Cops Trolling CL: WRONG and a MIS-SERVICE - What are Your Thoughts & Comments

[LARRYDARRELL]

I think it is wrong and a mis-service (and possibly corrupt)!

I'll state my thoughts later but here I just want to know if anyone else sees anything WRONG with cops trolling craigslist?

I have a natural tendency to always "think outside the box" so what I see to be WRONG and a MIS-SERVICE may sound completely crazy to most at first glance so I am going to let the more thoughtful of those on UG start this.

I really think their is something very wrong and way out of line, anyone else see anything wrong with cops trolling CL?

From my angle what wrong means with-in this subject is:

not doing their jobs (playing on the internet all day), not serving their community, creating an illegal act with-in their precinct that did not exist till they created it in their precinct ("yes baby come to me, how far away are you, yes come to me and I'll pay you for your intended illegal actions that you are not doing in the community I serve but now that I have invited you to come here I will be able to do what I want with you")

Some of my thoughts and comments:

we are tax paying good people, we need to voice the things we see as wrong if we see things that are wrong.

I am not (as most of us are not) able to be a strong voice for change or right action in the area of paid erotic services but we need someone to step up and be that voice.

Maybe slinky should start a section that is dedicated to subjects like decriminalization, and other legal or political subjects.

We need to be critiquing laws, law makers, law enforcers and supporting political candidates and positive ideals regarding prostitution.

At least this may be more then text on your screen, maybe this may help generate good things for us off screen.

I may be wrong myself but if we can have a concentrated forum for these things only good will come out of it.

[JIMYDR]

Cops trolling, no problem, Vice trolling, problem.

[Cloud Nine]

I love how at least once a week someone indignantly posts their outrage of how policemen are doing their jobs and trying to bust prostitution.

[RoosterC74]

It is just the way that they work. You have to try and keep in mind that prostitution is illegal in most parts of the U.S.A.

[justlooking]

DITTO to C9.

[madvex]

I love how at least once a week someone indignantly posts their outrage of how policemen are doing their jobs and trying to bust prostitution.


This is True.
But, I think the original post is not outrage directed at cops doing their jobs insomuch as the fact that this should NOT be part of their job which is a much larger issue and one I would agree with.

Maybe if we ever rid ourselves of the bible-pounding fucks who run our quickly faltering nation and states, our "protect and serve" bretheren could concentrate of matters of real import instead of worrying about who's selling their ass to whom.

[Cloud Nine]

Maybe if we ever rid ourselves of the bible-pounding fucks who run our quickly faltering nation and states, our "protect and serve" bretheren could concentrate of matters of real import instead of worrying about who's selling their ass to whom.

While I think prostitution should be legal is besides the point. It is currently against the law in most of the US to engage in prostitution. And it is also against the law to drive 80 mph in a 55 zone. Both are relatively minor infractions of the law, but just because there are "bigger and more important" crimes being committed doesnt mean that the police shouldnt allow resources into enforcing the smaller crimes. If the police use the classifieds in the paper and other advertising venues, why not CL?

[its_mousey]

".... If the police use the classifieds in the paper and other advertising venues, why not CL?"

Or, if cops can pose as hookers in a sting operation, why can't they post bait ads on CL???

Also, I think it's DIS-service, not mis-service.

*Squeak!*

[lioness]

I think it is wrong and a mis-service (and possibly corrupt)!

I'll state my thoughts later but here I just want to know if anyone else sees anything WRONG with cops trolling craigslist?

I have a natural tendency to always "think outside the box" so what I see to be WRONG and a MIS-SERVICE may sound completely crazy to most at first glance so I am going to let the more thoughtful of those on UG start this.

I really think their is something very wrong and way out of line, anyone else see anything wrong with cops trolling CL?

From my angle what wrong means with-in this subject is:

not doing their jobs (playing on the internet all day), not serving their community, creating an illegal act with-in their precinct that did not exist till they created it in their precinct ("yes baby come to me, how far away are you, yes come to me and I'll pay you for your intended illegal actions that you are not doing in the community I serve but now that I have invited you to come here I will be able to do what I want with you")

Some of my thoughts and comments:

we are tax paying good people, we need to voice the things we see as wrong if we see things that are wrong.

I am not (as most of us are not) able to be a strong voice for change or right action in the area of paid erotic services but we need someone to step up and be that voice.

Maybe slinky should start a section that is dedicated to subjects like decriminalization, and other legal or political subjects.

We need to be critiquing laws, law makers, law enforcers and supporting political candidates and positive ideals regarding prostitution.

At least this may be more then text on your screen, maybe this may help generate good things for us off screen.

I may be wrong myself but if we can have a concentrated forum for these things only good will come out of it.


le is indeed trolling cl they have a sector its call internet computer crimes. and advertising prostitution on the internet is a computer crime so therefore anyone who thinks that le isnt trolling cl is wrong they are trolling hardcore
stay safe :)

[Daddycool]

Or, if cops can pose as hookers in a sting operation, why can't they post bait ads on CL???

Also, I think it's DIS-service, not mis-service.

*Squeak!*

That would be intrapment. Just like an undercover cop cannot say" hey you want a BJ for 50" She is offering you the service you are not asking for the service. Why do you think the cops will not say what she is offering at what price. They will say" what are you looking for" and when you answer they say" how much you want that for" They make the John say the sex act and how much money. After that you'll get arrested.

[Bandaid]

Maybe if we ever rid ourselves of the bible-pounding fucks who run our quickly faltering nation and states, our "protect and serve" bretheren could concentrate of matters of real import instead of worrying about who's selling their ass to whom.

I say you're out of date on the "Bible-pounding fucks" thing. If you look at most of the leaders of these anti-prostitution movements it's leftist do-gooders leading it. They play up the feminist anti-hobby aspects, the sex slavery angle, and the exploitation of helpless women from the Third World. They're a lot of same folks who think we should all apologize for having dicks and the desire to use 'em.

Are religious conservatives in favor of prostitution? Of course not, but the ones pushing the anti-hobby agenda hardest have a different agenda.

[johnpet]

That would be intrapment. Just like an undercover cop cannot say" hey you want a BJ for 50" She is offering you the service you are not asking for the service. Why do you think the cops will not say what she is offering at what price. They will say" what are you looking for" and when you answer they say" how much you want that for" They make the John say the sex act and how much money. After that you'll get arrested.


People cry about entrapment but putting an ad on CL to lure John's would indeed be entrapment. And although you'd be in cuffs bitching all the way to holding you'd easily beat the charge in court. But cops know one thing; the embarrassment factor protects them. No John is going the distance in court when they offer a no contest plea, pay a small fine and you walk.

It is true that when LE poses as a hooker she cannot just walk up to someone and ask "hey, how 'bout a blow job." The sting works this way: female LE normally poses as a SW. You pull up and she simply engages in in the "what are you looking for?" conversation. YOU have to be the one to solicit her. You have to ask for a deed and be willing to pay for it. Then you're busted. She cannot bait you or offer services. But putting up an ad she's offering services.

I do not think having LE actually create an ad on CL would hold up. "Entrapment" is inticing someone to do something they otherwise might not do. So if she didn't have an ad on the net it would be impossible for you to break the law by contacting her and asking for sexual services.

Could cops put an ad up on CL eluding to the fact that they need a getaway driver then bust the guys who call? Hell fucking no! An attorney one year out of lawschool would eat that crap up. Just like a cop can't just walk up to somone and say "hey, take this rock and thow it through a window and I'll give you $100."

[justlooking]

That would be intrapment. Just like an undercover cop cannot say" hey you want a BJ for 50" She is offering you the service you are not asking for the service. Why do you think the cops will not say what she is offering at what price. They will say" what are you looking for" and when you answer they say" how much you want that for" They make the John say the sex act and how much money. After that you'll get arrested.

That would absolutely NOT be entrapment. No way.

"Entrapment" is when LE convinces you to commit a crime that circumstances indicate you wouldn't otherwise commit. Like if they argue you into doing something illegal -- say participate in a bank robbery -- over your strong initial protests. But if an undercover offers to sell you drugs for a price and you buy them, that's not entrapment. And if an undercover posing as a streetwalker propositions you for a price and you say yes, that's not entrapment, either. And if LE posts a CL ad and you answer it, NO WAY is that entrapment.

