[Report Abuse]
[Login to Blog] redeyedrider's Blog
Shoulder tap stings unconstitutional?
Last comment by Ramrod 1 year, 9 months ago.

Take Me To Post Comment Form

I by no means condone purchasing alcohol for minors or underage drinking, but...... Wouldn't police initiating an underage money for alcohol transaction be considered entrapment? I guess the constitution went out the window a long time ago. The only way that this scheme could constitutionally be executed would be if the girls were talking loud enough to be overheard and a citizen then approached them and offered to make the purchase. Approaching and initiating the transaction is most certainly entrapment. Who cares if we "bend" the law a bit.


Latest Activity: Mar 03, 2013 at 6:08 PM



Blog has been viewed (1080) times.

Bull153 commented on Saturday, Jan 05, 2013 at 19:34 PM

@ redeyedrider...

I can see you have zero experience in police sting operations regarding sales of tobacco and liquor to minors. These operations are quite legal and do not entrap anyone.

Entrapment is defined as being induced or persuaded by law enforcement or their agents to commit a crime the individual had no previous intent to commit. If the proprietor does what the law requires, i.e. check ID, then he can't be 'entrapped'.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

Underage operators simply attempt to make an illegal purchase. They must show their own ID if asked, and they are not allowed to lie about their age to the proprietor. It is a well used tactic that is Constitutional.

You are entitled to your opinion, but factually you are wrong.

- Ron
D5-ICRD

"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." - Ronald Reagan

redeyedrider commented on Sunday, Jan 06, 2013 at 14:48 PM

This is in response to yesterdays article where citizens would be "shoulder tapped" and induced and persuaded by minors, as agents of law enforcement, to enter a store and purchase alcohol for them. I am not refering to the operator or propriator of the store that is selling the products (they were not involved in the sting).

Very clearly, even by your definition, ENTRAPMENT.

redeyedrider commented on Sunday, Jan 06, 2013 at 15:04 PM

"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."

Simply giving him the opportunity would be as I discribed in my earlier post....

"The only way that this scheme could constitutionally be executed would be if the girls were talking loud enough to be overheard and a citizen then APPROACHED THEM and offered to make the purchase."

I like how you are so quick to take a personal shot at my "clearly zero experience", when what I am actually refering to is factually correct. If these people can actually afford a descent lawyer then there is no way that these charges could stick when the letter of the law is applied.

Bull153 commented on Sunday, Jan 06, 2013 at 16:01 PM

@ redeyedrider...

I apologize for my misunderstanding of the 'shoulder tap' process. The agencies that I have worked for do not use that particular tactic, they do stings as I described to catch the owners and clerks of liquor stores.

To enforce laws against customers buying alcohol for minors, we used surveillance and witness accounts to make such cases.

Regarding your claim of entrapment, it is still not entrapment. The DA, who would have to prosecute the cases, is not going to allow officers to entrap suspects and then go to trial. What these agents are doing is nothing more than what other agents do in recovering stolen property or buying drugs. You can try and make a case for entrapment if you want, but if you have the ability to walk away and not commit the crime, it isn't entrapment. Feel free to take it to court if you like, though.

So, correct me if I am wrong about your 'zero experience'. You wouldn't be the first one here to claim expertise and knowledge that doesn't exist. I'll put my experience and expertise up against yours any day of the week.

- Ron
D6-ICRD

"...officers are permitted to use some deception. For example, an officer may pretend to be a drug addict in order to apprehend a person suspected of selling drugs. When an officer supplies an accused with a tool or a means necessary to commit the crime, the defense is not automatically established."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictio...

redeyedrider commented on Sunday, Jan 06, 2013 at 16:27 PM

Only you could look at the written definition of the explaination of a law to a link that you provided and say "it aint so". WOW!

you say.....
When an officer supplies an ACCUSED with a tool or a means necessary to commit the crime, the defense is not automatically established."

The problem here is that there is no "accused" at the time the deception is established so your description does not fit this instance. They should make officers and others like you pass the BAR in order to serve, because your misreresentation of law combined with the authority to act upon that discretion is obsurd.

