3 ms·
> The undercover detective[s] are just creating a crime that probably wouldn't occur otherwise. Isn't that the definition of entrapment?
by awb 7y ago
> The undercover detective[s] are just creating a crime that probably wouldn't occur otherwise.
Isn't that the definition of entrapment?
- jacobreg 7y agoNot quite, it's causing someone to commit a crime they wouldn't ordinarily commit, so it all depends how pushy they were about it. If you could argue they coerced the contractors into doing the work, that's entrapment. But inviting them over under false pretenses and then simply asking them to commit a crime, while of questionable value to the community, isn't entrapment.
- kbouck 7y agoa few illustrated examples of what does and does not qualify as entrapment: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633 https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dwnvoted2hell 7y agoThis is absolutely entrapment. Once someone someone has said no once, it becomes badgering. Contractors are not paid like most people. Often, they have to gain the favor of their customer to make sure they are paid on time, or at all. "Entrapment is a defense to criminal charges, and it's based on interaction between police officers and the defendant prior to (or during) the alleged crime. A typical entrapment scenario arises when law enforcement officers use coercion and other overbearing tactics to induce someone to commit a crime."
- fnordfnordfnord 7y agoNo. There's some sort of legal sophistry that helps them get away with it, and even if there weren't there's always the fall back of qualified immunity.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 7y agoEntrapment is a defense not an offense, thus immunities on the part of the putative entrapper are immaterial.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]