• 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!

How is it possible to bust a drug dealer without using entrapment?

AndrewC23

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
65
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I have a question for all of you anti-drug people how is it possible to bust a drug dealer unless you catch him red-handed and in the act without using a term called entrapment?
 
I have a question for all of you anti-drug people how is it possible to bust a drug dealer unless you catch him red-handed and in the act without using a term called entrapment?

As long as the idea to commit the crime didn't come from a government agent and the government agent didn't pursuade the individual to do the crime that they were not already prepared and willing to commit before interaction with the government agent then it is not entrapment.

If law enforcement are in contact with an informant who goes in and buys drugs from a person, that is not entrapment. You see, in this scenario, government agents didn't give the dealer drugs to sell. The informant just provided the opportunity to commit the crime, not the motivation and willingness to do so.
 
Yes they did because the narc is a government agent and if they request that the person sell them drugs that is entrapment...That is really the most basic form of entrapment if it isn't then what exactly is entrapment...The same could be said if they are tracking the persons phone calls and text messages. and it doesn't have to be a government agent in order for it to be entrapment Police officers are essentially government agents, and if they are working for the government then they are a government "agent"...maybe not in the technical sense that you are thinking of but in a literal sense. Yes they did provide the "willingness" maybe not to commit the crime in other scenarios that do not involve government agents, but if an agent is requesting drugs from a dealer then they are providing the "willingness" because if the government agent never requested the drugs in the frist place there would be no "willingness" to begin with that they arrested them for.
 
Yes they did because the narc is a government agent and if they request that the person sell them drugs that is entrapment...That is really the most basic form of entrapment if it isn't then what exactly is entrapment...The same could be said if they are tracking the persons phone calls and text messages. and it doesn't have to be a government agent in order for it to be entrapment Police officers are essentially government agents, and if they are working for the government then they are a government "agent"...maybe not in the technical sense that you are thinking of but in a literal sense. Yes they did provide the "willingness" maybe not to commit the crime in other scenarios that do not involve government agents, but if an agent is requesting drugs from a dealer then they are providing the "willingness" because if the government agent never requested the drugs in the frist place there would be no "willingness" to begin with that they arrested them for.

Don't be ridiculous. If you're NOT selling drugs, and I go up to you and ask to buy crack, your answer will be "no I don't sell drugs". You will only sell me drugs if that is something you're willing and able to do already. That isn't entrapment. ENTRAPMENT is when you put someone in a position where they are unreasonably pressured to commit a crime, or presented with an unreasonable and unproportional temptation to do so, or where the law enforcement agency is running both ends of the deal (ie supply and demand).

Apparently you are operating on your own personal definition of entrapment, not the legal definition.
 
Yes they did because the narc is a government agent and if they request that the person sell them drugs that is entrapment...That is really the most basic form of entrapment if it isn't then what exactly is entrapment...The same could be said if they are tracking the persons phone calls and text messages. and it doesn't have to be a government agent in order for it to be entrapment Police officers are essentially government agents, and if they are working for the government then they are a government "agent"...maybe not in the technical sense that you are thinking of but in a literal sense. Yes they did provide the "willingness" maybe not to commit the crime in other scenarios that do not involve government agents, but if an agent is requesting drugs from a dealer then they are providing the "willingness" because if the government agent never requested the drugs in the frist place there would be no "willingness" to begin with that they arrested them for.

Wow.. your reading way too into the term "government agent". Yes a police officer is a government agent.

Umm... If they go to buy drugs, and the suspect pulls drugs out of whatever place they store it, and then they pull out their scale (both the scale and the drugs were NOT provided by the government) then they only provided the OPPORTUNITY.. not the WILLINGNESS to commit the crime.
 
In criminal law, entrapment is constituted by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit

That is the legal definition they may have commited the crime with someone else but not that particular crime that they busted them for there is no way to bust a criminal without using entrapment, because each and everytime they sell drugs it is considered a crime selling drugs in general is not just one big crime...so technically they wouldn't have been likely to commit the crime if they knew that the person was a police officer and there would be no crime committed or a crime to be prosecuted.
 
