The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> more technical definition of Entrapment....

more technical definition of Entrapment....

Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Tuesday, November 30 2010, 18:22:08 (UTC)
from *** - ***

Network -

Windows XP -

Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

"Claims of entrapment can be notoriously difficult to prove. Some successful claims against law enforcement agencies have centered around the idea of a 'virtue test'. Police cannot select random citizens to participate in organized sting operations in hopes of generating an arrest. There must be some compelling evidence that a specific individual has a propensity for committing such a crime."

"Another reason entrapment is difficult to prove in court is the criminal history of the defendant. If the prosecution can demonstrate a previous history of similar crimes, then it becomes extremely difficult to prove entrapment. Providing an opportunity to commit a crime is not considered entrapment."

"This is why police stings involving Internet sex crimes have been successful. Defendants may claim that adult police officers posing as underage chatroom participants constitutes entrapment, for instance. The reality is that the undercover agent only provided an opportunity for the suspect to initiate illegal conversations."

With this war on terror bullshit we're entering a whole new world of legal/criminal behavior involving what police can do, surveillance, courtroom procedures, and sentencing...everything has changed and will change even more...the bottom line will be how frightened people get...if the government succeeds in scaring us shitless, we'll sell our children to be safer...(we'll never be "safe"). Not to stress that the more of our Constitution we surrender, the more danger we will face...ask the Germans.

The crux of the entrapment law, up to now, is that the person chosen was likely to, or had committed the same crime, or behaved in ways leading to a safe presumption that he WOULD commit the crime.

This is interesting, because under the new regime we're facing, the accusation of "terrorist" or "terror" can be used against anyone who ever expresses too strong opinions about how criminal our government has become...and will continue to be. The recent leaks by Wikileaks was characterized by Hilary Clinton as an "attack", and not only against the United States but against the WORLD. If now the word "attack" can be re-defined by the same frat boys who gave us the new "hero", then a whole host of behaviors can be reclassified "attacks against America"...and once you've done that it won't be difficult to prove that the person who has already "ATTACKED" America in one way, is gearing up to set off a bomb next...and so entrapment will be almost impossible to defend against.

Changing the Law of the land is always the preferred way to go...make a behavior "against the law"....like miscegenation or homosexual behavior, and all you can be accused of doing is "upholding the rule of Law".

This is the Christian Right's real agenda....what the hell do they care about Jesus? The right or freedom to choose Jesus has been available to people for centuries...there's never been any obstacle to believing in Jesus...what concerns these people is social control and using Jesus they're changing the face of American LAW, not morals, not religion, but our secular LAWS and Constitutional protections...that's their new "missionary position" from which to fuck us.

---------------------

- BACK TO INDEX - REPLY - QUOTE - EDIT - DELETE -

The full topic:
No replies.

***