The infringement on civil rights is of more significance than a kid having a beer in college.I have come of the belief that when a law is broken regardless of what law is of more importance over another is irrelevant; if a law is broken, a law is broken, no matter how small or insignificant you think it is, it is to be enforced.
Entrapment. The police approached him through private social networking without any provocation to form an investigation against him. It was basically taking a peek into his personal life without any justification.He didnt force his way in. The guy certainly didnt know the person he was adding in the first place, regardless if the police officer was pretending to be someone else. What part is invasive against his will?
You completely miss the point by focusing in on the most simplistic dynamic of this situation. It is irrefutable, at this point that the kid broke a law. That, however, does not address the larger question of why police are expending resources launching investigations into the private lives of personal citizens without justifiable cause. Further, the implications of officers "e-friending" random citizens and investigating them as suspects under false pretenses. It's like having an unmarked patrol car on your tail constantly despite no warrant or authorization to have you followed.What public interest does a law forbidding under aged drinking serve the public interest? If you believe it does serve the public interest, then he was simply enforcing this law. If you dont think it serves the public interest, then thats something you'll have to bring up with the authorities, because a law is broken, no matter how pathetic, its a police officer's duty to enforce it.
I don't know how things work in the UK, but that's not how our justice system works here in America.