Period.

[justlooking]

People cry about entrapment but putting an ad on CL to lure John's would indeed be entrapment.

How would that possibly be entrapment? I don't see how it even comes close.

[Daddycool]

That would absolutely NOT be entrapment. No way.

"Entrapment" is when LE convinces you to commit a crime that circumstances indicate you wouldn't otherwise commit. Like if they argue you into doing something illegal -- say participate in a bank robbery -- over your strong initial protests. But if an undercover offers to sell you drugs for a price and you buy them, that's not entrapment. And if an undercover posing as a streetwalker propositions you for a price and you say yes, that's not entrapment, either. And if LE posts a CL ad and you answer it, NO WAY is that entrapment.

Period.


The undercover cop is convincing you to do an illegal act. They are propositioning you with a sex act and has a price for that sex act. That would be entrapment. Why do you think the cops need to word it all correctly? I will bet a cop cannot say to you" you want a 50 BJ"? The cop will always direct the conversation to have the John say the sex act and the amount he is going to pay for that act.

[justlooking]

Sorry. You're wrong.

They're not convincing you to do anything. They're making an illegal act available, and you're participating in it. How is "Want a blow job? $50" convincing you to get a blow job? Either you take it (which is YOUR decision) or you walk away. They didn't say anything to persuade you to change your mind. And that's even more the case with the CL ad.

I'm sorry, but this isn't speculation on my part. I KNOW you're wrong.

[johnpet]

This much I guarantee if you answered an ad posted by LE:

1) You'll get busted.
2) You'll beat it without a sweat

I really don't care about #2. I'm trying to stay away from #1. So for me this whole argument doesn't mean anything.

I've watched all the undercover sting shows. One was a full hour about two years ago just about prostitution and they showed the lead detective prepping the female officers. It was made clear to them that they could not offer a service for a price. For example, when car pulls over they cannot say "How about a bj for $50?" The customer has to ask for the service and offer money. However putting an ad on CL would be doing exactly that - saying "hey - how 'bout a BJ for "X" amount of dollars?" That's entrapment.

I'll say this again real slow the the cheap seats: "THEY CANNOT INITIATE THE DEAL!"

Here's two scenarios:

1) My wife finds out I'm trying to have her knocked off. She meets with cops and a cop poses as a hit man. This is not entrapment since I have initiated the act. I'm the one searching for a hit man.

2) Cops try to round up all the hit men in the US. So they post a clever ad by a guy eluding that he needs his wife "taken care of" for $5,000." Then the cops sit back and watch the calls come in. That is entrapment. Guys who might not normally do this act are being enticed by money offered by the cops.

[justlooking]

As for (2), though, same doesn't necessarily hold true if the ad is "I'll take care of you for only $400." The person answering the ad isn't being enticed by anything other than the availability of the illegal product.

[justlooking]

In other words, I agree with you: cop approaches girl in bar, offers her $10,000 to have sex with him, busts her -- THAT'S entrapment. The cop is using money to entice someone to commit a criminal act. But making the act available and then seeing who'll buy it -- that's not entrapment.

[justlooking]

I'll say this again real slow the the cheap seats: "THEY CANNOT INITIATE THE DEAL!"

This is right up there with "cops can't let you blow them, so if they do, they can't arrest you" as the kind of thing people can believe if they don't care about going to jail.

[azzure]

I know we bitch about LE, but I think on the whole they approach prostitution in NYC in a reasonabe fashion. They seem to focus primarily on unripe girls and big money-making enterprises - the Glamouroses, American Beauties and NY Confidential types. The first is obviously a fair target and, in my opinion, the second is too. On balance, I don't think its a good thing when enterprises like this accumulate enough money and power to the point where they can start buying cops etc. on a large scale.

(I think they pick on the asians unfairly and disproportionately, but thats really my only complaint).

[jp1064]

How many think they troll UG?, raise your hands.

[jp1064]

better yet... how many think some horny ass cops buy pussy from girls on CL and other places?

[johnpet]

Listen, if you want a 100% guaranteed fool-proof system to getting a hooker you know isn't LE then just search you city for the busts: http://www.ci.saint-paul.mn.us/depts/police/prostitution_photos_current.html Great...now find those girls and you're perfectly safe. No LE.

Just don't end up on pages like this: http://www.police.nashville.org/ppa/default.htm

[johnpet]

And I think now you see why girls are charging $300/hr.

[azzure]

I know we bitch about LE, but I think on the whole they approach prostitution in NYC in a reasonabe fashion. They seem to focus primarily on unripe girls and big money-making enterprises - the Glamouroses, American Beauties and NY Confidential types. The first is obviously a fair target and, in my opinion, the second is too. On balance, I don't think its a good thing when enterprises like this accumulate enough money and power to the point where they can start buying cops etc. on a large scale.

(I think they pick on the asians unfairly and disproportionately, but thats really my only complaint).

See what I mean?

http://utopiaguide.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23278

[club goer]

just loking through this thread and noticed the entrapment issue.. according to the new york state penal law this is whats in the entrapment statute.

"when the methods used by the police are such as to create a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by a person not otherwise disposed to commit it"
now, my brother is an ex cop.. quit after 3 years on the force 20 years ago and what he said was if a cop tailgates you and you think you are at risk and speed up.. then he pulls you over for speeding.. Thats entrapment. But asking you a question like "want a blow job? 50 bucks" and you say sure hop in.. that isnt.

[Slinky Bender]

I'm not sure how easy it would be to argue that some guy who was trolling CL Erotic Services wasn't "otherwised disposed to commit it". It's "worse" than a streetwalker, because there you could always (reasonably) claim that you were just driving down the street, not thinking of picking up a prostitute, this girl waived to you, etc. But in this case, the only way you found the ad was when you were looking at a whole group of ads for prostitutes.

[justlooking]

Yeah. That's what I've been trying to say.

[club goer]

well i think thats the problem with CL, once you make the call and show up after the ad clearly stated fs for $.. youre screwed because again.. new york state penal law says there has to be an agreement of money for sex for it to be considered "solicitation for prostitution" so saying i saw your ad on craigslist.. youre doomed.. ps: the statute is only solicitation for prostitution.. theres no statute for "prostitution".. which of course we all know doesnt exist

[beadman]

This is why you must protect yourself. You can do this in many ways. The ways I find best is to cross reference a few sites and make sure you are dealing with someone who has a paper trail. IE pic phone# etc and reviews. There will always still be a chance its LE, but answering a non descript ad from a first time poster is asking for serious trouble. Example, you find a ad you like with a pic, take the Name # and description to another site and do a quick search. Take the # and go to a white pages site and check the number and see what u get. after all this calling the number from a calling card from a non traceable location to you, will at least make it harder to find you then calling from your house or cell. No one including myself would be in this hobby if there wasnt a element of risk. That is what this is all about. But you can use your head and at least not fall into a trap. mostly by not thinking with your little head.

[johnpet]

I like girls who have been around for a while who have sites that have been around for a while. Most LE stings are quick. For obvious reasons LE can't run the same site for years. Because of that I tend to avoid new ads. I guarantee you that if you use your common sense, do just a bit of research, then odds of getting busted are insanely low. I can back that up with 15 years in this hobby and zero arrests. To the best of my knowledge I've never even had a close call.

Remember also in all stings backup for the female officer won't be far. In hotel stings they're in the next room...which is why I don't go to hotels. But when I see a new girl at her house (normally an apartment) I do indeed check all the rooms. I not only want to make sure it's not a set up but I also want to make sure some other guy's not there waiting to rob me. Paranoid? Yes. But if I lose my fear my chances of having something fucked up happening to me increases.

Just how paranoid can I get? A few years ago I was checking out this chick's place and one bedroom door was locked. She said it was her roomate sleeping. I left.

[azzure]

I like girls who have been around for a while.

Yeah, its great reading reviews from 100 guys who came in her mouth before DFK'ing her!

Nothing like used up, dried out, fuck-mills. Wait for the reviews and that's what you get.

The best cl finds are hit and run girls. New, never fucked for money before - they get it, and their gone.

They never get reviewed, but their better in all respects: hornier, more accomodating, cheaper, presumably cleaner, better attitudes etc. Ever notice how most girls that start out with 9's and 10's on TER go downhill over time? (at least those with real reviews).

Personally, I respond to EVERY ad that looks new. You get to know the spammers' styles and formats after a while (the cl location designation is usually helpful in this regard) and can recognize new ads.

There are many ways to minimize LE risk. Beware of ads too good to be true. Beware of girls trying to get YOU to talking about sex (acronyms) and money. ("So what exactly is it you want and how much are you willing to spend.") Make the meet on YOUR terms (pick the time and place, etc.) Go for a drink first. Ask if their OK just doing massage for the same price or less (then fuck them when you get there). Call from one number to confirm GFE, BBBJ etc. and then book the appointment later from another. Meet in a public place and scope it out before you greet her. Anyone around without a clear purpose?
Chat her up and listen carefully - is anything out of sync?

Nothing is foolproof, or course, but I think if you use common sense its hard to get busted.

(Having said that I'll probably get pinched tomorrow.)

[puffin]

A few rules I have: Never ask for , or volunteer, specifics in writing. You'll get a feel for what is offered generally by what they say they won't do. Had some terrific experiences with semi -pros who think it's cool/empowering/fun to sleep around and earn some cash in the process.
.. Some lousy ones too.

...
The best cl finds are hit and run girls. New, never fucked for money before - they get it, and their gone.
..
Go for a drink first. Ask if their OK just doing massage for the same price or less (then fuck them when you get there). Call from one number to confirm GFE, BBBJ etc. and then book the appointment later from another. Meet in a public place and scope it out before you greet her.

[Nightcrawler]

A lot of you guys are missing the point of the thread. When I am on CL the first thing I keep in mind is the wording of each ad. For ex: I read an ad in the Queens section sent by "slim Thickness". The first line she states in her add was geared toward proving that she was not a cop. Then came the actual advertisement. Other ads would talk in round-a-bout terms without actually telling you what it is they are offering. There are so many clues to deciphering fake ads, you just have to take the time to think with your HEAD, not with your head.

[MexicanaMami]

Sorry. You're wrong.

They're not convincing you to do anything. They're making an illegal act available, and you're participating in it. How is "Want a blow job? $50" convincing you to get a blow job? Either you take it (which is YOUR decision) or you walk away. They didn't say anything to persuade you to change your mind. And that's even more the case with the CL ad.

I'm sorry, but this isn't speculation on my part. I KNOW you're wrong.

Thanks for clearing up a point or 2, JL. :)

MexicanaMami

[johnpet]

I like sticking mainly with the massage girls. Unlike probably most of the guys on this board I need some type of emotional connection for fs or I really don't enjoy myself. I'm after the hummer or just the quick release. I find the ads for independent massage girls in my area to be incredibally safe.

But I agree with you. When you read any ad you can sense if it doesn't sound right.

[jabojones3]

Unfortunately this is just a cost of doing business.

You monger whether it is on the track, a Lock Door party, or the net and you run the risk of getting busted.

Just be careful and make informed choices.

Peace:
SJ3
:)

[LARRYDARRELL]

You are all wrong!

I will first address those who misunderstood the thread as PART 1 and then I will address the point of the thread as PART 2.

PART 1 : To those who did not get what I was saying and answered what they thought this thread was about. You thought this was about things we have all read many times before, my problem was what I think I see as a new unaddressed problem that I will get to in PART 2.

What you have learned about the law as it is related to police methods, tactics and procedure is all for the books or all for the camera. Much of it may be accurate as far as the courts are concerned but it is far from accurate from what happens in the field.

What many have said to be true, is only true when cops must act correctly. That would be when the camera is on or when court is in session.

The individual cop has one primary job... that is to make busts!

He can not go back at the end of the day with no busts or one bust. It is not his job to judge who is innocent or guilty, his job is to make busts. And he will no matter what is in his way.

You need to realize he knows he has this freedom because he knows it will not get back to him before it is all resolved in the courts via a plea bargained lesser charge or a dismissal of charges. His job is to make busts and that he will do irregardless of set police methods, tactics and procedure.

Cops will do what ever they want to make the bust, he cares not if it gets thrown out or if he
does not do it according to the book. To the individual cop a bust is a bust.

They will even partake fully then make the bust.

I am not saying this is standard but it is much more accurate then the fairytale world most of those who added to this thread believe in.

PART 2 :
Everything above was not what this thread was meant to be about, it was about what you thought this thread was about.

I was not making any statement about cops and their stings, I was not making any statement you have read before.

Yes I understand that prostitution is illegal and cops take measures to fight this illegal activity.

My compliant was not the standard gripe about the usual issues.

I believe cops trolling CL for the purpose of setting up those selling or those buying is a great mis-service because for illustration purposes lets say I am a cop who is paid to serve my community via the local precinct that I am assigned to, then I am not serving my community if I am playing on the WORLD WIDE WEB! The WORLD WIDE WEB is not my community, it is not my precinct.

If I am a cop serving the Manhattan midtown local precinct and I am using the WORLD WIDE WEB to call a girl or a john in Chinatown, in Brooklyn, in Florida, or in London to come to my hotel in midtown Manhattan then I am creating something in my community, in my precinct that never existed in my community/precinct before.

I see this a a great mis-service!

The truth is that vice cops serve no one but that is a topic for a different thread (and more like what you originally thought this thread was about), but they need to perform some kind of duty to show they are working. Making arrests confirms their existence. They make bust to show that the vice budget is justified. They make busts that are easy or headline grabbing.

So now they have a new tool or lets say toy for their bullshit duty. That is craigslist. They sit in an air-conditioned office with a hard-on and the glee of fooling some sucker from a different community then the one they serve.

Don't tell me about internet cops being within their jurisdiction. Internet cops are not vice cops setting up vice stings. Internet cops are free to roam anywhere fishing for bad people who will use the internet to hurt someone. And even tho many times these cases involve sex or sex for sale it is not vice work. That is not the NYPD Vice performing a vice action. My problem or my thread is about the NYPD Vice using the WORLD WIDE WEB to create things in their community that did not exist in their community before they used the WORLD WIDE WEB.

I am not making any kind of statement about what vice does in the field (the precinct they serve), I think that if a vice cop who is assigned to a local precinct uses the WORLD WIDE WEB to make vice busts he is mis-serving his community.

Their has to be someone out their with an ability to think outside the box who can add to what I have been trying to say.

I know I have not done a great job explaining myself but if anyone can grasp what I am trying to say please add what you can.

If what I have been trying to say has any validity I think there should be laws agings local precinct's using the WORLD WIDE WEB to serve their local community.

This thread has now become a two part thread so please note if you are responding to PART 1 -or- PART 2 when you respond.

[Dobbsy]

"I believe cops trolling CL for the purpose of setting up those selling or those buying is a great mis-service because for illustration purposes lets say I am a cop who is paid to serve my community via the local precinct that I am assigned to, then I am not serving my community if I am playing on the WORLD WIDE WEB! The WORLD WIDE WEB is not my community, it is not my precinct."

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but to me this just seems like a play on semantics. IMO there is no difference between CL trolling and a fake-SW sting - both involve for the most part outsiders to the community coming into it and commiting crime there. Also, would you say a cop who busts a pedophile over the WWW is also doing a disservice to his community? If a cop can prevent a kid from being molested I think we'd all want him to use every/any resource, including the WWW. I think your reasoning is clouded by wanting to get laid ;)

[LARRYDARRELL]

Dobbsy are you for real?

What you say is exactly semantics!

What you say is pure semantics!

How could you get this wrong!

I don't think you got it wrong, I think you are playing semantics to confuse what I have said.

If a guy from out of state picks up a fake cop on Broadway & 42nd then he is involved in an event within the community he happens to be standing in at that moment.

This is obvious!

But if the john is in NJ or Brooklyn when the undercover communicates with him via the WORLD WIDE WEB when he is in NJ or Brooklyn, at that moment the john is not in the undercovers vice cops local precinct.

