Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

boxer_dogs_dance t1_ixqoceu wrote

For those who don't read the article, this is from Canada

67

buscoamigos t1_ixqpkyi wrote

I didn't read the article and knew it was from Canada because of the source.

32

gabbagool3 t1_ixsr0la wrote

it wouldn't matter if it was the USA. "Entrapment", the legal term, doesn't mean when the police set a trap and your dumb ass falls into it. An accurate analogy would be if the police set a trap, grabbed you off the street, hogtied you and then threw you head first into the trap.

it's a resoundingly common misconception. and it's simply bananas how many defense attorneys attempt to argue it, because it never succeeds.

3

N8CCRG t1_ixqrlmn wrote

That this was ruled not entrapment isn't very surprising or notable. I found this interesting though:

>"Given the potential of online investigations to impact many more individuals than an equivalent investigation in a physical space, the nature of those impacts deserve scrutiny," the ruling said. "How the police act on the Internet may matter as much or more as where they act."

It's good to see courts acknowledge that modern times are different, and we should re-evaluate our old ideas about law to see if it makes sense to still apply them in the same manner or if they should be updated.

39

EvangelineOfSky t1_ixrt8dx wrote

Well, Canada is in the middle of a public inquiry over the police not doing shit about a bunch of conspiracy theorists occupying our capital and blocking our borders for a month demanding they be made the new government..

12

KerPop42 t1_ixqrzjl wrote

Putting the prudence in jurisprudence

8

Delicioustoilet t1_ixqiggg wrote

Yikes. I agree that pedos are bad, but can't help but wonder what kind of precedent this sets for future investigations into other branches of crime.

19

LorenzoStomp t1_ixqmi8g wrote

Entrapment means forcing someone into a position where they have to commit a crime they wouldn't otherwise commit. Like if a cop pretends to be a guy's friend and loans him some money, then puts a bunch of pressure on him to pay it back immediately and hands him some drugs and tells him to sell the drugs to get the money, that's entrapment. But if the cop just says, "Hey wanna make money quick? I'll front you drugs to sell", that isn't. Offering to sell someone a kid isn't entrapment, you'd have to put pressure on someone who isn't a kiddiefucker (idk, uh, "Hey Steve, rape this kid or I'll Civilly Forfet your car"?) to make them do it.

48

gabbagool3 t1_ixsrm9n wrote

the classic example is when the mark calls the police on the undercover cops doing the sting, and the detective running the sting tells the 911 operators to put the guy on hold indefinitely or orders the beat cops to claim nothing can be done.

5

ArrowheadDZ t1_ixwz59b wrote

I’d be careful about the term “forcing.” Luring, persuading, seducing someone into an action they were unlikely to have otherwise committed typical falls within the definition of entrapment. In most law, absolutely no force need be applied in order to constitute entrapment.

4

Hemicrusher t1_ixqksgz wrote

Police have used bait cars, to catch car thieves, since before the internet.

26

Re-AnImAt0r t1_ixqm7wg wrote

imagine if police start posing as hitmen to catch people hiring hitmen before they can hire someone to really kill someone?

oh wait....

16

Vault-71 t1_ixrkjez wrote

It likely won't lead to anything significant.

The whole idea behind entrapment is that the accused would not have engaged in the activity without the aid of a law enforcement/government representative.

While advertisements can certainly be convincing to some people, I believe clicking on a CP ad conveys a willingness to engage in the activity without any governmental coercion.

9

[deleted] t1_iy2cqyo wrote

>I believe clicking on a CP ad conveys a willingness to engage in the activity without any governmental coercion.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of weird shit people click on. Just because I click on r/popping doesn't mean I have a fetish for it. This ruling is dumb and doesn't do anything to solve the underlying issue.

1

Longjumping_Apple804 t1_ixr6xhh wrote

No different than a bait car used to get carjackers. Not entrapment. If you weren’t planning on stealing a car and then doing so you’d never be in a bait car in the first place.

8

SnooCats373 t1_ixssz0u wrote

According to my long ago recollection, my criminal law prof said the problem with entrapment defense is you must first admit you committed the crime, then argue your way out of that by blaming the state.

He said that's why so many claim entrapment in front of the press but so few in front of a jury.

3

ConstantGradStudent t1_ixssmi0 wrote

>"The men charged ranged in age from 18 to 71. Many of the men were married and they came from a range of professional backgrounds. Nearly all of the men were first-time offenders."

They mean the first time they got caught.

13

tang4685 t1_ixqxrbz wrote

Is this a way to nip a potential pedophile in the bud?

4

tewnewt t1_ixr01ga wrote

Why don't you have a seat?

8

SeaworthinessEast999 t1_ixr2ukp wrote

sits down in chair hey it's actually really comfy...

"Yo, Matt Gaetz, I found you a good spot, hurry movie gonna start soon

I'm such a nice guy

4

IsThisKismet t1_ixt49fb wrote

I wished we did more proactive things when it comes to this subject. Baiting them is one, but allowing research studies would be another. More could be done on the other end of the equation too with the kids. We’re kind of playing whack-a-mole here.

3

Bwembo t1_iy3181b wrote

Funny how pedophiles enjoy luring young kids into their snare to do with as they please and are fine with that but when they are lured into a trap they cry foul. One argument some may make is the article indicated a lot were first time offenders but that only means this is the first time they were caught.

1

[deleted] t1_ixqucmi wrote

[removed]

−14

Showerthawts t1_ixr06kt wrote

Yeah, FBI? This post right here.

3

ConsistentReward1348 t1_ixr0ccm wrote

We what the fuck fuck. It is most certainly not part of our Genetics you weirdo.

−3

[deleted] t1_ixrbtr0 wrote

[deleted]

−8

ConsistentReward1348 t1_ixsaje2 wrote

Because they are fucked up? Because of societal constructs.numerous reasons beyond it being a biological trait. This is the dumbest a grossest take.stop trying to normalize your abusive and nasty desires

−2

[deleted] t1_ixsf6vo wrote

[deleted]

1

ConsistentReward1348 t1_ixsqv7n wrote

It’s interesting to me you take this stance when your argument is “having kids without dying” when it’s a biological fact that until our bodies have finished developing, the risks of us dying in childbirth is insanely high.

You have yet to show actual biological evidence of your claim. Interestingly you keep using societal reasonings as biological proof, which is kind of funny.

The optimal time for a woman both for her fertility as well as mortality, to have children is in their mid twenties.

Also, thanks for telling me you have kids? Like that somehow prevents you from being a creep?

1