All factors of entrapment are present in these "stings".

It's scary to see those who claim to support and enforce our nations laws so blatantly disregard and bend those laws when it's in their favor and interest.

redeyedrider commented on Sunday, Jan 06, 2013 at 16:37 PM

In your last example you are correct. ALL THREE of the occurances in order to qualify as entrapment are not met.....

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

- The accused is a current and active drug dealer on his own accord.

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.

-He was not persuaded or given the opportunity. He is already actively engaged in the criminal act.

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

-Need I explain further or do you see the pattern here.

crimeriddendump commented on Sunday, Jan 06, 2013 at 16:45 PM

Hello redeyerider,

Thanks for bringing up an important topic regarding Police abuse of power. Seems to be a growing problem in the Central Valley.

It is impossible to have a meaningful conversation with someone who constantly double-talks and takes completely hypocritical and contradicting positions just to support their own bias. I laughed with the posting of the link to entrapment law and then arguing that the link is not right; CLASSIC!

That being said, I would like to have a meaningful conversation regarding the topic you bring up:

Your are right about one thing, the definition provided above by a particular poster here is wrong. Going by his definition, you are absolutely right, this would be entrapment.

Now, the KEY to this in California is your SECOND point: "government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. " PERSUADE is not the language used in the California entrapment law; it would be COERCED for California.

That is where you run into problems here. The Police will put in their official record that they used a minimal amount of language prior to the arrest to dodge the coercion bit regardless of what they actually said to get these people to buy the alcohol.

Very well could have been entrapment. It is a shame that without video evidence from the setup and arrest, we will never know and the truth. One would think in a free society, people would want Police to be more transparent. Shame that some will blindly side with the police no questions asked regardless of how egregious the actions.

redeyedrider commented on Sunday, Jan 06, 2013 at 16:54 PM

The problem with these "shoulder tap stings when they are put up against the same scrutiny is............

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

-Present, It was not this mans intent or idea to walk into the store and purchase alcohol for the agent before he was approached and GIVEN the IDEA.

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.

-The act alone of initiating contact and requesting (persuading) the citizen goes beyond simply giving the opportunity.

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

-This requirement is actually 2 parts. One being willing, the other being ready. By the use of the word "and" it is implied that both factors must be met. Wheather or not he was "willing" before "government agents spoke with him" is debateable, but he was clearly NOT ready to go into the store and make an alcoholic purchase for those minors before communication was established.

redeyedrider commented on Sunday, Jan 06, 2013 at 17:06 PM

Any form of a request can be defined as coersion/persuasion. That is why I point to the only constitutional scenario where these stings could be implemented.

The agents would have to be engaged in discussion that is set up to be overheard. This is how you establish "simple opportunity". Then the citizen would need to offer assistance.

This is the only legal way that I could see this scenario working.

crimeriddendump commented on Sunday, Jan 06, 2013 at 17:24 PM

Hello redeyerider,

I absolutely agree with you in theory. Problem is that the Police will often make the record reflect the result they want as opposed to the reality of the situation.

I would think video of the setup and arrest should be required for these situations in the futre.

That being said, I think these "shoulder tap stings" are a complete wate of time and resources. Unbelievable that in a city with MAJOR gang problems that this would even be a small priority.

Bull153 commented on Sunday, Jan 06, 2013 at 17:32 PM

@ redeyedrider...

OK, you've made you point, and I made mine. I provided my credentials, so where are yours? You tell me I should have to pass a bar exam to be an effective officer... sounds like you're a lawyer.

Did I mention I hate lawyers? I do... despise them.

Even so, besides staying at a Holiday Inn, what law enforcement type credentials do you bring to the table? Or like crimeriddendump, are yours all a figment of an active imagination?

- Ron
D6-ICRD

“All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

crimeriddendump commented on Sunday, Jan 06, 2013 at 18:00 PM

Hello Bull153,

Your position here is very arrogant. Seems like you think your opinion is more valid than anyone else or even actual facts. That is just obstinance at its worst.

