That's not entrapment.
Entrapment would be: If you buy this pot from me my sister will blow you.
-
Originally posted by Osiris View PostV8TT, not sure where you got that, but in Texas, this is the statute as it pertains to Entrapment.
Sec. 8.06.
ENTRAPMENT
. (a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the conduct charged because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement agent using persuasion or other means likely to cause persons to commit the offense. [B]Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute [IMG]
(b) In this section "law enforcement agent" includes personnel of the state and local law enforcement agencies as well as of the United States and any person acting in accordance with instructions from such agents.
V8TT, just curious, what is your experience with criminal law?
This is where I got the info that I posted, but I simply used it to make it understood in a simple laid out way. I was a USMC MP for 6 years, I studied criminal law and case law independently and I have a degree in criminal law. While I am not a LEO (out of choice), such as yourself, I have some experience in criminal law.
I have highlighted part of you post and reply to it as such:
Since Ratt received a text offering drugs, and he stated to us that he had no intention of doing drugs since high school, then I would politely argue that he was NOT willing, and that there was persuasion.
Prostitution usually comes up when talking about entrapment and a good example I have found is this:
If a hooker (undercover LEO or agent of) comes to the front door of your home and solicites you for services then that would be entrapment in any court. It could be argued that you had no previous intention to engage in illegal activities until she put the idea in your head...i.e. persuasion.
Now, it WOULD NOT be entrapment if your were driving around in an area KNOWN to engage in prostitution and a hooker walked up to your car and offered at that time. Being in an area such as this shows a willingness to engage in this activity.
Osiris, I know you are a LEO and all and you have dealt with more criminal activity in the last year than I have in all of my experiences (and I respect that), but I believe that I am right when talking about Ratt's situation. I am going to research a little more and make sure I am not completely wrong here, but I don't think I am.
Off to work now, but I will happily continue this once I get home later.Leave a comment:
-
Well I replied to the guy yesterday, and he never replied back... either he realized he sent it to the wrong person, or he's already locked up by Fort Worth's finest. LolLeave a comment:
-
V8TT, not sure where you got that, but in Texas, this is the statute as it pertains to Entrapment.
Sec. 8.06.ENTRAPMENT. (a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the conduct charged because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement agent using persuasion or other means likely to cause persons to commit the offense. Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment.
(b) In this section "law enforcement agent" includes personnel of the state and local law enforcement agencies as well as of the United States and any person acting in accordance with instructions from such agents.
V8TT, just curious, what is your experience with criminal law?Leave a comment:
-
Entrapment is/can be a sticky grey area situation for LEOs and that's why a lot of agencies give classes frequently, or at least they should.Originally posted by bcoop View Post
ENTRAPMENT
A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
Ratt made it clear to us that he no longer smokes weed. Therefore he had no intent to commit a crime. Also, the idea of buying the drugs was not previously on his mind and was put there by the person who texted him.
However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty. In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:
- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.
Bcoop: In the example you used...the person that sent the text to the LEO should that he was ready and willing to engage in illegal activity, whether he was buying or selling...you did not make that part clear. Either way...that was not entrapment. You are correct. In Ratt's case...it WOULD be entrapment.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: