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

Caine · May 7, 2011

Ikari said:
I don't think they believe in entrapment anymore. See the "to catch a preditor" stuff? That was so clearly entrapment, but we don't seem to care. They do the same thing with prositution.

The COURT was the body that created the defense of entrapment.

The COURT has defined what it views as entrapment.

The COURT is the one who determines what is and what is not entrapment.

YOU... do not.

Ikari · May 9, 2011

Caine said:
The COURT was the body that created the defense of entrapment.

The COURT has defined what it views as entrapment.

The COURT is the one who determines what is and what is not entrapment.

YOU... do not.

I am of We the People, I am the source of power and authority wielded by the government. The government operates as long as I give my consent for it.

You statists are odd ducks. Scary, misguided, and odd. The State is not the end all be all of power and authority. It's will is in check with the rights and liberties of the individual. And that check must be preserved. You've essentially said that entrapment is ok if it's defined through the very entity wielding the power to be ok. It's an absurd and stupid statement.

Caine · May 9, 2011

Ikari said:
I am of We the People, I am the source of power and authority wielded by the government. The government operates as long as I give my consent for it.

You statists are odd ducks. Scary, misguided, and odd. The State is not the end all be all of power and authority. It's will is in check with the rights and liberties of the individual. And that check must be preserved. You've essentially said that entrapment is ok if it's defined through the very entity wielding the power to be ok. It's an absurd and stupid statement.

No, actually, if you learn to read. Its not what I said.

I said the title for the defense of entrapment and the principles behind it originated from a case before the court.

This "the people" blithering makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You can't walk into court saying, "I am of "the people" and thus declare myself not guilty!" and walk out.

You make absolutely no sense when you just blither "OF THE PEOPLE!" in threads like these.

Find new material and actually participate in the debate or go home.

Ikari · May 9, 2011

Caine said:
No, actually, if you learn to read. Its not what I said.

I said the title for the defense of entrapment and the principles behind it originated from a case before the court.

This "the people" blithering makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You can't walk into court saying, "I am of "the people" and thus declare myself not guilty!" and walk out.

You make absolutely no sense when you just blither "OF THE PEOPLE!" in threads like these.

Find new material and actually participate in the debate or go home.

Oh my, is this a statist saying "don't say anything!". Yes, yes it is. Good job little statist. Jury nullification, BTW, is one of the main reasons we have trial by jury even though the State would like people to believe otherwise. The People are always the final check, The People are always the source of all power and authority for a government. I may not by myself be able to say the courts are out of order and not obey they ruling. But if enough people band together, we can say just that. Should government ever act too grossly for too long against our rights and liberties; it is our right and duty to overthrow the government and replace it with one which does.

BTW, great job in lying and saying "I said the title for the defense of entrapment and the principles behind it originated from a case before the court." When what you really said was
"The COURT was the body that created the defense of entrapment.

The COURT has defined what it views as entrapment.

The COURT is the one who determines what is and what is not entrapment.

YOU... do not."

Which is saying that the State gets to define it and use it anyway it wants. Which is why my comment "You've essentially said that entrapment is ok if it's defined through the very entity wielding the power to be ok." was there. But I guess honesty isn't something to be expected from your arguments. Maybe instead of going off on your emotional little temper tantrum you can make a real argument instead of "STFU because I say so" argument you've presented here. But I won't hold my breath.

Caine · May 10, 2011

Ikari said:
Oh my, is this a statist saying "don't say anything!". Yes, yes it is. Good job little statist. Jury nullification, BTW, is one of the main reasons we have trial by jury even though the State would like people to believe otherwise. The People are always the final check, The People are always the source of all power and authority for a government. I may not by myself be able to say the courts are out of order and not obey they ruling. But if enough people band together, we can say just that. Should government ever act too grossly for too long against our rights and liberties; it is our right and duty to overthrow the government and replace it with one which does.