In criminal law, entrapment is constituted by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit

That is the legal definition they may have commited the crime with someone else but not that particular crime that they busted them for there is no way to bust a criminal without using entrapment, because each and everytime they sell drugs it is considered a crime selling drugs in general is not just one big crime...so technically they wouldn't have been likely to commit the crime if they knew that the person was a police officer and there would be no crime committed or a crime to be prosecuted.

Here is the legal definition along with the guidelines...

ENTRAPMENT
A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

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 informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. 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.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.


Legal Definition of 'Entrapment'

Just as Caine and Goshin, both well versed in law, have already stated...
 
Yes but perhaps that would have been the last deal that they would have made...they did not have the willingness to commit the crime if it wasn't for the police officer.
 
So breaking it down...

In criminal law, entrapment is constituted by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit...they may have commited the crime with someone else but not... if they knew that the person was a police officer...

Therefore, the courts recognize that these offenders cannot claim entrapment, because they engage in the behavior with non-government agents.

Simplified Example of Non-Entrapment: John Doe gets arrested for minor possession and says, "I'll give you my dealer to get out of these charges." John Doe buys dope for the cops a few times, along with other supporting evidence, and then the dealer gets arrested. No entrapment, the dealer chose to continue his dealings with a previous customer. Who yes, was a government agent, but the courts historically say "TS" for the dealer.

Simplified Example of Entrapment: Undercover government agent goes to Don Joe, a legitimate storeowner, befriends him and asks Don Joe to sell drugs out of his storefront. Don Joe tells the agent “no, I don’t do that.” The government agent convinces Don Joe of the profitability and overcomes the resistance. Then the undercover then gets arrest warrants for Don Joe for drug distribution. Entrapment could be raised as a defense.
 
A police officer is a government agent...here is what I am saying lets say that the person was going to quit dealing drugs until the officer asks him to sell him drugs which could make the person a lot of money whether they are using it to buy food, pay rent, pay their electric bill whatever how is that not entrapment if there was no willingness to deal drugs anymore before the police officer asked the person to?
 
AndrewC23,
Entrapment is mitigating legal defense to government claims/charges of wrong doing. The defendant has to prove the government overwhelmed them to commit a crime they would not have committed.

Think of it similar to a legal claim of self defense in a murder trial, the defense has the burden to prove self defense, when a defendant claims entrapment they have the burden to prove they where pressured into committing the criminal act.

In reference to the example you provided and knowing the burden falling on the defense, how do you legally prove “…the person was going to quit dealing drugs until the officer asks him to sell him drugs”?
 
Well how do you legally prove he wasn't? a person can quit selling drugs anytime they want and if a cop offers them a way to make a lot more money then they ever have before then why wouldn't they take that opportunity?
 
If the cop hadn't asked the person to sell the drugs then they wouldn't have...They have no way of otherwise proving that they do and catching them in the act.
 
If the cop hadn't asked the person to sell the drugs then they wouldn't have...They have no way of otherwise proving that they do and catching them in the act.

Based on those facts and the ones you previously provided, the dealer sold to the cop willing and was caught in the act. Therefore there is no entrapment.
 
Well yeah sure in order for someone to commit a crime they have to be willing whether they are entrapped or not.
 
A police officer is a government agent...here is what I am saying lets say that the person was going to quit dealing drugs until the officer asks him to sell him drugs which could make the person a lot of money whether they are using it to buy food, pay rent, pay their electric bill whatever how is that not entrapment if there was no willingness to deal drugs anymore before the police officer asked the person to?

Oh my gosh... if a person is entrapped, then they are entrapped, and that only occurs if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

In your scenario, the guy was not entrapped since the idea for committing the crime came from the individual, not the agent. They agent asked a question, the guy already had the idea of selling drugs and it is imperative that the guy say no. Unless I am mistaken. I will defer to Caine or Goshin or Turtle Dude, if they choose to chime in again...
 
Well yeah sure in order for someone to commit a crime they have to be willing whether they are entrapped or not.

If a defendant shows willingness to engage in the activity, entrapment is going to be near impossible to prove. Of course no one in their right frame of mind would willingly sell to a police officer or a customer who they knew was working off charges. But if they sell to them and the only fact is the offender did not know they were government agents (yes, both are government agents in the eyes of the courts), then the defendant is "s" out of luck for entrapment.
 
Well yeah sure in order for someone to commit a crime they have to be willing .

Just leave it at this and you are correct....
 
Oh my gosh... if a person is entrapped, then they are entrapped, and that only occurs if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

In your scenario, the guy was not entrapped since the idea for committing the crime came from the individual, not the agent. They agent asked a question, the guy already had the idea of selling drugs and it is imperative that the guy say no. Unless I am mistaken. I will defer to Caine or Goshin or Turtle Dude, if they choose to chime in again...

Okay first if the government agent requests that drugs be sold to them then the idea for committing the crime DID in fact come from the agent.

Second, Asking the person to sell them drugs if they do not know the person is persuading them to do so, because your average drug dealer will not sell drugs to a stranger so there had to be some persuading there somewhere along the lines...

Third-The person WAS not ready and willing to commit that particular crime of selling drugs to a police officer before the police officer asked him to do so.
 
If a defendant shows willingness to engage in the activity, entrapment is going to be near impossible to prove. Of course no one in their right frame of mind would willingly sell to a police officer or a customer who they knew was working off charges. But if they sell to them and the only fact is the offender did not know they were government agents (yes, both are government agents in the eyes of the courts), then the defendant is "s" out of luck for entrapment.

Your average drug dealer isn't going to sell to a complete stranger so there had to be some persuading along the lines in order to convince them that the peson is "cool"
 
Your average drug dealer isn't going to sell to a complete stranger so there had to be some persuading along the lines in order to convince them that the peson is "cool"

If he manages to convince the dealer he is "cool" to sell to, then you probably loose the entrapment arguement. In the eyes of the courts, the dealer had the right to refuse to talk to the undercover at anytime and could refuse the transaction at any point.
 
Okay first if the government agent requests that drugs be sold to them then the idea for committing the crime DID in fact come from the agent.

First, it has to meet all three requirements, and while this first one is debatable, it is not conclusive and if it is accurate, then it is the only one being met.

Second, Asking the person to sell them drugs if they do not know the person is persuading them to do so, because your average drug dealer will not sell drugs to a stranger so there had to be some persuading there somewhere along the lines...

Woefully ignorant. Go down to your local drug area and buy some drugs from a dealer that you have never met and you will have no problem whatsoever... I would venture to say that I have been around gangs and drug dealers far more than you. There is no persuasion at all...

Third-The person WAS not ready and willing to commit that particular crime of selling drugs to a police officer before the police officer asked him to do so

If they have the drugs to sell, then they are ready and willing, are you joking? If they hear a suggestion and find out how to deliver, then they are ready and willing. ;)
 
I'm not talking about dopeboy standing on the corner I'm talking about peopple that actually sell drugs to pay their bills or to put gas in their car or so they can use drugs for free or just put a little extra money in their pocket...

Some people just sell drugs so that they can use them for free how do you know that the drugs that they had were not for personal use before the cop showed up?
 
I'm not talking about dopeboy standing on the corner I'm talking about peopple that actually sell drugs to pay their bills or to put gas in their car or so they can use drugs for free or just put a little extra money in their pocket...

Some people just sell drugs so that they can use them for free how do you know that the drugs that they had were not for personal use before the cop showed up?

Maybe I ran in the wrong crowd, but I knew people that grew for themselves and would never sell and others that sold. Anybody that sells is a dealer, and nobody I ever knew was on the fence about the issue. I knew some major growers in Northern California too...

Who sells drugs to put gas in their car... dealers do. You are just incorrect, it is not entrapment.
 
Back
Top Bottom