If I am a guy or girl from out of state, or from the other side of town, or from a different precinct then the precinct that the fake ho or fake john (undercover vice-cop on the WORLD WIDE WEB) is tricking to come into...

then the undercover vice cop is creating a crime that did not exist in that community.

I am not saying the cop is committing a crime or is guilty of entrapment. What I am saying is yet undefined, it is an issue I have never read anywhere before.

The cop is not serving his community fighting existing crime in his community, he is using the WORLD WIDE WEB to create an easy bust in his community that was not their to begin with.

I already addressed the issue of the internet cops being with-in their jurisdiction looking for bad people using the internet to hurt other people. THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE OF THIS POST.

Those cops are not vice cops (even tho many of the cases involve sex or sex for sale).

Those cops have a job to do and they are doing a good job of it. They are not vice cops who are assigned to a local precinct.

Does anyone else think that Dobbsy semantics accusation have any grounds or is it his attempt to distract from the possible issue I think I see?

Does anyone think Dobbsy's own semantics shows us something.

[Mr. User Name]

Does anyone think Dobbsy's own semantics shows us something.
I think Dobbsy got it exactly right, and he did it in English.

[Daddycool]

Claim: Prostitutes can safely challenge johns with the question "Are you a cop?" because law enforcement officers must answer truthfully.
Status: False.

Origins: Police
don't have to reveal their status, even when asked flat out. There's nothing in the law to prohibit law enforcement officers from lying in the course of performing their duties. Were this not so, there'd be no sting operations that involve telling wanted criminals they'd just won trips to Bermudas to get them to come on in, or undercover operations where cops pretend to be suppliers to drug buyers. Police couldn't do their jobs were they restricted to telling the truth all of the time, and a moment's thought about it should lay this belief to rest.

It has long been accepted hooker lore that a working girl could render herself arrestproof by asking a prospective john if he were a policeman before anyone's clothes came off. This belief in protection rested on the notion that even if the client did turn out to be a cop, his not being truthful about it would get the arrest thrown on the grounds of entrapment.

Entrapment, alas, has to do with leading someone into engaging in an illegal activity he or she wouldn't otherwise have been involved in. A hooker getting together with a john is the ordinary course of business — the act of prostitution is not brought on by the john's talking the prostitute into doing something she otherwise would never have thought to do.

[Daddycool]

Prostitution entrapment schemes are a dime a dozen among the nation's police forces. In August 1993, Charles County, Maryland, police were embarrassed by reports that two undercover officers visiting strip joints had gone too far while enjoying "personal lap dances." In Albuquerque, New Mexico, police placed a classified ad in a local paper advertising for men to work as paid escorts and then arrested 50 men who answered the ad for violating laws against prostitution.

[Daddycool]

Once the man drives into the parking lot, the team of vice cops pounce on him and place him under arrest for prostitution along with another 15 to 20 other men who were entrapped the same way. This is called a prostitution sting operation and it is a dirty business.

You must get a lawyer who will evaluate your interaction with the undercover female decoy officer to determine if an entrapment defense can be a successful defense for you. Most men caught in this situation are working or middle class men with no prior record who want to keep the whole matter secret for fear of jeopardizing their relationships with spouses or girlfriends, friends or employers.

Unfortunately, most are unlawfully entrapped by overzealous undercover cops and will not want to go to trial to avoid the obvious potential for adverse effects on marriage, friendship and employment.

Your lawyer must respect your choices in this regard and he will work to reduce the prostitution charge to a simple disturbing the peace violation. Some wrongfully accused men may choose to defend their cases at trial, and very often are successful. A good lawyer should not have much trouble winning a prostitution trial where there is a legitimate entrapment defense.

Indecent exposure is a more serious offense than prostitution and can potentially be charged as a felony requiring life time registration as a sex offender.

[Daddycool]

Here are more facts about Drug use and are you a cop myths.

Common misperceptions about entrapment create a false sense of security among those engaged in criminal activities. Two of the most popular myths concern how to identify an undercover agent.

The first of these beliefs is that a person preparing to sell drugs or solicit a prostitute can simply ask the agent whether or not he or she is an agent of the authorities. In this myth, if an undercover agent denies his association with police, his actions constitute entrapment. No part of this is true. If it were, undercover operations would be impossible because they could be easily and automatically defused. Police agents are allowed, if not encouraged, to lie. In fact, the lie and the deception are at the very heart of the sting. Without them, there would be no undercover operation.

Another commonly held, but mistaken, belief is that the way to identify a narcotics officer is to ask him to use the drugs that he is buying. If he refuses, he is a cop; if he uses, he is not. This is also a myth. An undercover agent may legally consume drugs if he believes that refusing to do so would blow his cover and put him at risk of injury or death. This is an example of the classic defense of necessity.

Between Hollywood films and the word on the street, the legal concept of entrapment is often misunderstood. Like most legal defenses, it is neither as clear-cut nor as successful as it might seem. Only a skilled defense lawyer can properly analyze a set of facts to determine if the defense exists and then properly argue that defense to a judge or jury.

[Daddycool]

Sorry. You're wrong.

They're not convincing you to do anything. They're making an illegal act available, and you're participating in it. How is "Want a blow job? $50" convincing you to get a blow job? Either you take it (which is YOUR decision) or you walk away. They didn't say anything to persuade you to change your mind. And that's even more the case with the CL ad.

I'm sorry, but this isn't speculation on my part. I KNOW you're wrong.


Can you still say this after my last 4 posts? I think not.

[Daddycool]

I'm not sure how easy it would be to argue that some guy who was trolling CL Erotic Services wasn't "otherwised disposed to commit it". It's "worse" than a streetwalker, because there you could always (reasonably) claim that you were just driving down the street, not thinking of picking up a prostitute, this girl waived to you, etc. But in this case, the only way you found the ad was when you were looking at a whole group of ads for prostitutes.


They have done it sucessfully too. See my proir posts about the 50 guys who answered an ad in the paper. I would believe it is the same thing.

What I have been saying is that the undercover cop cannot offer you a BJ for an amount of money.

[Daddycool]

Thanks for clearing up a point or 2, JL. :)

MexicanaMami


All he cleared up was that he didn't know what he was talking about. Go read the facts.

Entrapment, alas, has to do with leading someone into engaging in an illegal activity he or she wouldn't otherwise have been involved in. A hooker getting together with a john is the ordinary course of business — the act of prostitution is not brought on by the john's talking the prostitute into doing something she otherwise would never have thought to do.

[justlooking]

Can you still say this after my last 4 posts? I think not.

Maybe I'm dense (OK: forget the "maybe"), but I don't see how your last four posts, informative as they are, contradict me.

[Daddycool]

Maybe I'm dense (OK: forget the "maybe"), but I don't see how your last four posts, informative as they are, contradict me.

They're not convincing you to do anything. They're making an illegal act available, and you're participating in it. How is "Want a blow job? $50" convincing you to get a blow job? Either you take it (which is YOUR decision) or you walk away. They didn't say anything to persuade you to change your mind. And that's even more the case with the CL ad.

I'm sorry, but this isn't speculation on my part. I KNOW you're wrong.


Entrapment, alas, has to do with leading someone into engaging in an illegal activity he or she wouldn't otherwise have been involved in. A hooker getting together with a john is the ordinary course of business — the act of prostitution is not brought on by the john's talking the prostitute into doing something she otherwise would never have thought to do.

This is in the street walker case: The Undercover cop is leading someone into engaging in an illegal activity he or she would not have been otherwise involved in.

I do agree you about the ads with the CL not being entrapment. Let also make the case with this fact too.

"After his arrest, a federal judge acquitted the Detroit Dream Merchant of all charges in 1984. The judge ruled that the authorities had entrapped DeLorean by making him an offer that was impossible to refuse."

This was with Drugs but can be aruged with a street walker. If you get offered a 2 dollar blow job, thats too good of an offer to refuse.

[Daddycool]

But I found more facts at legal match. com about this too. Here are those facts.