Unbelievable that you somehow think your opinion is more valid than anyone else's simply because "you say so." Further, you trying to personally attack redeyerider simply because you don't agree with him does not make you seem like a rational individual. Would you care to rephrase your comments without the attempted insults and aggressive language and just stick to the topic?

redeyedrider commented on Sunday, Jan 06, 2013 at 18:12 PM

I don't claim to have any credintials. But I do understand law, and I do have something that you seem to lack..... common sense.

Obviously one's "law enforcement credintials" carry no weight when it comes to applying logic in one's views.

How you could TOTALLY mangle the points you try to make in this thread and then pronounce "you've made your point, and I made mine". Like there was any validity in your point, is truly laughable.

Bull153 commented on Sunday, Jan 06, 2013 at 18:22 PM

@ Redeyedrider...

Ok, thank you. You are another 'I spent last night at Holiday Inn' expert sharing their opinion. That's fine, I'll give it all the due consideration it is worth.

- Ron
D6-ICRD

“For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.” - Richard Clopton

crimeriddendump commented on Sunday, Jan 06, 2013 at 21:22 PM

Hello Bull153,

redeyedrider's claim is relatively valid given the law link you - suposed expert - posted here. You now attacking him for correctly interpreting what YOU posted here is hypocritical.

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Sunday, Jan 06, 2013 at 21:24 PM

This type of thing happens at protests all the time, agents will dress up in black bloc attire(and sometimes out themselves by just how ridiculous they look, its hard to mess up the black bloc look but pigs have before) go to people they think will be violent and hand them a rock or a water bottle and tell them to throw it at cops. And there have been multiple cases of government agencies finding people they think would commit terrorism, contact them, draw out some plans for them, give them weapons/explosives, and then right before said person is going to do something the FBI comes in to save the day from a situation that they created all by themselves.

These things are absurd.

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Sunday, Jan 06, 2013 at 21:36 PM

I mean just think about it, we live in a society where cops are supposed to stop crime and catch people who commit crimes but here they are making crimes to stop. Call it entrapment or not, it's a messed up situation.

crimeriddendump commented on Sunday, Jan 06, 2013 at 21:51 PM

Very valid point Capitalists_Nightmare. One would think that with the ACTUAL gang problems in the city they would focus on stoping ACTUAL crime. Inventing crimes to solve seem like police by apathy. Sad.

Frankly, I have yet to see a MPD case in the paper where a major gang operation was stopped and arrests made based on solid police work. The only things I see are these types of invented crimes and when a traffic stop results in some idiot speeding away back to the gangs drug house.

Combine this with the "judge, hurry, and executioner" mentality embraced by Manteca and it is a very, very, very messed up situation.

KarenPearsall commented on Tuesday, Jan 08, 2013 at 01:25 AM

Hello Bull153, I find your attitude to those who disagree with you to be troubling, at best. EVERYONE is entitled to express their opinion on ANY subject. To suggest that one has to have certain "qualifications" (like law enforcement experience or legal expertise) to share one's opinion smacks of condescension and arrogance. "I'll put my experience and expertise up against yours any day of the week" brings to mind suggesting whipping out rulers to check each other's "man part" lengths. Seriously, dial it back a bit and don't be so defensive if someone has a different perspective than you do. There are many non-offensive ways of expressing disagreement without resorting to personal insults or uncalled for challenges to someone's basic integrity or competence. You could easily provide factual counterpoints without the accompanying character evaluations. I realize that my pointing this out to you seems to fly in the face of my very own advice, but you seem oblivious to the very toxic nature of your actions and words. Redeyedrider brought up some valid points. YOU misinterpreted him by jumping to the conclusion that he was referring to liquor store clerks selling to underage patrons, when he was actually bringing up an entirely DIFFERENT scenario. I agree with him that points one and three seem to fit entrapment as someone "shoulder-tapped" to purchase alcohol didn't initiate the process or have that purpose in mind beforehand ("not willing and ready to commit the crime BEFORE the government agents spoke to him'). Where I think redeyedrider runs into trouble is with the second point of "persuasion/coercion" versus simple opportunity. Without recorded evidence, there is not proof, one way or the other, that the "government agent" simply asked the person to buy liquor for them and did not beg or offer convincing arguments or inducements. I believe underage drinking is a serious problem worth tackling. However, these "sting" operations are questionable, in my opinion. Admittedly sounding sexist here, I wonder how many "targets" were men who were approached by seemingly underage girls and these men, flattered by the female attention, decided to "help out"? Common sense should guide us in our actions, but if someone claimed to have "forgotten" their I.D. and did not want to have to "go all the way home for it" so "could you please help me out sir?", some people would fall for that ploy, whether it was a sting move or not. I believe we do not have enough police officers in Manteca and that their time could be spent more productively than focusing on this legally questionable type of operation. I know that there are some posters who have had negative experiences with Manteca police, but if something goes wrong, it is good to have an officer on your side and I respect that. Sincerely, Karen

