• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYC Mayor Conducts Gun-Sale Sting in Arizona

"probably"?


It's ****ing entrapment from an interstate felon named bloomberg, selective with the law counselor?

Since there was no arrest, or prosecution, there was obviously no entrapment. As I mentioned above, it's no different than something an investigative journalist might do. Which is not to say that it wasn't a weird thing for Bloomberg to do! OTOH, he claims that 90% of the guns seized in NYC come from out of state. He's trying to make the point that lax federal law makes it more difficult to control the flow of illegal guns into his jurisdiction.
 
The only reason it's not entrapment is because they had no law enforcement jurisdiction. If they had, it would be textbook entrapment.

I wouldn't expect Thunder to have a clue what the elements of entrapment are, but AdamT, if you have the background you say you do, you should.
 
The only reason it's not entrapment is because they had no law enforcement jurisdiction. If they had, it would be textbook entrapment.

I wouldn't expect Thunder to have a clue what the elements of entrapment are, but AdamT, if you have the background you say you do, you should.

I disagree that it would be textbook entrapment. Entrapment generally implies the use of coercion to get someone to do something that they would not normally do. In this case the buyer mentioned, in a completely offhand way, that he probably couldn't pass a background check. The sellers completely ignored those comments and proceded as if nothing had been said. It was pretty obvious that they didn't give a **** whether or not the guy was a felon. They just wanted to sell their guns.
 
Last edited:
...I wouldn't expect Thunder to have a clue what the elements of entrapment are, but AdamT, if you have the background you say you do, you should.

and why do you say that? got any logical reason for such a childish snipe?
 
Last edited:
I disagree that it would be twxtbook entrapment. Entrapment generally implies the use of coercion to get someone to do something that they would not normally do.

Not really (especially in cases such as solicitation for prostitution or drug distribution), and coercion is a general affirmative defense.

In this case the buyer mentioned, in a completely offhand way, that he probably couldn't pass a background check. The sellers completely ignored those comments and proceded as if nothing had been said.

If it was so "offhand," then it doesn't do much to make the case the seller did anything illegal. Considering it's the entire lynchpin of the (hypothetical) case, "offhand" doesn't seem the appropriate word.
 
and why do you say that? got any logical reason for such a childish snipe?

Sure. Your post on the matter, i.e. "giving the opportunity to refuse."

How did they do this exactly, and how does it make it not entrapment?
 
Not really (especially in cases such as solicitation for prostitution or drug distribution), and coercion is a general affirmative defense.



If it was so "offhand," then it doesn't do much to make the case the seller did anything illegal. Considering it's the entire lynchpin of the (hypothetical) case, "offhand" doesn't seem the appropriate word.

Well yeah, entrapment generally implies that something improper was done, and thus in some states it IS an affirmative defense.

In this case, whether the comments were offhand or not, it gave the sellers reason to believe that the buyer could not pass a BG check. The point is that the buyer didn't pressure the sellers at all.
 
Sure. Your post on the matter, i.e. "giving the opportunity to refuse."

How did they do this exactly, and how does it make it not entrapment?

In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informant or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person (see sting operation). So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

Entrapment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The point is that the buyer didn't pressure the sellers at all.

Not so sure that this is true.

AZ entrapment:

1. The idea of committing the offense started with law enforcement officers or their agents rather than with the person.

2. The law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the person to commit the offense.

3. The person was not predisposed to commit the type of offense charged before the law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the person to commit the offense.

C. A person does not establish entrapment if the person was predisposed to commit the offense and the law enforcement officers or their agents merely provided the person with an opportunity to commit the offense. It is not entrapment for law enforcement officers or their agents merely to use a ruse or to conceal their identity. The conduct of law enforcement officers and their agents may be considered in determining if a person has proven entrapment.

http://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/2005/title13/00206.html

#1 is satisfied. #2 might be, depending on AZ caselaw concerning "urge" or "induce" which strikes me as considerably less than "pressure"; no way to know #3 without more information.
 
Last edited:
No, but they say essentially the same thing.

AZ doesn't say anything about "the opportunity to refuse." That was what you were speaking to, wasn't it? If not, why did you quote me?

Besides, Thunder can explain himself if he chooses.
 
AZ doesn't say anything about "the opportunity to refuse." That was what you were speaking to, wasn't it? If not, why did you quote me?

Besides, Thunder can explain himself if he chooses.

No, I didn't say anything about opportunity to refuse. What I'm saying is that the investigator just gave the sellers the opportunity to break the law and they jumped in with both feet. Every sting operation does not constitute entrapment, but it seems that it would under your definition of the term.
 
No, I didn't say anything about opportunity to refuse. What I'm saying is that the investigator just gave the sellers the opportunity to break the law and they jumped in with both feet. Every sting operation does not constitute entrapment, but it seems that it would under your definition of the term.

Then I'm not sure why you responded to my post in that way.

In any case, I showed the AZ elements of entrapment; the idea of the illegal activity originated with them. It wasn't a mere sting operation. They just picked a random guy.

It is, of course, moot, because as I said, they needed to be AZ law enforcement anyway.
 
Then I'm not sure why you responded to my post in that way.

In any case, I showed the AZ elements of entrapment; the idea of the illegal activity originated with them. It wasn't a mere sting operation. They just picked a random guy.

It is, of course, moot, because as I said, they needed to be AZ law enforcement anyway.

A sting operation is almost always inititiated by investigators; that doesn't make it entrapment. "A person does not establish entrapment if the person was predisposed to commit the offense and the law enforcement officers or their agents merely provided the person with an opportunity to commit the offense."
 
A sting operation is almost always inititiated by investigators; that doesn't make it entrapment. "A person does not establish entrapment if the person was predisposed to commit the offense and the law enforcement officers or their agents merely provided the person with an opportunity to commit the offense."

A sting operation is set against people whom they know to be engaged in the activity, or wanting to be engaged in the activity, in order to catch them in the act.

They had no reason to believe that this seller was so predisposed.
 
A sting operation is set against people whom they know to be engaged in the activity, or wanting to be engaged in the activity, in order to catch them in the act.

They had no reason to believe that this seller was so predisposed.

Well, if you see someone on a street corner passing baggies to people in cars in exchange for money, you might have a pretty good idea that they're engaged in the activity of selling drugs, even if you don't know it for a fact. That's why you do sting operations; to confirm your suspicions.
 
Last edited:
Well, if you see someone on a street corner passing baggies to people in cars in exchange for money, you might have a pretty good idea that they're engaged in the activity of selling drugs, even if you don't know it for a fact. That's why you do sting operations; to confirm your suspicions.
Wait what!? Please tell me you know the difference between sales of an illicit substance such as drugs and a legal product such as firearms. If an officer or investigator is on the street and observes suspicious behavior such as "passing money in a bag and recieving another bag" and this is in a high crime area there is a probable cause. It's kind of expected to see a gun sold at a gun show, there is no probable cause to assume that any laws are being broken by the seller.
 
Well, if you see someone on a street corner passing baggies to people in cars in exchange for money, you might have a pretty good idea that they're engaged in the activity of selling drugs, even if you don't know it for a fact. That's why you do sting operations; to confirm your suspicions.

Oh, so anyone selling guns at a gun show is "suspicious"?

So far, you've been doing reasonably well at arguing what a prosecutor would argue against entrapment, but this one would be gonged in a millisecond.
 
Wait what!? Please tell me you know the difference between sales of an illicit substance such as drugs and a legal product such as firearms. If an officer or investigator is on the street and observes suspicious behavior such as "passing money in a bag and recieving another bag" and this is in a high crime area there is a probable cause. It's kind of expected to see a gun sold at a gun show, there is no probable cause to assume that any laws are being broken by the seller.

Forget probable cause; there's nothing even approaching reasonable suspicion.
 
Sure. Your post on the matter, i.e. "giving the opportunity to refuse."

How did they do this exactly, and how does it make it not entrapment?

no one can force you to engage in criminal activity.

an honest, law-abiding, patriotic American would immediately refuse sale...upon learning that the prospective buyer might not pass a background check.

why? cause the asshole might be a child-rapist, a murderer, a car-thief, or even a terrorist.

who the **** sells a gun to someone who might be a convicted felon??????????

someone who cares more about the $$$$$ than his country.
 
no one can force you to engage in criminal activity.

an honest, law-abiding, patriotic American would immediately refuse sale...upon learning that the prospective buyer might not pass a background check.

why? cause the asshole might be a child-rapist, a murderer, a car-thief, or even a terrorist.

who the **** sells a gun to someone who might be a convicted felon??????????

someone who cares more about the $$$$$ than his country.

Oddly enough, none of this has to do with whether or not something is entrapment. And you wondered why I thought you didn't have a clue? :roll:
 
True. I jumped the gun a little.

Teh-heh. "The gun."

I-see-what-you-did-there.jpg
 
That's what libs want you to believe.You have to be a fool to believe that someone who enacted and or supported anti-2nd amendment laws in their state won't try to do the same thing when he or she is president.Before the Fast and Furious operation came to light they were trying to use Mexicans buying guns from American gun dealers as an excuse to try further infringe on 2nd amendment rights.

I'm sure that there are extremo libber's on the left that would LOVE to take away our guns. But I also know that there are whacko righties that would want to put up video cams in our bedrooms and send the poor to work camps to serve the rich.

I think it's a bit extreme to paint either group with one big brush.

That's all I'm saying. I don't buy all the demonization and fabrications from the right that are pointed at people who differ from them in opinion. Most critical thinking people don't.

One thing for sure. There are no shortage of idiots here in America. Good news is, there aren't enough of them to really matter in the grand scheme of things and just enough of them to keep FOXNews profitable.
 
Back
Top Bottom