BTW, great job in lying and saying "I said the title for the defense of entrapment and the principles behind it originated from a case before the court." When what you really said was
"The COURT was the body that created the defense of entrapment.

The COURT has defined what it views as entrapment.

The COURT is the one who determines what is and what is not entrapment.

YOU... do not."

Which is saying that the State gets to define it and use it anyway it wants. Which is why my comment "You've essentially said that entrapment is ok if it's defined through the very entity wielding the power to be ok." was there. But I guess honesty isn't something to be expected from your arguments. Maybe instead of going off on your emotional little temper tantrum you can make a real argument instead of "STFU because I say so" argument you've presented here. But I won't hold my breath.

nice try... but the name "entrapment" came from the court. The recognition of this principle as a defense to a crime started with appeals to appellate Court that do not have civilian/citizen juries. In addition.. any motion to dismiss a case based upon a defense of entrapment will not be heard in front of a jury. So.. are you still going to sit there and tell me that "the people" decide what constitutes entrapment and what does not?

Ikari · May 10, 2011

Caine said:
nice try... but the name "entrapment" came from the court. The recognition of this principle as a defense to a crime started with appeals to appellate Court that do not have civilian/citizen juries. In addition.. any motion to dismiss a case based upon a defense of entrapment will not be heard in front of a jury. So.. are you still going to sit there and tell me that "the people" decide what constitutes entrapment and what does not?

The People decide on what constitutes proper government and constrained power. We are the ultimate source of all power and authority used by the government and its goons. This is the founding principle of our Republic. Sorry you don't seem to like it that much. I didn't say that The People directly define entrapment. I said that they (the government) doesn't seem to believe in it anymore. You then went on to say that the Courts define it and use it as they see fit. To which I responded by saying that ultimately everything is granted by the People. The Courts can continue to operate and define "entrapment" as they like only for so long as we continue to give our consent for them to do so. If we remove the consent, they are no longer in charge and no longer have the authority to do so.

Statists don't like being reminded that it is We the People who made the government and own the government. But it is an important fact to remember.

Caine · May 10, 2011

Ikari said:
The People decide on what constitutes proper government and constrained power.

True.

We are the ultimate source of all power and authority used by the government and its goons.

True. Although I disagree with the language used "goons". When you put it like that, it seems you are going out of your way to be inflamatory.

This is the founding principle of our Republic. Sorry you don't seem to like it that much.

True, And I don't recall having "seemed" to not like it at all. Im saying this "we the people" blithering has very little direct correlation to the debate at hand.

I didn't say that The People directly define entrapment. I said that they (the government) doesn't seem to believe in it anymore.

A. Why do you seem to think that the government doesn't seem to believe it anymore? And what does your answer have to do, directly, with the topic of entrapment?

You then went on to say that the Courts define it and use it as they see fit.

Correct. Legal precedence as well as defenses built directly into the text of a law define defenses to crimes as well as acceptable procedures that are allowed during their enforcement.

To which I responded by saying that ultimately everything is granted by the People.

Duh, But what is your point. What does that have directly to do with the topic of entrapment. Sounds like you just want to throw blanket inflamatory statements out there for the ole bait and switch BS that you are accustomed to do.

The Courts can continue to operate and define "entrapment" as they like only for so long as we continue to give our consent for them to do so. If we remove the consent, they are no longer in charge and no longer have the authority to do so.

Sure. But how does that directly relate to the topic at hand? Can you cite examples of "the people" attempting to remove their consent that have a direct relation to this topic or are you just blithering "WE THE PEOPLE!" as you usually do when it comes to matters of enforcing laws?

Statists don't like being reminded that it is We the People who made the government and own the government. But it is an important fact to remember.

I don't claim to have said anything about not liking it. I do however, am trying to question the relevance to the debate. Yes Ikari, we get it, the government is run by the people...........

Now if you will excuse me, I think we should be getting back on the TOPIC of the legal use of the entrapment defense. This was a nice side rail, but lets stay focused here.....