3 ms·

You are misunderstanding entrapment the way people always misunderstand it. If you offer a service (on the low) to do something illegal, and law enforcement cal

You are misunderstanding entrapment the way people always misunderstand it. If you offer a service (on the low) to do something illegal, and law enforcement calls you pretending to be a legitimate user of your service, that is not entrapment. Entrapment is when law enforcement coerces you into taking an illegal action that you otherwise would not have taken. I.E. A federal agent telling you that if you don't walk into that bank and rob it, they will arrest you for (a planted) firearms possession. This case is about whether the defendants actions actually were illegal, because PA law seems ambiguous about it.

IncreasePosts 3y ago
Was the drone operator offering a drone hunting service or just a dude with a drone that they called?
- arrosenberg 3y ago
  Based on his Instagram, this is a regular service he offers for deer recovery. It doesn't really matter though, it's the operators responsibility to know the law. If you are going to operate a drone for the purposes of hunting, common sense would dictate Googling the legality of doing so, since both airspace and hunting are generally heavily regulated. Upon finding ambiguity, I would probably opt not to do that kind of work or accept the potential for consequences.
archontes 3y ago
"We have held that 'persuasion or mild coercion' and 'pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship' constitute sufficient inducement to permit jury consideration of the entrapment issue." - United States vs. Nations Need, sympathy or friendship. I think it's trivial to allow that finding a wounded animal would constitute a sympathetic plea. It's the predisposition that gets him here. Given that he advertises the service, he's obviously predisposed to the action.
- arrosenberg 3y ago
  Sure, if the game wardens were maliciously trying to arrest a person who does real estate drone footage for kicks, then yes, a jury would probably hold that it was entrapment. Luckily most law enforcement isn't that comically evil or bored, and most of these situations are legitimate law enforcement actions.

IncreasePosts 3y ago

Was the drone operator offering a drone hunting service or just a dude with a drone that they called?

arrosenberg 3y ago
Based on his Instagram, this is a regular service he offers for deer recovery. It doesn't really matter though, it's the operators responsibility to know the law. If you are going to operate a drone for the purposes of hunting, common sense would dictate Googling the legality of doing so, since both airspace and hunting are generally heavily regulated. Upon finding ambiguity, I would probably opt not to do that kind of work or accept the potential for consequences.

archontes 3y ago

"We have held that 'persuasion or mild coercion' and 'pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship' constitute sufficient inducement to permit jury consideration of the entrapment issue." - United States vs. Nations Need, sympathy or friendship. I think it's trivial to allow that finding a wounded animal would constitute a sympathetic plea. It's the predisposition that gets him here. Given that he advertises the service, he's obviously predisposed to the action.

arrosenberg 3y ago
Sure, if the game wardens were maliciously trying to arrest a person who does real estate drone footage for kicks, then yes, a jury would probably hold that it was entrapment. Luckily most law enforcement isn't that comically evil or bored, and most of these situations are legitimate law enforcement actions.