Am I reading this right? So he wasn’t already breaking any laws but they hoodwinked him into being apart of a drug deal? What the fuck?
From the text also doesn’t seem like he knew he was picking up drugs, if I’m told I have to look for a package and I’ll get paid 7K it’s totally different than if I’m being told it’s shit. Like, I could suspect, but still I’m not agreeing to a drug deal, it could be a cake afaik.
The sad part is that drug crimes were made strict liability a long time ago (goodbye mens rea). I think it was in response to smugglers who would claim they were unaware of the drugs in their belongings, they’d claim those were planted on them.
So it was necessary to undermine that excuse.
Yeah, although that’s technically called entrapment and is illegal, you can only defend on that basis if you can prove the cop set it up, which you never really can. Its just the cop’s word against yours.
Entrapment is more than that, it’s a difficult defense to use.
https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633
Nothing about this was entrapment. (Then again, nothing about it was philosophically illegal, as far as I can tell.)
It is the literal definition of legal entrapment:
Entrapment is a practice in which a law enforcement agent or agent of the state induces a person to commit a “crime” that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit.[1] It “is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer or agent, and the procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer or state agent”.
I think the discussion is that in all common sense, what the cops did was absolutely reprehensible and should have a) led to severe repercussions for them and b) not gotten that citizen any legal repercussions whatsoever.
But the problem is that in the USA, cops can do whatever they want and get away with it and so it doesn’t count as entrapment because it has been made almost impossible to prove. Honestly knowing what they get away with, they could probably charge you with robbery if they forced you at gunpoint to take their watch and run away with it (just a few steps though, before they empty their clip in you).
There’s nothing to suppose that he wouldn’t be willing to deliver packages for $500 though. They didn’t hold him hostage, the cops didn’t pre-approve the delivery and then tell him “tough luck for you, we lied, that was always illegal”.
You’re using a pocket dictionary definition, when I linked to a licensed attorney’s nuanced explanation of how it wouldn’t ever be entrapment. Did you even check it out? It has pictures for the people who have trouble reading things without pictures.
You linked a comic strip, not a definition.
Definitions are tourist guides to words, where they give you pithy little phrases that describe things you’ve never heard of well enough that you can continue reading the paragraph.
You need the “comprehensive history of X” and dictionaries can’t ever give you that. The comic strip does much better than your Webster’s third-grader nonsense. Maybe you should try it. He’s absolutely guilty, there is no entrapment.
didn’t we ban you like a week ago for Nazism?
edit: we did
How exactly is he part of a drug deal, any more than Fedex or UPS are nearly constantly part of drug deals?
Do they also not have very expensive (premium) delivery service? Hell, I myself had a legal contract that was worth tens of thousands to me personally that needed to be delivered… (USPS ended up delivering it to my home and then blaming me for not addressing their envelope properly, had to resend via Fedex) and I might have been willing to pay $500. The fee itself is no indication of the legality of the contents.
I bet that the microsecond that he heard about his seven‐year sentence he just thought, ‘Thank God that I live in a capitalist democracy.’
deleted by creator
phew, thank goodness.
ah yes, the land of the brave, where at least I know I’m free. Where a person in debt for childcare payments can be sentenced to prison, solely because an informant wanted to be cruel to him.
