Undercover Police cars

[Mr.Crx]

Originally Posted by i_ride_fieroGT

I have already asked a cop friend of mine and a layer friend of mine.
If the cop is not speeding and tailgating/instagating
Plus if he gets on the wrong persons a** ands he decides to slam on his brakes insted of racing.
The police station could go under fedral review.

Originally Posted by i_ride_fieroGT

Theres all the reasons dome of you guys come up with that are completley wrong and i have no idea where you guys are pulling it from. I think a lot of you cant figure out the diffrence between provoking and opertunity in the case of entrapment. Frankley i dont really care. If it happens to you and you dont know your rights in that situation you deserve to get the book thrown at you.

You're on your high horse with knowledge of the law but still manage to make it look like a 3rd grader is spelling and talking.

Originally Posted by i_ride_fieroGT

If it happens to you and you dont know your rights in that situation you deserve to get the book thrown at you.

...on the same token, I don't understand how you can't grasp the concept of personal responsibility, which seems like today is completely shot out the window.
This is a broken record, but basically you're saying you can wash your hands of ones responsibility as long as "The cop made me do xxxxxxxx (insert sitaution here)

So now, again, we're still talking in circles. Nothing has changed, it is what it is, and agree to disagree.

[420sx]

Originally Posted by Mr.Crx

...on the same token, I don't understand how you can't grasp the concept of personal responsibility, which seems like today is completely shot out the window.
This is a broken record, but basically you're saying you can wash your hands of ones responsibility as long as "The cop made me do xxxxxxxx (insert sitaution here)

So now, again, we're still talking in circles. Nothing has changed, it is what it is, and agree to disagree.

Youre making what is supposed to be a legal debate into a moral debate. This isnt about accepting responsibility. You keep making that point, but as long as it remains irrelevant (which it is), it will continue to fall on deaf ears.

Its not about right or wrong, its about "does the govt have the right to target us this way, and is the evidence gathered from provoking someone into a street race still valid evidence?" Thats what we're debating- not whether or not you should accept responsibility for committing the crime.

[Mr.Crx]

You make it sound like people who street race are victims...
It's both a moral and legal debate...because if they do "Target" you, when it comes down to it, YOU make the choice, YOU take that risk. No one forces you to race.


One group is on the "Entrapment" issue, the other is not...

[420sx]

LOL, yeah i dont think either of us are going to make any headway with this argument.

I surrender. Happy?

[i_ride_fieroGT]

Originally Posted by Mr.Crx

YOU make the choice, YOU take that risk. No one forces you to race.


[/IMG]

This is where your wrong by the cop tailgating you he is forcing you to race. What if he dosent cease tailgating you till you race him... trust me you can fight your moral battel all you want. morality and the law are 2 very diffrent things. Street racing is wrong but its not the states job to instagate it. its there job to stop it.

You try discussing morality in a court of law and let me know how that goes

[Legacyofdan]

i agree and disagree with you mister fiero dude, i disagree with your statement the officer is NOT forcing you to race. That much is always up to you as the driver. If he/she tailgates you, pull over and let him/her go by. Or LIGHTLY touch your brakes in a manner that will turn on your tail lights but will NOT slow you down in an aggressive manner(you can get into trouble for "brake checking"). Either way there are more options than just "racing" the said individual. But i agree to a degree with your statement "Street racing is wrong but its not the states job to "instagate" it. its there job to stop it."

[05suby]

Originally Posted by Legacyofdan

i agree and disagree with you mister fiero dude, i disagree with your statement the officer is NOT forcing you to race. That much is always up to you as the driver. If he/she tailgates you, pull over and let him/her go by. Or LIGHTLY touch your brakes in a manner that will turn on your tail lights but will NOT slow you down in an aggressive manner(you can get into trouble for "brake checking"). Either way there are more options than just "racing" the said individual. But i agree to a degree with your statement "Street racing is wrong but its not the states job to "instagate" it. its there job to stop it."

Exactly. If somebody is riding your ass doesn't mean you have to race off. Just get of the way then. If you race off then it's your own fault. It's easy, don't be a ****ing idiot and speed off and you won't have this problem.

[Mr.Crx]

Originally Posted by i_ride_fieroGT

This is where your wrong by the cop tailgating you he is forcing you to race.

Really, you have NO other choices and it's forcing you to race, that's your argument???
Has common sense really skipped an entire population of people?
What happens to using some common sense, pulling over, off the side of the road and let him go by.

Originally Posted by 420sx

LOL, yeah i dont think either of us are going to make any headway with this argument.

Looks that way and each side has said there peace!

[420sx]

Let me go on record in saying, while fieroGT and i are arguing the same point of view, I also disagree with the comment that you have NO other choice but to race. Sure there are other choices- the part that makes me feel like its entrapment is that its putting someone in a position to race, where they ordinarily would not have. It is their choice whether or not to engage in the race, but at the very least, I find it pretty unfair.

Its like when a cop sits RIGHT where a 55 zone turns into a 35, and picks cars off for speeding. Yeah, you got me, but youre a cheap bastard about it.

