party to the act.


inkahootz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meep, unless they are coerced into it, it is not
> entrapment in the eyes of the courts, since it was
> done willingly, w/o duress or intimidation.

;



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 01:10PM by inkahootz.

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/45579/46942.html#msg-46942

This has been talked about a few times in the past.

If they approach you, you should pull out your phone and call the non-emergency number and request an office to respond to the active crime scene. When "they" protest, or the uniformed officers come to explain the situation, insist that the officers uphold the law and place the cadets under arrest.

(Yea, I know...... it will never happen!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2008 02:47PM by SRE.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4wheeler Wrote:
> >> They are no longer innocent...
>
>
> If it were not for the direct actions of the
> police, the crime would have never been committed
> in the first place.


Right...it's always someone else's fault

4wheeler Wrote:

..it's always someone else's fault





This is the official motto of Fairfax Underground. If they didn't have something to cry about or someone else to blame this site would barely exist.

No, some people actually prefer the ideas this country was founded on, instead of being a nation of sleepwalkers content on the false sense of security provided under the guise of "freedom". Some people aren't brainwashed by the American ruse.

People like you are ridiculous.


. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4wheeler Wrote:
>
> ..it's always someone else's fault
>
>
>
>
>
> This is the official motto of Fairfax Underground.
> If they didn't have something to cry about or
> someone else to blame this site would barely
> exist.

Word meep!!! These fools have no idea that while we were sleeping the executive branch usurped the U.S. Constitution and the legislative branch of this government under the guise of "protecting" our freedom and fighting "terrorism?". All for the financial benefit of private corporations and banking institutions!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2008 09:22PM by inkahootz.

I think I saw those guys hanging around the Quick Mart next to Bella Pizza the other night too. We should take their picture and post it here and everywhere else so maybe the Fairfax Gestapo will find another way to set up innocent people or just maybe go after real criminals.

cadets aren't cadets forever... they graduate (or don't and then go back home w/ parents)

taking their picture and posting it would probably only do good the night they are out, after that they'd be worthless

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, some people actually prefer the ideas this
> country was founded on, instead of being a nation
> of sleepwalkers content on the false sense of
> security provided under the guise of "freedom".
> Some people aren't brainwashed by the American
> ruse.
>
> People like you are ridiculous.

You mean, "i can do whatever i want because is my right?" Please.. It's very easy to pretend to understand the law and the constitution when you can find loopholes to do whatever you want. False sense of security? how do you figure that ?

Here's a question: If you buy them a beer, what do they do with it after you are arrested?

KeepOnTruckin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a question: If you buy them a beer, what do
> they do with it after you are arrested?


Use it as evidence against you at your trial.

4wheeler Wrote:
>> You mean, "i can do whatever i want because is my right?"

The premise of your argument is immediately false. I do not think it is anyone's "right" to purchase liquor for minors. That is a ridiculous, and fallacious, assumption.

The cops explicitly created a crime in order to "fight" it. Plain and simple. There was no criminal action until they initiated it. That is a fact. Life would've been normal for most folks until the cops showed up.

If you really think the streets are safer because the government is out there manufacturing crime, that is a false sense of security. You are not secure because they catch the criminals that they themselves created. There are plenty of criminals already out there, no need to make-up any more.

And loopholes? The govt. tricked most people into those long ago. They know that game better than anyone else.

s



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 01:31PM by inkahootz.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The cops explicitly created a crime in order to
> "fight" it. Plain and simple. There was no
> criminal action until they initiated it. That is
> a fact. Life would've been normal for most folks
> until the cops showed up.
>

It was normal until they thought it would be a good idea to buy alcohol to an individual that looked too young to buy alcohol for him or herself.

Touche. He has a point Meep, no one twists their arms, or coerces them in any way!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2008 10:51PM by inkahootz.

4wheeler Wrote:
>> It was normal until they thought


Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime is death.

Do they use underage females too?

Of course!!!

So, walking in or out of a 7-11 and being shoulder tapped to buy beer by an agent of law enforcement is entrapment. Approaching an agent of law enforcement and offering to buy them beer is not.

ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

s



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2010 12:22AM by inkahootz.

Also Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, this cannot be considered entrapment for one
> other reason:
>
> these are "cadets" that are indeed "entrapping"
> people and creating criminals. They are doing this
> under the guidance and supervision of police
> officers -- but remember, a cadet is not a COP.
> Therefore, the "police" are doing no wrong,
> technically. It is the cadets....so that is where
> a potential loop-hole lies, and probably what is
> used in court in most cases.

As you hopefully will see the legal definition does not include the words "Police" or "cops", it says "law enforcements officers or their agents" so you argument is not even spurious, but a blatant mis-understanding of the subject.

Please do not spread your what at best is a "mis-understasndings" and at worst is deliberate "mis-information" on the boards.

The internet was originally designed and used fro the sharing of useful information. In the future make sure the info you are sharing is useful.

Oh, never mind... I am a troll. Quick, somebody call me a douche bag....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2008 03:51PM by Radiophile.

cory Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do they use underage females too?


If they do, Gravis, myself and a few others here are in trouble.

l



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 03:34PM by inkahootz.