redeyedrider commented on Tuesday, Jan 08, 2013 at 02:40 AM

Truly insightful and well thought out Karen.

Bull153 commented on Tuesday, Jan 08, 2013 at 06:39 AM

@ KarenPearsall...

Once more we find ourselves at odds. Go figure. You can be as troubled as you wish. You are right, and I agree, that anyone can have an opinion on any subject. Where we disagree is that I don't have to accept their opinion, just as you don't have to accept mine.

If there is an airplane crash, I'm going to accept the conclusions and expertise of an FAA investigator over someone who happened to see the crash from the ground. In matters of law enforcement, someone who has years of experience in the field will have a more credible opinion that someone who doesn't. If you are offended by the manner in which I have expressed my opinion of other's opinion, I am sorry. My attempts at sarcasm and humor are not always successful or appreciated. The bottom line is, as I have agreed, anyone can have an opinion. I have just as much right to disagree and give it little credence.

I apologized for misunderstanding the original scenario. But the fact remains that in any type of sting operation, the non-police operators CANNOT lie to the subject. They cannot say they are old enough but forgot their ID. That is entrapment. They have to tell the person they are underage and they have to BE underage, otherwise the person has not knowingly committed the crime of purchasing alcohol for a minor.

The state alcohol board is responsible for enforcement of the statutes, and they determine when and where these stings occur. Because it is in the city of Manteca, they must use uniformed officers from the local jurisdiction to assist. These operations occur once or twice a year. So don't blame the Manteca PD for not focusing on other issues because they are assisting a state agency. It is just like the parole sweeps done with other departments and the Department of Corrections.

In the past I have acknowledged that the police make mistakes, that there are some police officers who have committed horrible crimes, and there are policemen who don't deserve the authority and respect that comes with the badge. But it is equally wrong for people to paint every officer with the same brush.

- Ron
D8-ICRD

“We are so vain that we even care for the opinion of those we don't care for.” - Marie Von Ebner-Eschenbach

“Opinion has caused more trouble on this little earth than plagues or earthquakes” - Voltaire

crimeriddendump commented on Tuesday, Jan 08, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Again comments from the poster above "smacks of condescension and arrogance."And the whole "sarcasm" excuse is played out as well.

Also it is HYPOCRITICAL how he says "it is equally wrong for people to paint every officer with the same brush." when this same author has often pained lawyers and other professionals with a very broad brush when he says "Did I mention I hate lawyers? I do... despise them."

I wish the above poster would stop with the extreme double standards and hypocrisy.

TheSovereign commented on Tuesday, Jan 08, 2013 at 12:03 PM

There is a fine line between a cop and a criminal, both will break the law in order to achieve their stated goal, and both will try and justify their actions in the end.

KarenPearsall commented on Tuesday, Jan 08, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Hello Bull153, There is a huge difference in tone and intention, whether you choose to recognize it or not, between ridiculing or condescendingly assessing the level of someone's experience and simply stating, "In my experience, this and this and this usually happens". In the first case, the original commentator is immediately put on the defensive because of a personal attack or snub, but in the second case a different perspective is given credence by personal experience, without poorly or unfairly reflecting on the other person's opinion. I have noticed this unproductive tendency of yours to come out the gate "swinging" by making derisive personal comments which are COMPLETELY unnecessary to your counterpoint or contention and only serve to inject the debate with venom.