Solicitation of Prostitution

Legal Topics > Criminal Law and Police > General/Other - Criminal Law and Police > Misdemeanors

What is Solicitation of Prostitution?
Solicitation of prostitution is a crime involving a person’s agreement to exchange money for sex. This agreement does not have to be explicit. A person’s actions can be enough to demonstrate agreement.

I Didn’t Even Pay the Prostitute, Much Less Have Sex with Her. How Am I Guilty of a Crime?
The crime of solicitation of prostitution occurs at the moment you agree to pay for sex, and take some action to further that agreement. Solicitation is simply encouraging someone to commit a crime. It does not matter if the crime ends up being committed or not.

What Sorts of Acts “Further the Agreement”?
Pretty much any act demonstrating a willingness to go through with the agreement is an act of furtherance. Such acts can include:

Withdrawing money from the ATM
Taking the prostitute to a motel

I Was Propositioned by an Undercover Police Officer. Isn’t that Entrapment?
Not necessarily. Police officers can typically do things like offer sex when they are working on prostitution cases without committing entrapment. As long as you demonstrated some desire to commit the crime, it will be difficult to raise the issue of entrapment.

So it could be argued either way. It all depends on the uncover cop and how she propositions you.
This also rests the case of the Cl ad. If you answer the Cl ad you are for certain showing a willingness to commit a crime.

[justlooking]

This was with Drugs but can be aruged with a street walker. If you get offered a 2 dollar blow job, thats too good of an offer to refuse.

STRONGLY disagree.

[Daddycool]

STRONGLY disagree.
It was an exteme example but a case had been made, although in the drug bust, and the person did win. So you might be able to make the case for it. Might.

A common defense for prostitution and solicitating sex is entrapment. While it is legal for the police to lie, they may not unreasonably pressure a suspect to commit a crime. As an example, a female undercover officer cannot approach a potential "john" and say "Please have sex with me for $50.00. The police are aware of the law of entrapment. Often they will attempt to protect themselves from charges of entrapment by recording all the dialogue leading up to the arrest.

[justlooking]

I Was Propositioned by an Undercover Police Officer. Isn’t that Entrapment?
Not necessarily. Police officers can typically do things like offer sex when they are working on prostitution cases without committing entrapment. As long as you demonstrated some desire to commit the crime, it will be difficult to raise the issue of entrapment.

To me, this pretty much disproves your contention.

So it could be argued either way. It all depends on the uncover cop and how she propositions you.

Yeah. Like:

UC: Wanna blow job for $50?

YOU: No.

UC: Oh come on. It'll be great.

YOU: No, get away from me. [Walks away]

UC [following you down street]: Come on. What are you, scared? You'll never know how good this can feel without trying it.

YOU: I don't think so.

UC [licks lips laciviously]: Come on. It'll be really good.

YOU: Well, maybe.

UC [licks lips some more]: Maybe?

YOU: OK.

That seems like entrapment.

OTOH:

UC: Wanna blow job for $50?

YOU: Sure.

I just don't see how far you could take an argument on entrapment in that case.

[Daddycool]

To me, this pretty much disproves your contention.



Yeah. Like:

UC: Wanna blow job for $50?

YOU: No.

UC: Oh come on. It'll be great.

YOU: No, get away from me. [Walks away]

UC [following you down street]: Come on. What are you, scared? You'll never know how good this can feel without trying it.

YOU: I don't think so.

UC [licks lips laciviously]: Come on. It'll be really good.

YOU: Well, maybe.

UC [licks lips some more]: Maybe?

YOU: OK.

That seems like entrapment.

OTOH:

UC: Wanna blow job for $50?

YOU: Sure.

I just don't see how far you could take an argument on entrapment in that case.


Simple:
While it is legal for the police to lie, they may not unreasonably pressure a suspect to commit a crime. As an example, a female undercover officer cannot approach a potential "john" and say "Please have sex with me for $50.00.

I believe in the example the UC is pressuring me quite strongly. And I have told her to leave me along. But she continues to pressure me. I would think that would be ease to prove " unreasonable pressure"

[Daddycool]

I found that last fact on Gottrouble.com

[justlooking]

Sorry, but I think I'm confused now. What "example" are you saying is entrapment? If you mean mine, I'm saying my FIRST example is arguably entrapment, and my SECOND example isn't. Are you saying my SECOND example is arguably entrapment, or are you talking about some different, perhaps intermediate, example?

[Daddycool]

OTOH:

UC: Wanna blow job for $50?

YOU: Sure.

I just don't see how far you could take an argument on entrapment in that case.


a female undercover officer cannot approach a potential "john" and say "Please have sex with me for $50.00. The police are aware of the law of entrapment. Often they will attempt to protect themselves from charges of entrapment by recording all the dialogue leading up to the arrest.

[Daddycool]

Sorry, but I think I'm confused now. What "example" are you saying is entrapment? If you mean mine, I'm saying my FIRST example is arguably entrapment, and my SECOND example isn't. Are you saying my SECOND example is arguably entrapment, or are you talking about some different, perhaps intermediate, example?


Both of your examples are entrapment. The first example is entrapment because of " they may not unreasonably pressure a suspect to commit a crime". Which you did.

The second may be harder to prove but here it goes "a female undercover officer cannot approach a potential "john" and say "Please have sex with me for $50.00." Your example was for a BJ but it still was a one line offer.


Another example and more facts.

Many times these arrests occur as part of a “sting operation” set up by police departments. In these situations, it can often be proven that the accused had no intent to commit a criminal act but instead it was suggested by an undercover police officer, which would qualify as “entrapment” and a possible dismissal of the charges against the accused. In addition, New Jersey Code states that solicitation of prostitution occurs when the accused “commits an act in furtherance of” the agreement to commit prostitution. Exactly when this “act in furtherance of” occurs is unclear and can often be disputed because many times the accused is arrested right after the agreement is made and not necessarily in an “act in furtherance of.”

[Daddycool]

I am admitting that the entrapment case would have to be built upon how the Undercover cop made her sex offer to you. I am not saying that if the UC makes an offer that it is an open and shut case for entrapment, but you can build a legal defense around it.

[justlooking]

I think that's wrong. I think the police clearly CAN approach a potential john and say "please have sex with me for $50." I think the entrapment statute, quoted above by someone, would clearly permit that.

I also think it may be true that the police, in an effort to make sure their cases are clean, will impose rules on themselves like "don't make an offer for a price," so there's no posssible issues of entrapment. But just because the police, as a matter of prudential policy, might go out of their way to keep cases simple by avoiding any issue of possible defenses, that doesn't mean that the defendant has a good shot at establishing the defense. It only means the police want to prevent the defendant from even having the opportunity to raise it. And, of course, it doesn't mean the police will always follow that policy. I think you do the readers of this board a real disservice by suggesting to them that they have nothing to worry about if the prostitute names a price. Cuz if she IS an undercover, that alone won't create an entrapment under New York law.

[OrangeAid]

according to the new york state penal law this is whats in the entrapment statute.

"when the methods used by the police are such as to create a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by a person not otherwise disposed to commit it"

I just wanted to congratulate ClubGoer for having the motivation to go out and READ THE FUCKING LAW! It's amazing how many questions are answered when you just go straight to the source. Thanks for the contribution, CG.

[Daddycool]

I think that's wrong. I think the police clearly CAN approach a potential john and say "please have sex with me for $50." I think the entrapment statute, quoted above by someone, would clearly permit that.

In these situations, it can often be proven that the accused had no intent to commit a criminal act but instead it was suggested by an undercover police officer, which would qualify as “entrapment” and a possible dismissal of the charges against the accused.

[Daddycool]

I think that's wrong. I think the police clearly CAN approach a potential john and say "please have sex with me for $50." I think the entrapment statute, quoted above by someone, would clearly permit that.

I also think it may be true that the police, in an effort to make sure their cases are clean, will impose rules on themselves like "don't make an offer for a price," so there's no posssible issues of entrapment. But just because the police, as a matter of prudential policy, might go out of their way to keep cases simple by avoiding any issue of possible defenses, that doesn't mean that the defendant has a good shot at establishing the defense. It only means the police want to prevent the defendant from even having the opportunity to raise it. And, of course, it doesn't mean the police will always follow that policy. I think you do the readers of this board a real disservice by suggesting to them that they have nothing to worry about if the prostitute names a price. Cuz if she IS an undercover, that alone won't create an entrapment under New York law.

