Text 13733, 74 rader
Skriven 2005-09-30 13:49:55 av Raymond Yates (1:3613/48)
  Kommentar till text 13696 av Joe Delahaye (1:249/303)
Ärende: looters in NO
=====================
 >>  JD> I submit however, that an undercover operation, and a sting
 >>  JD> operation are completely different.  Even though the lawyers
 >>  JD> have labelled a sting operation as legal, it is fact is a
 >>  JD> legal way for the cops to commint a crime.  IE - impersonation
 >>  JD> of a hooker, etc.  That would be against the law of self
 >>  JD> incrimination I would think.  or is this outside that?  Not
 >>  JD> knowing all of it, except what I see on the news, etc, I have
 >>  JD> always thought that self incrimination should be voluntary,
 >>  JD> and the miranda decision takes precedence.  meaning, if
 >>  JD> not read, any thing you do or say, cannot be held against you.
 >>
 >> Is impersonating a hooker a crime? :-)

 JD> It can be.  How about imperssonating a John?  I would call that
 JD> entrapment to my way of thinking.

Again it depends on what exactly is said.. Done right, it's not.. Done wrong,
it is.. As case after case has shown..

 >> Really paul, here the cops go out of thier way to avoid committing
 >> a crime more so in stings than in true undercover work, where it's
 >> gets really into grey area as undercover cops are often required to
 >> prove that are not cops b commiting a crime.. I have problems with
 >> that too, but if the greater good i served by putting the criminals
 >> in jail, I suppose I have to accept it.

Mea maxima culpa.. sorry, I flubbed..

 JD> Last time I looked, and it says so in the quote up above, my initials
 JD> are JD and my name is Joe <G>  Not Paul.  The trouble with stings is
 JD> that there is a very fine line between sting and entrapment.  As for
 JD> proving that the undercover guy is part of the mob or whatever.
 JD> He/she sometimes is requested to kill somebody.  How do you deal with
 JD> that?

Very carefully? I don't know, that was never anything I had run up against.

I may have to do research on this one , Serpico comes to mind..

 >> As simply as I can put it, the cops in stings act in a manner to
 >> allow the criminal to behave in the manner he would in teh first
 >> place, no suggesting, no luring, just making the opportunity
 >> available for the criminal to engage his criminal activity..

 JD> See above regards the fine line.

Not arguing that one, a bit.. It's a tightrope.

 >> In googling "Australian police stings" I noted that lawyers are
 >> upset that t police have instituted a scheme developed in Canada
 >> where the police allow criminals to gather in "mock gangs" and then
 >> in the percieved safety of thes gangs, they confess to previous
 >> crimes, for which they are arrested.
 >>
 >> That's certainly a novel tactic..
 >>

 JD> I think I first saw that mentioned regards some American operation
 JD> though.  I suppose though that they would have to get a wiretap order
 JD> first.

Possibly, but in the case above the "Gang leaders" were cops.. If I read it
right

 >> Goes back tto what I was writing a moment ago, they only provide
 >> the opportunity.

 JD> That, I can understand.  Completely different though then the sting
 JD> operations, but still it is a forced (so to speak) self incrimination.

Which is why I have problems with in in many aspects..

---
 * Origin: Ray's Rocket Shop - Out to Launch (1:3613/48)