You misunderstand me if you think that I believe you must "accept their opinion". I only ask that you respect another person's right to have a DIFFERENT opinion than you without the need for personally ridiculing that poster. An idea or opinion can be rightfully deconstructed and logically demolished without resorting to personal jabs.

Thank you for clarifying the fact that sting decoys are not allowed to lie. That is important in any discussion of possible entrapment. However, can you concede that, without actually lying, a decoy could say something along the lines of, "I don't have my I.D. with me" (if, in fact, he or she was not carrying identification at the time of the sting) without coming out and saying "I'm underage, will you buy me some booze?" I don't think certain issues are always cut and dried and can be more complex in reality. Also, I am not "blaming" Manteca police for anything. I am just suggesting that they could be used more effectively elsewhere. Lastly, I completely agree with you that just as there are "rotten apple" cops on the job (as there are bad examples in ANY profession), there are those officers who are a true credit to their profession and they should not be lumped together. Not all police officers are good, while not all are bad. It is not right to generalize, but it can happen if one has had repeatedly negative experiences with police, which tends to color one's attitude. Fortunately for me, in my few encounters with police officers, the good ones have far outweighed the bad. But I do understand that those officers who abuse their power leave a definite bad taste in one's mouth. Sincerely, Karen

crimeriddendump commented on Tuesday, Jan 08, 2013 at 13:18 PM

Hello KarenPersall,

Great comments. It is unbelievable to me that the poster here so quickly defends any and all police actions saying "it is equally wrong for people to paint every officer with the same brush" while using the same broad strokes to smear lawyers.

I agree that personal attacks are wrong and we should all be more civilized. However, I think hypocrisy is far, far worse.

Bull153 commented on Tuesday, Jan 08, 2013 at 13:28 PM

@The Sovereign...

The difference is, a criminal ALWAYS breaks the law to achieve their goal, while officers seldom do, and when they do it is for a lawful purpose or benefit to society - for example exceeding the speed limit to save an accident victim, or lying to a criminal to get evidence of their crime.

Criminals are not allowed to break the law, but police officers are legally allowed to. Big difference, Chief...

-Ron
D8-ICRD

“Laws control the lesser man... Right conduct controls the greater one.” - Mark Twain

Bull153 commented on Tuesday, Jan 08, 2013 at 13:29 PM

@KarenPearsall...

There are always gray areas, and as long as people are human mistakes will be made. The policy and procedures for such operations are pretty much standard throughout California, whether a particular jurisdiction chooses to employ them or not. I reiterate, the operatives cannot be deceptive in their actions. They cannot participate unless they have identification, and they cannot tell someone they are old enough when they are not. Such actions are far different than an officer interrogating a suspect and telling him that a witness saw him commit a crime or his fingerprints were found at the scene when it's not true.

There may be some good lawyers out there. I don't know. I haven't found one yet after thirty-five years of working with them. It is just my opinion. It IS painting them with a broad brush. People will say it is unfair. OK, it is unfair. I hate lawyers - I always have.

- Ron
D8-ICRD

“It is better to be a mouse in a cat's mouth than a man in a lawyer's hands” - Spanish Proverb

“Make crime pay. Become a Lawyer.” - Will Rogers

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Tuesday, Jan 08, 2013 at 15:09 PM

Bull, the unfair hypocrite.

But why should cops be allowed to artificially create crimes to stop in the first place? They get bored or something so they just try and create conditions where they think someone will commit a crime? And that's alright? Serve and protect whom again? They should just change it to,"we'll try hard to throw you in jail". Setting the trap for everybody, be damned the people that take the bait.

crimeriddendump commented on Tuesday, Jan 08, 2013 at 15:10 PM

"officers seldom [break the law], and when they do it is for a lawful purpose or benefit to society ... Criminals are not allowed to break the law, but police officers are legally allowed to."

That is probably one of the most hypocritical and obstinante statements I have read in a long, long time.