Here was that post by me: Again I am giving both sides for people to read.
Legal Topics > Criminal Law and Police > General/Other - Criminal Law and Police > Misdemeanors

What is Solicitation of Prostitution?
Solicitation of prostitution is a crime involving a person’s agreement to exchange money for sex. This agreement does not have to be explicit. A person’s actions can be enough to demonstrate agreement.

I Didn’t Even Pay the Prostitute, Much Less Have Sex with Her. How Am I Guilty of a Crime?
The crime of solicitation of prostitution occurs at the moment you agree to pay for sex, and take some action to further that agreement. Solicitation is simply encouraging someone to commit a crime. It does not matter if the crime ends up being committed or not.

What Sorts of Acts “Further the Agreement”?
Pretty much any act demonstrating a willingness to go through with the agreement is an act of furtherance. Such acts can include:

Withdrawing money from the ATM
Taking the prostitute to a motel

I Was Propositioned by an Undercover Police Officer. Isn’t that Entrapment?
Not necessarily. Police officers can typically do things like offer sex when they are working on prostitution cases without committing entrapment. As long as you demonstrated some desire to commit the crime, it will be difficult to raise the issue of entrapment.

So it could be argued either way. It all depends on the uncover cop and how she propositions you.
This also rests the case of the Cl ad. If you answer the Cl ad you are for certain showing a willingness to commit a crime.

[Daddycool]

I think you do the readers of this board a real disservice by suggesting to them that they have nothing to worry about if the prostitute names a price. Cuz if she IS an undercover, that alone won't create an entrapment under New York law.


I have NEVER said that. Show me where I said that. This is what I have said:

So it could be argued either way. It all depends on the uncover cop and how she propositions you.

I have never suggested that. In fact I have said the opposite that it is not an open an shut case if an UC offers you sex. Do not put words in my mouth.

I also think that UGers are now more wise to what the laws are out there and that they now know, they cannot just get away with asking an UC if she is a cop and be okay with that.
Everything I have quoted has been from a LEGAL source. Not speculation on my part.

[Daddycool]

I just wanted to congratulate ClubGoer for having the motivation to go out and READ THE FUCKING LAW! It's amazing how many questions are answered when you just go straight to the source. Thanks for the contribution, CG.

wow. Thanks for reposting it.

[LARRYDARRELL]

this is not a thread about entrapment!

[justlooking]

I am admitting that the entrapment case would have to be built upon how the Undercover cop made her sex offer to you. I am not saying that if the UC makes an offer that it is an open and shut case for entrapment, but you can build a legal defense around it.

Sorry, a bunch of your posts crossed with mine, so it might have looked like my last post was responding to this, which it wasn't.

I don't think we're even disagreeing anymore.

You can see a difference between "you can build a legal defense around it" and "THE POLICE CAN'T MAKE AN OFFER FOR A PRICE", right?

I mean, sure, you can "build" a defense. And, sure, it might conceivably work if you get the right jury. And, sure, it might convince the DA to cut a deal with you, or even let you go, cuz they don't want the hassle.

OTOH, the defense might fail, cuz on a textbook, black-letter-law level, it ain't really entrapment.

Whatever, "you could build a legal defense" isn't anything close to the same thing as "it's entrapment."

Anyway, it seems like we agree on the on-topic part of this discussion, which is that the CL ad is very far from entrapment -- even if it includes a price.

[Daddycool]

Yes we do agree. The CL ad in very far from entrapment and has been used succesfully by law enforcement to catch guys.

[Slinky Bender]

"After his arrest, a federal judge acquitted the Detroit Dream Merchant of all charges in 1984. The judge ruled that the authorities had entrapped DeLorean by making him an offer that was impossible to refuse."

This was with Drugs but can be aruged with a street walker. If you get offered a 2 dollar blow job, thats too good of an offer to refuse.

A) Delorean's case, while drugs were invovlved, was not really about drugs, he was being tried on money laundering (the drug charges were thrown in for the press to have something more juicy).

B) If you've got one single case of an undercover cop offering $2 blowjobs, I'd like to hear about it. They never offer anything at any price, much less offers which are "too good to refuse", unless you want to argue that standing there looking like a hooker is an offer which is too good to refuse.

[justlooking]

They never offer anything at any price,

To be fair, that's exactly Daddycool's point.

(My point was that, legally, they could.)

[Daddycool]

To be fair, that's exactly Daddycool's point.

(My point was that, legally, they could.)


Right that was my point.

[Daddycool]

Here is the DeLorean case.

June 27, 2005

The Entrapment Defense
What a Tangled Web
By Lisa Lewis & Dan Rhoads

U.S. v. DeLorean


In the early 1980’s, John DeLorean became a celebrity in the auto industry by designing popular sportscars. But by 1982, DeLorean’s business needed $17 million to survive. The FBI, DEA, Customs Service, and LAPD orchestrated a sting operation in which they asked DeLorean to invest $1.8 million to import 100 kilos of cocaine from South America. The Auto Prince was told he would make $24 million, which he planned to use to salvage his company.

After his arrest, a federal judge acquitted the Detroit Dream Merchant of all charges in 1984. The judge ruled that the authorities had entrapped DeLorean by making him an offer that was impossible to refuse.

DeLorean popularized the entrapment defense, but the case did nothing to highlight how rarely it works. Even when it is available, it is still an uphill battle.


Again this just proves the point again that while Entrapment can be a legal defense it is very hard to prove. It all depends on the conduct of the police and the john as to what was said by whom. That is why they always record the sting as JL pointed out.

[Slinky Bender]

To be fair, that's exactly Daddycool's point.

(My point was that, legally, they could.)



Right that was my point.

No, because both of you are talking about them offering at various prices, which they don't do. Doesn't matter if it's $50 or $2, because it simply doesn't happen. If you were arguing that a $2 would be problem because it's too good to pass up, you would have to make a different argument for why the $50 offers shouldn't be made, and that hasn't happened (except for jl saying that they could do the $50 offers if they wanted to, which I disagree with).

(but frankly, I can't tell what dc is arguing, because he seems to be argueing both sides).

[Slinky Bender]

The FBI, DEA, Customs Service, and LAPD orchestrated a sting operation in which they asked DeLorean to invest $1.8 million to import 100 kilos of cocaine from South America. The Auto Prince was told he would make $24 million, which he planned to use to salvage his company.

Do you know where the $1.8 came from?

[Daddycool]

Do you know where the $1.8 came from?

Actually I cannot tell you, but I am sure you will tell me, because I would like to know.

but frankly, I can't tell what dc is arguing, because he seems to be argueing both sides).

You are correct I did give facts for both sides, because I was blamed for doing Utopiaguide a dis-serivce by leading UGers to believe that if a UC offered you a BJ for 50 that you would for sure get off because of entrapment.

I still say that if a UC propositions you first for a 50 BJ, that you could make the case for entrapment becuase of this statement" In these situations, it can often be proven that the accused had no intent to commit a criminal act but instead it was suggested by an undercover police officer, which would qualify as “entrapment” and a possible dismissal of the charges against the accused."

That would be for the one line UC offer for a 50 dollar BJ.

This one was for the second example JL gave me
While it is legal for the police to lie, they may not unreasonably pressure a suspect to commit a crime. As an example, a female undercover officer cannot approach a potential "john" and say "Please have sex with me for $50.00.

I believe in the example the UC is pressuring me quite strongly. And I have told her to leave me alone. But she continues to pressure me. I would think that would be ease to prove " unreasonable pressure"

Of course the 2 dollar BJ is far fetched and an extreme example, and I admitted that, but sighting the Delorean case, you could make an argument for that 2 dollar BJ "too good to pass up" This is why it is never offered.

The reason behind the 50 dollar example is because its not" too good of a deal to pass up" and I am sure you could get jimmyDR to say he got 50 dollar BJ's.

[Slinky Bender]

The money came from the DEA, which is one of the main reasons for the entrapment ruling.

