[deleted]

I tried to be subtle about it so Mr. Report above didn't have a conniption fit.

Wait a second, this is over a little motorboat action?!?!

Land of the free my ass. That's perfectly legal in my country. Hell all you have to do is put a $5 bill folded across your nose, lay on the stage and they will pick it up with their vag and then bounce their boobs right on your face.

What a sad oppressed country. Just sad! I have more freedoms tra-la-la!!

They have to distract from all the GOP sex crimes, child trafficking, white supremacists, avowed Nazis, racists, misogynists, and etc.

That's an old standard on entrapment that is more of a relic from older times than it is a practical application. That comes from when the old days when courts and jurors would be more likely to speculate on someone's mindset and consider hypothetical scenarios.

Modern law is much more fact-based, and the application of entrapment has focused in on the factual side of that law where the crime is being suggested by the police. Officers are told this all the time, that their "potential perp" has to be the one to bring illegal activities into the scenario, or to begin discussing them.

The safest way to play it within the confines of the law is to suggest the crime in a way that is not illegal, and would not come across clearly to someone who is innocent.

A great example is buying drugs. An undercover officer cannot approach a person and say "Will you sell me some drugs please?" I know the argument is "But they had drugs on them and sold them," but that doesn't prove the person was a drug dealer. It only proves the perp was holding drugs at the time and then, due to the officer's words, saw an opportunity for extra money. In this scenario, charges of dealing drugs would be dropped, and it would be reduced to possession. The officer would also be reprimanded because they screwed up what could have amounted to a much bigger bust and perhaps lead them to a supplier.

What if the person had drug dealing on their rap sheet? That truly does not work. The perp can argue that they were working on cleaning up their act but were also tight on money, as ex-cons often are, and were tempted by the offer that the officer gave. THAT is a great example of how speculating on mindset and hypotheticals can backfire.

But an undercover officer CAN walk up to a potential perp, look around, and say "You got some shit? I'm looking for some."

Notice how direct that is, yet he's asking the same thing an officer can ask on a traffic stop. He's basically asking a version of "Are you carrying any drugs? I'm going to search you."

At this point, if the person offers to sell drugs, they were not entrapped because the officer never asked them to do that.

The law turns on these fine technicalities all the time.

If you want to see real legal wrangling and technicalities flying, read or watch depositions.

Oh, and also, a big reason hypothetical scenarios are warned about in courts is because it suggests to jurors that they are expected to be casting personal judgments on the litigants. Right there is when biases and prejudice start uncontrollably invading the courtroom.

My firm has a trial going on right now that is a big whistleblower case, and they've spent about two months just arguing over jury instructions! The trial hasn't even truly started yet. Those jury instructions are where the court attempts to avoid the invasion of bias and prejudice, and jury selection is just as important.