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Tuesday, Jan 08, 2013 at 15:23 PM

The prison industrial complex wants you, it's profitable to put you in a cage, for them and the cheap labor provided by prisoners to corporations. We have more than 2 million prisoners in this society, 1million of whom provide labor to private companies. And here are the police, the officers of law and order, trying to get you into a cell or at least squeeze what money they can out of you. And it's alright, right? We live in a sick, sick society.

crimeriddendump commented on Wednesday, Jan 09, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Hello Capitalists_Nightmare,

Very true. And the way it works is with less educated/racist police that obstinately - and arrogantly - feel that everyone should do what they say "or else."

The militarization of police is an issue as well. It has very much turned Police into a force that protects citizens into an organization where every non-police is the "enemy."

The TeaParty law and order types seem to be more and more like a fascist party rather than an extension of old conservatism. Sad.

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Friday, Jan 11, 2013 at 01:29 AM

What's part of the problem is we have part of the population that don't care about the number of people that get locked up on very minor offenses, they see the police as on their side because they'll lock up blacks and latinos. White America sits complicity by as minorities and the poor are harassed by police on a daily basis. In NYC the vast majority of people stopped by police during stop and frisk were of course minorities and the vast majority of the time they were doing absolutely nothing wrong and had absolutely nothing on them and were free to go.

TheSovereign commented on Friday, Jan 11, 2013 at 04:47 AM

"The difference is, a criminal ALWAYS breaks the law to achieve their goal, while officers seldom do, and when they do it is for a lawful purpose or benefit to society - for example exceeding the speed limit to save an accident victim, or lying to a criminal to get evidence of their crime." - LOL!!!

"but police officers are legally allowed to" - LMAO!!!!!!

No one is above the law, not even the president.... that is what I grew up being taught.

crimeriddendump commented on Friday, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Hello TheSovereign ,

It is clear from his posts that the person you quote does not feel rules do not apply to him. He embraces double standards and a "do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

At what point does a Police become a criminal? According to one poster here the answer seems to be NEVER!

It's sad that some people can be so close-minded and obstinate.

crimeriddendump commented on Friday, Jan 11, 2013 at 21:28 PM

Hello TheSovereign,

More of the same it would seem.

TheSovereign commented on Saturday, Jan 12, 2013 at 14:51 PM

There are always double standards from those who for some reason feel the need to control the actions of others. Conservatives are the masters of the double standard.

crimeriddendump commented on Saturday, Jan 12, 2013 at 15:28 PM

It is amazing to me how so many people in this forum have ZERO problem with the rampant hypocrisy that comes mainly from the poster in question here and other TeaParty advocates.

Manteca will always be trailing behind more educated and affluent areas so long as it values hypocrisy over honesty.

Bull153 commented on Saturday, Jan 12, 2013 at 16:09 PM

@ TheSovereign...

Why do you find the fact that police officers legally break the law at times so funny? Is it because you have no respect for the police or more respect for the criminals?

I was also raised to believe no one is above the law, even presidents. Richard Nixon found that out.

Do you really have a problem with police who exceed the speed limit when responding to emergencies? With detectives that lie to suspects by telling them they have evidence when they don't? With undercover officers who buy drugs from criminals to gather evidence to get this vermin off the street?

Police officers are held to a higher standard than the rest of society. It is fair because they are given so much authority over the rest of society.

Criminals break society's laws or else they wouldn't be criminals. When police officers cross t he line and commit criminal acts without justification or legal cause, they are held accountable, just like any criminal. There are police officers in prison all over the country who found that out. The Bart officer that shot and killed a handcuffed suspect without justification found it out.

If you want to call that a double standard, fine. I disagree. Conservatives are not the only 'masters of the double standard'. Liberals have mastered their own fair share of dishonest double standards.

