ka@spanky.UUCP (08/11/83)
The discussion of auto theft in btl.general has wondered into a
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, N. J.
Lines: 94
discussion of entrapment, which really doesn't belong there. I am
repeating the previous articles, followed by my comments
--------------------
From: ka@spanky.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)
Subject: Re: theft
A police officer...set out to trap a car thief. Since...he
didn't wish to have the window broken, he left it open "a crack"
to make entry via a coat hangar a possibility; then left the car
parked under his observation in a high-theft area....
The thief got off TOTALLY.....his defense was entrapment due to
the open window! He stated that it was too tempting for him to
get into the car with a slightly open window...
Note that this would also apply to a person who left his window
open so that it would not get too hot in the summer!!!!
It seems to be common practice for people to criticize court decisions
without understanding them. The ruling mentioned concerned a police
officer who was actively *trying* to get his car stolen by parking it in
a high-theft area. That's a world of difference from merely failing to
take steps to make it less likely for his car to be stolen.
Kenneth Almquist
----------------------------
whuxk.UUCP (GUNDERMAN)
Subject: Re: Re: Theft
Article 688 makes reference to the "entrapment" case cited by Rob Botwin and
makes two statements that require comment:
"It seems to be common practice for people to criticize court decisions
without understanding them."
"That's a world of difference from merely failing to take steps to make it less
likely for his car to be stolen."
I do not need to know the unwritten rules/procedures by which judges and
lawyers conduct their business concerning the law. The rules/procedures and
the law is supposed to be that upon which they base their contention and
decisions. The "common practice" of people is to view the results, which (being
the most important part of the juridical process) are frequently found wanting,
if not an injustice. If someone leaves their wallet/purse within my reach,
carelessly or otherwise, I will not STEAL it - if I steal it, I would be a
thieve. STEAL is the key word, not the victim's carelessness, nor the possibilty
that the article was placed there to capture a thieve who has been STEALING
articles in the given area.
Regarding the second quote: What constitutes the steps necessary to make thievery
less likely? I have seen people open the door of a locked car (with the windows
closed) by using a coat hanger. I recall reading of a man who, having raped a
woman, contended that "she was asking for it by the way she was dressed and
walked". Was she guilty of conscious or unconscious entrapment? I bring in this
rape case to show that car thievery is not the only area where the valid
concept of protection from entrapment has been violated.
Other than bringing in Bronson or organizing a vigilante posse, something must
be done that will curb injustice and help victims. All peoples rights must be
protected, including the victims!
----------------------------
I hope that most people realize that practically nothing in the judicial
system is unwritten. If anyone knew where and when this case had been
tried, it would be possible to find exactly what justification the judge
gave when for dismissing the case. As matters stand, anyone who wants
to can find a lot about how the U. S. courts deal with entrapment by
reading Supreme Court decisions on the subject. (Any major public
library should subscribe to the Supreme Court decisions.)
I have no quarrel with judging a court system by the results it
produces; in fact that would seem to be the best way to evaluate it. I
do not think it is fair to condemn a person's opinions unless you are
willing to consider arguments made by that person in defense of that
opinion. That is what you are doing when you condemn a judge's decision
without reading her written opinion. The judge may defend her position
with irrefutable arguments, but there is no way anybody can be convinced
who refuses to listen.
The article I was objecting to argued that since a judge dismissed the
current case, he would dismiss any case in which the car window was
open. This makes the (false) assumtion that the judge would treat all
cases involving cars with open windows the same. Once you start trying
to predict what a judge would do in a hypothetical situation, you *have*
to look at the "rules/procedures" used to make to make those decisions.
I will post *a* defense of the judge's decision to dismiss this case in
a separate article. If anybody wants to continue to argue that the
court's decision was wrong, I hope that they will refer to that article
and point out where they disagree with my reasoning.
Kenneth Almquistlarry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (08/12/83)
Speaking of entrapment, I read an article in the NYT yesterday that I
found really disturbing. It seems that DEA (Drug Enforcement
Administration) is putting bogus advertisments in various magazines
(Popular Science, Biking Life(?), and High Times) offering catalogs for
"chemicals." The catalogs either hint very strongly or indicate
outright that the chemicals supplied can be used to make drugs. They
will supply you with the chemicals and instructions, and you have to do
the rest. When people reply to these ads, the DEA sells them the kits,
and then arrests them.
WHAT POSSIBLE PUBLIC GOOD IS SERVED BY ENTICING AMATURS(SP?) TO
EXPERIMENT WITH DRUG MAKING AND THEN ARREST THEM FOR IT?
Meanwhile people are starving in Roxbury.
--
Larry Kolodney
{linus decvax}!genrad!grkermit!larry
(ARPA) rms.g.lkk@mit-aiburris@ihopa.UUCP (08/29/83)
What one must remember is that it is also illegal to offer a bribe! Dave Burris ihopa!burris BTL - Naperville
craig@cfib.UUCP (08/30/83)
#R:grkermit:-56700:cfib:9100003:000:841 cfib!craig Aug 27 10:38:00 1983 Man, this is going to provoke responses.... I agree there are some problems with the DEA program -- looks like a potential entrapment case there for the victims. But, on the other hand, I am not terribly sympathetic with people who knowingly break the law. And if the DEA is advertising equipment to make drugs and people sign up -- they know damn well what they are doing and deserve what they get. The same goes for Congressmen who accept bribes. I don't care if the guy is waving a million dollars under the Congressman's nose. It is against the law for the Congressman to accept bribes and he knows it -- and if he accepts the bribe, he's a crook, regardless of whether the person waving the money under his nose was an FBI agent. Happy to hear the other side, but only if civilized please.... Craig Partridge ...ima!cfib!craig
berry@zinfandel.UUCP (09/09/83)
#R:spanky:-43400:zinfandel:15500004:000:528 zinfandel!berry Aug 30 16:20:00 1983 A police officer parked his car with the window slightly open in a high crime area, waited for someone to steal it, but the (alleged) thief got off on a defense of "entrapment". Would it have been different if the police officer wandered through the neighborhood looking for a car likely to be stolen and watched it instead of using his own (or the PD's) car? Isn't that just a "stake out"? What difference does it make who owned the car? Berry Kercheval Zehntel Inc. (decvax!sytek!zehntel!zinfandel!berry) (415)932-6900