And while JD ended up in the same room as the Coke, he never did anything to traffic it (it was fairly trumped up). The case was really about a guy who was in financial trouble, they offered him over 1000% percent return, and then gave him th emoney to do the transaction. I think "everyone" thought in the same position, almost anyone would have doen teh same thing (in the same way you're supposed to turn in found money. If the police leave $1 million in a duffle bag for you to find, and then when you find it and don't turn it in bust you, I think most cases will get ruled as entrapment. Interestingly enough, NYC plice are currently leaving pocketbooks unattended in various parts of teh city and then busting people who pick them up. It will be interesting to see what happens with an entrapemtn defense should these cases come to trial).

[Slinky Bender]

" In these situations, it can often be proven that the accused had no intent to commit a criminal act but instead it was suggested by an undercover police officer, which would qualify as “entrapment” and a possible dismissal of the charges against the accused.".


Sounds like th eburden of proof is switched to the defendant for this defense. As such, it's going to be hard to explain why (in a lot of cases) someone was driving around the block 15 times in a known stroll at 4AM, other than to solicit.

[Slinky Bender]

As an example, a female undercover officer cannot approach a potential "john" and say "Please have sex with me for $50.00.

I believe in the example the UC is pressuring me quite strongly. And I have told her to leave me alone. But she continues to pressure me. I would think that would be ease to prove " unreasonable pressure"

But that doesn't happen. Could we stick to arguing examples that make some sense? (i.e. actually happen in the real world).

[Daddycool]

Sounds like th eburden of proof is switched to the defendant for this defense. As such, it's going to be hard to explain why (in a lot of cases) someone was driving around the block 15 times in a known stroll at 4AM, other than to solicit.


You cannot assume intent. Until the John or the UC walks over to you, you have no intent to do anything illegal. If the UC asks you for the BJ and you didnt make the first offer, its hard to prove your intent until you were propsotioned with that offer. Thats why the statement says : it can OFTEN be proven that the accused had no intent to commit a criminal act but instead it was suggested by an undercover police officer, which would qualify as “entrapment” and " and a POSSIBLE dismissal of the charges against the accused."

Any when dealing with the police, when is the burden of proof ever on the police to prove you are guilty. Cops words in court are like law. Like the cop cannot ever lie and what he or she says is exactly what happned. Every try and get out of a moving viloation? The cop says you were doing 78 miles and hour, you know for sure you were doing 58 miles an hour. You think your word is going to carry more weight than the cops? Even though you were really doing 58.


Now with CL, I agree with you and JL. And my proir posts have shown examples of undercover stings being successful with newspaper ads.

[Daddycool]

But that doesn't happen. Could we stick to arguing examples that make some sense? (i.e. actually happen in the real world).

Right that is exactly what the point is. Is that in the real world it can never happen which is why you could say that " its too good to be passed up"

What investment could ever get you a 1000% return or where can you find a 2 dollar BJ. Nowhere.

I used that example of Delorean to show that there has been a legal
presciendent of a "offer to good to be true". Would that hold up in court? I do not know, but if you can sight presciendent of cases no matter how obscure or old, you may win.

No matter what, it is alwaays going to come down to what the UC has on tape or what the conversation you had with the UC was, their version Vs your version.

[lioness]

better yet... how many think some horny ass cops buy pussy from girls on CL and other places?


ooooh ooooh me me I think so matter of fact I know so
one of my reg's is a **pd and comes to see me at least every other week

[justlooking]

The difference between the DeLorean desperate-need-of-money-here's-a-great-return-but-you-have-to-do-something-illegal-to-get-it "too good to pass up" and the $2 blow job "to good to pass up" is that the $2 blow job is only "too good to pass up" if you're already inclined to commit the crime of buying blow jobs. I guarantee you that the reason most guys don't see prostitutes isn't cuz SWs charge $50 (or whatever) for a blow job instead of just $2.

[justlooking]

Or, to put it another way, DeLorean's goal wasn't to commit a crime. It was to save his company. He was just induced to break the law to do it. (THAT'S the entrapment.)

The guy who buys a $2 blow job's goal is to commit a crime.

You can see the difference, can't you?

[Daddycool]

Or, to put it another way, DeLorean's goal wasn't to commit a crime. It was to save his company. He was just induced to break the law to do it. (THAT'S the entrapment.)

The guy who buys a $2 blow job's goal is to commit a crime.

You can see the difference, can't you?

I can see the difference, but who is to say what the intent is of the guy who buys the 2 dollar bJ is until he get offered that BJ. This is of course, if the the UC propositions the guy first and not the other way around.

If you are walking home from work, you have no intention of commiting a crime at all, you are just walking home. All of a sudden this beautiful blonde looks at you and says" have I got a deal for you. I'll give you a 2 dollar BJ". You had no intent of commiting a crime at all, until you were propositioned with that offer.

Ads on CL is another matter.

[Daddycool]

The guy who buys a $2 blow job's goal is to commit a crime.

We do not know what his intent is. Thats my whole point. You cannot say 100 % that this guy walking home had a goal to get a BJ on his way home. In fact, he might have been thinking about everything else in life, but a BJ. The thought of a 2 dollar BJ never entered his mind. Once the UC tells him about this 2 BJ, a deal he cannot refuse, then thats what chages his intent. The UC induces him to commit a crime he had no intendition of committing.

[Daddycool]

The guy who buys a $2 blow job's goal is to commit a crime.

Will it hold up in court, I have no idea.

We can all see Deloreans intent and it was a good one. Hell is paved with good intenditons. Who would not want to save his company. But we do not know what the intent of the 2 BJ is until the UC offers him the 2 BJ. That is what changes his mind to commit a crime he had no intention of committing.

[Slinky Bender]

I have agree (and disagree) with dc on this:

I think that there are a lot of guys who wouldn't be trolling for prostitutes who might take up some streetwalker on the $2 blowjob offer.

The problem I have is still:

1) this never happens (i.e UCs offering $2 BJs), so I think it's setting up a straw man to knock down, and
2) If you're trolling around in some known track, even though "no one can know your intent", it's going to be difficult to convince a prosecutor, judge, and jury that you weren't doing it because you were looking to purchase sex. As jl likes to point out, any defense which relies on those three being idiots probably isn't going to lead to success.

[Daddycool]

I have agree (and disagree) with dc on this:

I think that there are a lot of guys who wouldn't be trolling for prostitutes who might take up some streetwalker on the $2 blowjob offer.

The problem I have is still:

1) this never happens (i.e UCs offering $2 BJs), so I think it's setting up a straw man to knock down, and
2) If you're trolling around in some known track, even though "no one can know your intent", it's going to be difficult to convince a prosecutor, judge, and jury that you weren't doing it because you were looking to purchase sex. As jl likes to point out, any defense which relies on those three being idiots probably isn't going to lead to success.

I agree, I have no idea if that would hold up in court or not. Probably not. I think the example you gave of a guy "trolling a known track" would show enough intent by itself.

[Daddycool]

I'm not sure how easy it would be to argue that some guy who was trolling CL Erotic Services wasn't "otherwised disposed to commit it". But in this case, the only way you found the ad was when you were looking at a whole group of ads for prostitutes.

And I agree with you on this point. Because you are showing intent by looking in the eroitc services section.

[Slinky Bender]

For example, I can think of a scenario which probably would get labelled as entrapment:

A guy goes to a regular neighborhood bar. He chats up some girl. After a bit of flirting, she says "I'd love to suck your cock". After he agrees that they will go to the bathroom, she says "Will you give me a little something?" and he agrees to give her $10. If she then turns out to be a UC, I think the entrapment defense would work.

[justlooking]

I can see the difference, but who is to say what the intent is of the guy who buys the 2 dollar bJ is until he get offered that BJ. This is of course, if the the UC propositions the guy first and not the other way around.

If you are walking home from work, you have no intention of commiting a crime at all, you are just walking home. All of a sudden this beautiful blonde looks at you and says" have I got a deal for you. I'll give you a 2 dollar BJ". You had no intent of commiting a crime at all, until you were propositioned with that offer.

Yeah, but the standard isn't "intention of commiting a crime". It's (I'm putting quotes around it but its really a paraphrase) "inclinitation to commit the type of criminal conduct at issue."