- Ron
D12-ICRD

“It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress.” - Mark Twain

“There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes or makes it the official duty of a president to have anything to do with criminal activities.” - Sam Ervin

redeyedrider commented on Saturday, Jan 12, 2013 at 18:32 PM

I'm a coservative tea party type (libertarian leaning). I do think that we are stereotyped by the left leaning communist types though.

crimeriddendump commented on Saturday, Jan 12, 2013 at 18:54 PM

Hello Bull153,

You are again engaging is double talk. First you say "I was also raised to believe no one is above the law, even presidents." THEN you immediately give all types of reasons why Police should be "above the law."

Whatever. It is clear that you are too biased in this topic to have a rational hypocrisy free discussion here.

crimeriddendump commented on Sunday, Jan 13, 2013 at 14:22 PM

Hello redeyedrider,

Could you give examples?

redeyedrider commented on Sunday, Jan 13, 2013 at 23:55 PM

If you are so detached as you need me to give you examples then there is no hope in even wasting my breath.

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Monday, Jan 14, 2013 at 02:21 AM

What do you mean stereotyped by the left-leaning communist types? I'm one of those left-wing communist types, I don't think it's us that make the stereotypes for any group. I don't mean to say there aren't any communists out there who stereotype, I mean that as a group communists don't really hold enough sway to effectively make stereotypes that stick in the rest of society.

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Monday, Jan 14, 2013 at 02:23 AM

We have plenty of stereotypes though, especially amongst ourselves. Damn Maoist-Third Worldists, nothing but pampered white kids who never do anything to further real struggle!

crimeriddendump commented on Monday, Jan 14, 2013 at 17:54 PM

Hello redeyedrider,

Why is providing some basic examples so difficult if it is as obvious as you suggest?

Ramrod commented on Monday, Jan 14, 2013 at 19:19 PM

Undercover drug buys, prostitution stings, and underage alcohol purchase stings are all valid police tactics. They are regulated just as speed enforcement is. The old 'speed traps' with radar are no longer allowed. It isn't entrapment if you are stupid enough to do it.

crimeriddendump commented on Monday, Jan 14, 2013 at 20:46 PM

Hello Bull153,

Your comments here are absolutely not true!

First, the whole "t isn't entrapment if you are stupid enough to do it." is an arrogant and outright false assertion.

Second, speed traps and radar gun usage are mutually exclusive in California law per California Vehicle Code 40802(a)(1).

Third, in California, drug buys, prostitution stings, and underage alcohol purchase stings are often not seen as valid without proper video evidence supporting a defense against coercion.

Ramrod commented on Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 23:12 PM

You seem to know as much about the police as you do about copyrights, which appears to be very little.

Let me know if you ever have something of value to share.


Log In to post comments.

Previous blog entries by redeyedrider
 
I've stepped away for a while
March 14, 2014
Now I see why. MHOFFMAN is still on these boards spewing hate, Slandering Dennis Wyatt, and up to his/her same old garbage. I understand why they shut the comments off to non-paying customers. It is to keep this garbage off of their daily articles. Have fun in your wasteland. I ...
Read More »
 
These boards are DEAD!!!
January 25, 2014
I really thought there was hope for the blog section when the Bulletin restricted us bloggers from commenting on news articles without a scrip. It failed to take root with mhoffman taking over as the mainstay contributor under all her different aliases. I feel the drum beat to the grave. ...
Read More »
 
Moody
September 26, 2013
He took someones life away from them because they did not "follow his commands". Oh what power! He does not deserve the responsability of the badge! He took a life because he was not comfortable in his position. He does not know how to carry himself as an officer. I ...
Read More »
 
Obama Foreign Policy No Better Than Bush
February 07, 2013
The only difference is the way the media covers and spins it. It is appauling to me how Obama's administration can be just as tyranical and gruesome as Bush, yet he gets impunity from the media and his left wing nut jobs (similar to how Bush's right wing loonies backed ...
Read More »
 
Hillary's Testimony
January 27, 2013
She looked so convincing clenching her fists, lowering her brow, and raising her voice (while looking down and reading). They should have allowed a teleprompter for her at the hearing. It might have been a little more believeable. It's sick how these speech writers prepare words for our "talking heads" ...
Read More »
 
[View More Blogs...]





 
Powered by
Morris Technology