[Legacyofdan]

Originally Posted by 420sx

Let me go on record in saying, while fieroGT and i are arguing the same point of view, I also disagree with the comment that you have NO other choice but to race. Sure there are other choices- the part that makes me feel like its entrapment is that its putting someone in a position to race, where they ordinarily would not have. It is their choice whether or not to engage in the race, but at the very least, I find it pretty unfair.

Its like when a cop sits RIGHT where a 55 zone turns into a 35, and picks cars off for speeding. Yeah, you got me, but youre a cheap bastard about it.

i can def agree with that statement about the 55 zone to a 35....i do not believe it is entrapment, cause it is up to the driver to be aware of sign etc etc but rather i just find it to be another cheap form of taxation.

and i agree that it is unfair of them to do such, with the enticement(sp) for a race.

[marshallpre1]

I got a question, can you get pulled over for tailgating another person?

If so, isn't it ridiculous for the cops to do something illegal just to get you to do something illegal?

It's almost like the cop robbing your house, and then putting you in jail for shooting him because you saw him stealing ****.... I know, it's a little extreme


As for tailgaters, I usually just maintain my speed. The worst is this one time, I was being circled by three ricers- tiburon, civic hatch, and mustang. Literally one will go in front, while two on the side, and continuously circling me within a couple feet of my car. I did absolutely nothing since I could not escape for fear of wrecking my car

[Carmine908]

"I got a question, can you get pulled over for tailgating another person?" In new jersey 39:4-89 Tailgating 5 points.

[Mr.Crx]

Originally Posted by marshallpre1

It's almost like the cop robbing your house, and then putting you in jail for shooting him because you saw him stealing ****.... I know, it's a little extreme

Uhh, that sort of backwards thinking kind of goes on in the world...

June 1998: A 19 year old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000.00 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran his hand over with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice someone was at the wheel of the car whose hubcap he was trying to steal.

MILWAUKEE --
A Janesville man who admitted breaking into a home is suing the homeowner who shot him.

Kurt Prochaska, 39, was on probation last fall when he admitted he broke in to a home and was shot by the homeowner, but that's not stopping him from going after cash through the courts.

[420sx]

Two perfect examples of why this country is getting so pathetic.

[Legacyofdan]

What confuses me more, as a citizen, is that in this modern day with the cars and technologies in these modern day cars is that we can not speed.
But as an officer they can. and they do on a regular basis.
This is cause they have "special" training etc.
Why cant citizens get the said training and thus allow them to speed to the extent that officers of the law do?
Hell it would be another fund of revenue for the state. I mean in the long term it will even produce BETTER drivers.
And i know i will get some disagreement with such, but think about it, if the tests are made to be difficult to get such license's for said citizens.
Then you wont just have the rich or some average joe that can barely parallel park let alone drive straight get the license. (dont get me started on the drivers test in this country, it is truly PATHETIC, especially when compared to other countries)
Also would have to clear the vehicle as being safe to drive at such speeds.
Thus allowing drivers to learn real car control, real defensive driving. ETC.
But i mean really why not?
what is wrong with my logic there?...nothing...as far as i can see.
i am not insulting the law here, or any officers of said law, but merely stating something that perplexes me.

[BlueMSProtege]

Originally Posted by Mr.Crx

That's BS.
Ppl know the difference between right and wrong. Simply walk away.

So decoys that entice child predators into meeting up is entrapment?
Or an undercover officer looking to buy drugs and finding someone to sell to them is also entrapment?

My point is, if you have any common sense or were not already self inclined to do so, you would not participate in any such activity.
Basically, if you are not a pedophile you would not get caught looking for kids. If you were not a drug dealer, you would not be looking for sales and if you not into racing on the street, you would not engage in such a thing.

You are getting it all wrong. These tactics are legal as long as the police do not make the first move. Police can dress as a prostitute and stand on the corner but they cant offer sex, they have to be approached firstl. Police can pose as a young girl online and have conversations with pedophiles as long as they are not the ones to mention meeting for sex or to start talking about sex. Police can be in undercover tuner cars or muscle cars and drive around to catch people who street race as long as they are not the ones to start the race. As soon as police are the ones who initiate the illegal act in an effort to get a person to follow along this is entrapment. It is illegal for the police/govt to entice people to commit an illegal act by being the first to commit the illegal act.

Here is an example:
Say the police suspect someone of being a bank robber, they cannot send an undercover cop to this guys house with the blueprints for a bank, the guns needed to do the robbery, the plan on what to do, and how much money will be available. They can set up an undercover agent to observe and to participate as long as the perp is the one who initiates the actions and the plans. If he is not the one to do this and it is the police, it is entrapment.