Ads on CL is another matter.

I think by now that goes without saying.

Speaking of things that go without saying, I hope it's clear to everybody reading this that Daddycool and I aren't continuing this discussion out of malice or anything, but because we find the discussion interesting.

If anybody (understandably) thinks it's boring by now, skip it.

[justlooking]

For example, I can think of a scenario which probably would get labelled as entrapment:

A guy goes to a regular neighborhood bar. He chats up some girl. After a bit of flirting, she says "I'd love to suck your cock". After he agrees that they will go to the bathroom, she says "Will you give me a little something?" and he agrees to give her $10. If she then turns out to be a UC, I think the entrapment defense would work.

Agree.

[Daddycool]

Yeah, but the standard isn't "intention of commiting a crime". It's (I'm putting quotes around it but its really a paraphrase) "inclinitation to commit the type of criminal conduct at issue."



I think by now that goes without saying.

Speaking of things that go without saying, I hope it's clear to everybody reading this that Daddycool and I aren't continuing this discussion out of malice or anything, but because we find the discussion interesting.

.

I agree with this too. I am having fun debating this with you.

[Daddycool]

Yeah, but the standard isn't "intention of commiting a crime". It's (I'm putting quotes around it but its really a paraphrase) "inclinitation to commit the type of criminal conduct at issue."
.

according to the new york state penal law this is whats in the entrapment statute.

"when the methods used by the police are such as to create a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by a person not otherwise disposed to commit it"

The UC is using a method that is creating a substantial risk that the offense would be commited by a person that he would not otherwise have committed. The guy was not looking for a 2 dollar BJ. He had no intention nor was he predisposed to commit a crime until the UC propositioned him. He was not committing a crime, he was not looking to commit a crime, the UC is the one who put the idea of commiting a crime in his head.

[johnpet]

Scenario A: LE has an undercover cop on net in teen chatrooms posing as a 15 year old girl. He waits until a guy initiates a conversation with him and it goes further and further until the guy suggest a place to meet. Perfectly legit.

Scenario B: LE puts up a website of "Cute Katie - 15 year old model" and on the site suggests that she's unhappy at home and looking for guys to take her out and buy her things and even suggests she's sexually active. Guys go to the site and start *****ing her to set up a time to meet. This is would be horseshit entrapment that any lawyer 2 days out of lawschool would have thrown out.

You cannot put the idea to commit the crime in a guys head. He has not not only be willing to commit the crime but take steps to commit it. If I'm answering the ad of an undercover officer on CL my agument (and my attorny's argument) will be that was very extremely lonely and depressed and simply looking for companionship - nothing more. But upon seeing the ad I got very intrigued and starting thinking about something I had never done before and something I would never normally do.

Guys - this is open and shut "case thrown out" crap. LE cannot advertise on CL or anyplace else and have the case stick. However, they just plan on busting the guys anyway and hoping to God they plead out.

[crazyjoe]

Guys - this is open and shut "case thrown out" crap. LE cannot advertise on CL or anyplace else and have the case stick. However, they just plan on busting the guys anyway and hoping to God they plead out.

Based on the legal definition of entrapment that Club Goer posted I don't see how simply posting an ad on CL can be labeled as such. It seems like a perfectly legitimate sting tactic.

[Bandaid]

Scenario A: LE has an undercover cop on net in teen chatrooms posing as a 15 year old girl. He waits until a guy initiates a conversation with him and it goes further and further until the guy suggest a place to meet. Perfectly legit.

Scenario B: LE puts up a website of "Cute Katie - 15 year old model" and on the site suggests that she's unhappy at home and looking for guys to take her out and buy her things and even suggests she's sexually active. Guys go to the site and start *****ing her to set up a time to meet. This is would be horseshit entrapment that any lawyer 2 days out of lawschool would have thrown out.

Whether a defendant was entrapped is an issue of fact decided by the jury. The jury is instructed in the law of entrapment and is charged to decide if the defendant had a predisposition to commit the crime or if he only did it because of the government's actions. FWIW, these are New Jersey's model jury instructions on entrapement:

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/charges/jury/liabil010.htm

I don't agree that scenario B would be thrown out. Take a look at United States V. Jacobson at http://www.ci.keene.nh.us/police/jacobson.html . The Supreme Court vacated a child pornography conviction because postal inspectors had been mailing the defendant over a period of 26 months offering stuff from fictitious organizations, some of them with a NAMBLA type feel. The long campaign, until the defendant finally ordered prohibited material, negated prosecution's contention that Jacobson was "predisposed" to commit the crime.

In your Scenario B, you have guys going to the site and sending, er, messages to this girl and trying to set up a meet. A jury would be likely to find that someone who would do this was predisposed to commit the crime. The defense could at least argue that the jury should be instructed in entrapment when they get their charge and be asked to find if the defendant had been entrapped. My guess? The jury wouldn't buy it that the defendant was entrapped. "She made my dick stiff" might not fly.

Now suppose this fake girl had messaged a guy whose previous contacts with "her" had been innocent, or the guy hadn't maintained a contact; She pursues him, trying to draw the guy out, being the aggressor, wearing him down, especially over a period of time until he finally goes ahead with the meetup. An entrapment defense would be likely to succeed.

[Normus Johnson]

Whether or not the CL ad is entrapment is irrelevant. You get arrested and charged. You have only two choices at that point, face a trial and hope the entrapment defense works, and if it doesn't you are screwed. The second choice is to cut a deal, and plead the thing down to a lessor charge. What do you think happens most of the time? Who in their right mind would even chance a trial? The only sensible thing is to take the deal, and take the punishment, probably a stiff fine. That is all they want out of you anyway is the bucks, costs them too much to lock you up.

[CHEZ69]

Whether or not the CL ad is entrapment is irrelevant. You get arrested and charged. You have only two choices at that point, face a trial and hope the entrapment defense works, and if it doesn't you are screwed. The second choice is to cut a deal, and plead the thing down to a lessor charge. What do you think happens most of the time? Who in their right mind would even chance a trial? The only sensible thing is to take the deal, and take the punishment, probably a stiff fine. That is all they want out of you anyway is the bucks, costs them too much to lock you up.

"stiff fine" - you got that right!!!

[Bandaid]

Whether or not the CL ad is entrapment is irrelevant. You get arrested and charged. You have only two choices at that point, face a trial and hope the entrapment defense works, and if it doesn't you are screwed. The second choice is to cut a deal, and plead the thing down to a lessor charge. What do you think happens most of the time? Who in their right mind would even chance a trial? The only sensible thing is to take the deal, and take the punishment, probably a stiff fine. That is all they want out of you anyway is the bucks, costs them too much to lock you up.

Exactly. If you're arrested, you've lost already. for ordinary stuff like prostitution busts, it's almost as if they don't much care whether the guy is convicted or not. They've already got what they want.

I'm sure that over 90% of those cases are pled down.

[Normus Johnson]

I'm sure that over 90% of those cases are pled down.[/QUOTE]


LE knows exactly what they are doing in these stings. Since catching criminals using the internet is still relatively new, it is hard for us to predict how a judge would rule on this.
LE however, is prepared and knows exactly what it will use to rebut any entrapment defense. They will say posting an ad on CL is no different than sticking a decoy on a street corner. If you see a decoy on a street corner and just drive on by, no one will do anything to you. Stop and speak to a female decoy who is dressed provacitively as a hooker, and you are asking for trouble. LE is allowed to use lies and deception., and a CL ad is no different. You answered the ad, not them.
Since the charge is a misdemeanor, there is no jury trial unless you ask for it. LE knows when they place these ads, what judge(s) are likely to hear the case, and what their ruling will likely be if they tightly stick to their script.
So, the bottom line is no matter what you are screwed right from the beginning. Want to argue entrapment? Hire a good lawyer, and request a jury trial, and be prepared to spend big bucks for your attorney after you lose, and have to appeal the decision. Simple choice, pay thousands, and tie up lots of time, or plead down, and walk away after paying the man. LE knows what will happen 99% of the time. It isn't about whether you are right or wrong, but what they can extort out of you.