actually are law enforcement allowed to entrap you?
actually are law enforcement allowed to entrap you?
Last edited by kinoplay1; 04-07-2010 at 11:01 AM.
keep asking this question and u wont be able to login..........
Can't ask that. READ THE RULES
it's definately hypothetical, haha
i should delete this thread is what saying, i don't want kicked
just edit your question
thank's man
Don't do business with forum members, and then you don't have to worry about legal problems. Simple.
yeah i know it's better to have a source through the gym if you have that conveniance i lost my source, haha
I knew that wasn't one of your bitches Cal, lol
sorry
Talking about your Avatar. Said it was one of your bitches
LMAO, yeah, yeah yeah, I hear ya!
About entrapment... they can ask you if you want to buy some gear (especially if ur on a gear website or fourm like this.) They can't pressure you to buy it but they can give you an opperturity weather thur the mail or internet or in person. They can not however persent you with an unrealistic deal that would put pressure on you to make a purchuse. Ill get you the court ruling on entrapment... i just have to look thur my notes old ciminology notes real quick.
ok the court case is Jacobson V. U.S 1992. Its a case on entrapment where the police pressured him into buy child pron he was arrested and than the suprem court overruled saying setting the presendent on entrapment. (Its late and im getting tired so i dont know if that makes sense to anyone but jsut ask and ill try to explain it better if you need me to)
It's a lot easier if you just post the holding of the case. That way you avoid possibly misinterpreting what the law actually is, in which case you would be giving poor legal advice if you were to do so. It's easier to let people draw their own conclusions about whether or not their behavior is legal and whether they may be being entrapped or not. That way, you CYA, and your conscience can stay clear.
Jacobson v. US 503 U.S. 540 (1992) Held: The prosecution failed, as a matter of law, to adduce evidence to support the jury verdict that Jacobson was predisposed, independent of the Government's acts and beyond a reasonable doubt, to violate the law by receiving child pornography through the mails. In their zeal to enforce the law, Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U. S. 435, 442. Jacobson was not simply offered the opportunity to order pornography, after which he promptly availed himself of that opportunity. He was the target of 26 months of repeated Government mailings and communications,and the Government has failed to carry its burden of proving predisposition independent of its attention.
thanks for the info guys i did have a source when i wasnt juicing now i dont have a source i think im going take chance
dude i don't need to fish, if you read this i have a source and i had an awesome source, that i don't have now, if i was fishing i wouldn't be on the lounge, i would be on the forum group that didn't get off subject as a add kid off his ridlum
Ill entrap you...
i'm sure you could, i live in pa also, haha
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)