FYI I am in law school and have learned a bit about this so I do have some basic knowlege of what entrapment constitutes

[BlueMSProtege]

Originally Posted by i_ride_fieroGT

Read it and weap fellas PA laws of entrapment section 313 Subsections (a) (b) and (c)
this subsection refers to any kind of enforcement weather it be murder drugs or traffic


http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/c...3.013.000.html


§ 313. Entrapment.
(a) General rule.--,A public law enforcement official or a
person acting in cooperation with such an official perpetrates
an entrapment if for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the
commission of an offense, he induces or encourages another
person to engage in conduct constituting such offense by either:

(1) making knowingly false representations designed to
induce the belief that such conduct is not prohibited; or
(2) employing methods of persuasion or inducement which
create a substantial risk that such an offense will be
committed by persons other than those who are ready to commit
it.
(b) Burden of proof.--Except as provided in subsection (c)
of this section, a person prosecuted for an offense shall be
acquitted if he proves by a preponderance of evidence that his
conduct occurred in response to an entrapment.
(c) Exception.--The defense afforded by this section is
unavailable when causing or threatening bodily injury is an
element of the offense charged and the prosecution is based on
conduct causing or threatening such injury to a person other
than the person perpetrating the entrapment.



Basicley as breakdown for the simple minded. If the officer or someone acting in accordance with the officer is breaking the law in order to get you to break the law its entrapment.

The part i highlighted is the important part. Also the section on the burden of proof is important. It says it is based on a preponderance of the evidence. This is different than beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt simply means greater than 50%, preponderance of the evidence is simpler to prove which means the law gives an advantage for the government to prove that it was not entrapment. It means based on the evidence presented does it prove what has been contended (probably not a word but im too lazy to think of a better one)

[Yes SiR]

Originally Posted by BlueMSProtege

You are getting it all wrong. These tactics are legal as long as the police do not make the first move. Police can dress as a prostitute and stand on the corner but they cant offer sex, they have to be approached firstl. Police can pose as a young girl online and have conversations with pedophiles as long as they are not the ones to mention meeting for sex or to start talking about sex. Police can be in undercover tuner cars or muscle cars and drive around to catch people who street race as long as they are not the ones to start the race. As soon as police are the ones who initiate the illegal act in an effort to get a person to follow along this is entrapment. It is illegal for the police/govt to entice people to commit an illegal act by being the first to commit the illegal act.

It's called authorized criminality. AUTHORIZED undercover officers are legally allowed to break certain laws in order to target and catch criminals. IE: a UC can be the one to "sell" drugs. And while you may have read about it in a book, I do have applied experience; my father is a retired cop, my uncle has been an Undercover Narcotics Office for over 30 years and I worked for a law firm specializing in criminal defense.

There is no denying that it is a fine line, however, most states use the "subjective test" which takes into account the individual's state of mind or predisposition to commit the crime, rather than the actions of government agents to determine if a "normally law-abiding individual" would have committed the same crime. In order for an entrapment defense, it would need to be shown that a person was grossly harassed or badgered into committing the crime. I would have to believe that the cars used in these programs are equipped with on-board cameras, which would clearly show the actions of both parties involved and would prove if entrapment actually occurred.

And just as an FYI to any of you looking for hookers... while it isn't illegal, it is an accepted practice that a female UC posing as a prostitute does not bring up sex first. There is a reasonable assumption in that the woman is not a prostitute, just a woman looking for a good time. In that situation, the targeted individual had no intention of committing a crime and prosecuting such is incredibly difficult.

Defining entrapment is clearly not simple, as people here have read the same information and interpreted it differently. It is a guideline to use in each situation. There are many factors that need to be examined to determine if entrapment did or did not occur. However, I doubt you'll find a judge who would allow an entrapment defense just because someone flashed their lights at you.... With that said, there is certainly room in this kind of program for boundaries to be overstepped, I just think it's ignorant to believe that it happens in the majority of cases.

[BlueMSProtege]

Originally Posted by Yes SiR

It's called authorized criminality. AUTHORIZED undercover officers are legally allowed to break certain laws in order to target and catch criminals. IE: a UC can be the one to "sell" drugs. And while you may have read about it in a book, I do have applied experience; my father is a retired cop, my uncle has been an Undercover Narcotics Office for over 30 years and I worked for a law firm specializing in criminal defense.

There is no denying that it is a fine line, however, most states use the "subjective test" which takes into account the individual's state of mind or predisposition to commit the crime, rather than the actions of government agents to determine if a "normally law-abiding individual" would have committed the same crime. In order for an entrapment defense, it would need to be shown that a person was grossly harassed or badgered into committing the crime. I would have to believe that the cars used in these programs are equipped with on-board cameras, which would clearly show the actions of both parties involved and would prove if entrapment actually occurred.

And just as an FYI to any of you looking for hookers... while it isn't illegal, it is an accepted practice that a female UC posing as a prostitute does not bring up sex first. There is a reasonable assumption in that the woman is not a prostitute, just a woman looking for a good time. In that situation, the targeted individual had no intention of committing a crime and prosecuting such is incredibly difficult.

Defining entrapment is clearly not simple, as people here have read the same information and interpreted it differently. It is a guideline to use in each situation. There are many factors that need to be examined to determine if entrapment did or did not occur. However, I doubt you'll find a judge who would allow an entrapment defense just because someone flashed their lights at you.... With that said, there is certainly room in this kind of program for boundaries to be overstepped, I just think it's ignorant to believe that it happens in the majority of cases.

that is not what i meant, I meant that if the police are the ones to act illegally first then they are outside of the authorized illegality

[BlueMSProtege]

^everything else you have said is correct