i don’t argue, cause i wont win
i wont win, cause i wont sin
i recently read the post and i disagree with every point. but there is no point in arguing with someone that corrupt to be without conscience.
the first problem is that the issuer/claimant uses rules with exceptions.
the seccond main problem is contradiction. if a cop isn’t required to tell you they are a cop, why would a criminal (or undercover cop) tell you what you are delivering?
so to rebuke the content (paraphrased quotes):
- “a cop must reveal he is a cop”.
violates: aiding and abetting, conspiracy to commit a crime, unlawful use of police resources, men rea, and the rule of law,
- “the police can’t ask you to commit a crime”
the dissonance isn’t about can, but whether you are liable if they orient you to commit a crime. say you are on a one way street and holding up traffic and the city has a law against cars driving on the street/sidewalk. a cop commands you to drive onto the sidewalk to allow an emergency vehicle through. in this, a cop asks you to commit a crime. you may not have committed the crime without the express direction of the officer.
- “the police can’t commit a crime themselves”
this is the one which renders them as illegitimate due to not having clean hands. again it violates mens rea and rule of law to tolerate such a double standard.
- “the police can’t help you break the law”
any law which is physically possible by one person tends to be physically possible by others. also laws are rarely enacted if they can’t be repeated. there are many frivelous laws but few (if any) that frivolous as to be impossible to commit. most of the errors in law are having exceptions and extenuating circumstance which go beyond the event to mitigate the perceived need for punishment. what i think is intended instead is that it isn’t permissible for the police to aid and abet you in breach of the law. that is, that the government believes it is okay for the police to engage more prolificly, diversely and obnoxiously in criminal activity, because it also catches actual criminals too. it isn’t just though. there is a difference between allowing someone to break the law, and causing them to break the law.
“it is just the flipside of (point) 3” yup… you are basicly wrong there for the same reason you were wrong here. you were just also less grammatically poignant. the question isn’t whether police can do wrong, but whether the get treated with equal justice. the can’t morally commit the same offences to the same degree, without repercussion. it is the equivalent act in law to moral bankruptcy, pardon the cliche. they get all these moral debts and they get written off by preferential treatment. it is on par with defaulting to police testimony during a he-said-she-said.
- “the police can’t just let you commit an offence and then arrest you for it”
now i agree with the reasoning but not the example. i agree, the only time the can legitimately arrest someone ‘as witness to a crime’ is when they witness a crime. they can’t commit the same offence to similar degree. if a group of people can’t block off a bridge without a permit, that applies to all people. and if the police were also blocking off the bridge they are as guilty of the crime as those they arrest. the way there would not be shared guilt would be for the law to either be about weight limit and arrest those who violate that, or to have a person test if the crowd of demonstrators would actually part to let someone trying to cross in the other direction walk by unimpeded. this doesn’t cause a crime to be committed, so the police are witnesses to the crime but not part of the source.
it is like a cop busting someone for acquiring a drug which was given to him by the cop. the cop was the source, so that acquisition is not valid; it must be written off. if the cop is witness to an illegal behaviour which the cop didn’t cause. then it is valid. if the cop caused a crime, then he is part of the instance of crime being committed. you can’t viably write off half of a crime. either the crime instance is invalid, or it is valid, for both/all participants in the act.
the problem isn’t entrapment, but whether the law is intrinsicly valid/coherent/consistent or not. you can get more guilty people the bigger you make your net, but tolerance of incriminating the innocent while affording known criminals preferential status under the law, invalidates the methodology.
but i know i can’t argue that in any court. no judge would listen to me because she/he isn’t either the voice of the people nor an impartial observer but a lawyer- someone whose morality is corrupted by precedence and circumstance. a person who will believe the stupid arguments mentioned in the cited document. how can you argue before someone with such nonsensical and invalid prejudice?
here is another example to demonstrate my point:
- the police cause you to commit a crime
- you wouldn’t have committed otherwise
- then you were entrapped
…that is every police act which has ever happened and will ever happen.
that is the foundation of the executive branch; that is the foundation of the judiciary; to find people who do bad things an punish them if they are proven to have actually done them. that is the mindset that the wrongdoing is in getting caught. yes getting caught causes you to commit the crime because outside of getting caught there is only action. and without the prejudice that the act is wrong, it isn’t. and the point of law is about projecting wrong and punishing those who aren’t intimidated into compliance.
entrapment as such, is a catch all, it alone invalidates the existence of law multiple ways, and is by extension illegal. how the fuck can people not see it is a catch all for everyone, if it was expressed accurately.
the rule of law is valid when there are no exceptions to a law. it is mere pretence if there are so many exceptions that there is no valid grounds for guilt.