Do you approve of police sting operations?

[Flurryfang]

Sting operations are good, but there are ofcourse bad ways to do it.

Like the one time, where the cops left a big van with its boot open and filled with new shoes in a poor neighborhood. That might be stealing, but its not in a shop, it might be abandoned and there is a small chance, that nobody will miss it(if somebody litterally just left it). That is a bit shady, but when it comes to setting up cars, sending out offficers to buy/sell drugs to catch buyers/sellers and proberly other direct-crime ways, its pretty good.

That said, i have never really heard it be used in my country, since we tend not to have rampant theft.

[itsafursta]

im all for it if its fair

[Orlong]

Because in many cases, it's entrapment and illegal. There are many cases of the police getting into serious legal trouble over it. America is kinda weird that police are allowed to trick people into committing crimes.

And that's not to say maybe these people wouldn't have committed a crime anyway or thought about it. But shit we all think about doing illegal things sometimes. Without the opportunity to do them, we ya know, don't do them.

Wrong. Entrapment requires police to actively encourage someone to commit a crime. Making a crime easy to commit isnt entrapment. Walking down the street undercover asking people to buy drugs (who werent looking to buy drugs in the first place) and then arresting them for doing so is entrapment

[FuxieDK]

In short, police creating opportunities for people to steal something. One of the more popular examples involving a specially modified car rigged with cameras and can be controlled remotely. They usually leave said car unlocked in areas where car jacking incidents have been reported and easily catch any criminals who hop in with all the evidence they need. Such as the video below.



I ask because sting operations don't seem as popular outside of the US. From an outside perspective it seems beneficial, catching criminals before they have the chance to do some, or additional, damage to someone rather than after the fact. Then as word gets out, car jackers everywhere will have the extra worry in their minds thinking that any car they steal might just be a trap waiting for them.

Curious to hear your thoughts.

Anything that gets criminals behind bars is OK with me..

[Orlong]

The law exists to protect people from crime, not create criminals. Since there's ZERO guarantee the person who steals the "bait car" has priors, all setting out "bait cars" does is create criminals, not protect people from them.

If someone steals a bait car, they would've stolen someone else's car at some point, so protects others from having theirs stolen since the scumbags will be in jail

[the game]

I'm ok with it. If you don't want to get in trouble with the law. Don't break the law.

[shifu]

I wonder how many people subjected to police raids on wrong addresses would disagree with this statement.

Except this topic and my response is about Police Sting Operations NOT Police Raid Operations. So maybe stay on topic???

Again, i'll repeat myself. In a Police Sting Operation yes I agree with, because if you don't break the law, you have nothing to worry about.

[Unholyground]

No. The police are breaking the law in order to catch other people breaking the law, but then they themselves suffer no consequences. If that policeman wasn't involved, they couldn't have pulled off the crime. It's entrapment no matter which way you cut it imo.

Every cop is a criminal because they have to break the laws they enforce in many cases, speeding is the best example of this since a cop needs to speed to catch the speeder.

[Orlong]

Cleaning neighborhoods comes from opportunity.

Being poor is no excuse for trashing your neighborhood. You dont need to be rich to not throw your trash on the sidewalk or in the street

[schwank05]

If you don't break the law it doesn't affect you. Of course this is OK.

Yup, exactly If I see a car with the keys in it, I don't think to myself hmm they are asking to have this stolen it must be for to have.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean hell, I shouldn't even have used my car example, I've just popped into work to check on an experiment, gone into my office; someone else is in here (new person as it was a vacant area), they've left their purse out, laptop open, keys on the side etc. I just walked in and went "oh there's someone new started"

But yea on a few occasions I've stumbled across a car with a window down, it's usually outside a restaurant or pub, so I head inside and tell a member of staff and they usually try to locate if its one of their customers or not.

- - - Updated - - -



As you rightly should, being young isn't a reason for stupidity or stealing. I can't speak for you but I had a correct upbringing that taught me taking something that wasn't yours is wrong.

I couldn't imagine living somewhere I needed to lock my car let alone my house. I get pissed at my wife when she takes the keys out of a vehicle. I didn't even have keys to the locks in my house until last summer. We are pretty laid back and trustworthy around here, people tend to leave you alone. The only time of the year I lock anything is when the Carnival shows up each summer.

[melodramocracy]

In all cases aside from prostitution, yes I absolutely am.

[ParanoiD84]

Oh yes you bet.

[therealbowser]

For the most part, yes. I don't know much about the specifics of sting operations, but for instance, setting up a car that can be stolen that instead locks the occupant(s) inside would be something I am fine with. On the other hand, having a briefcase filled with hundreds/thousands of dollars and busting them for picking it up (theoretical situation, obviously) would be something I'm against, because they are just baiting them to take it, which may not otherwise be something 'illegal'.

I do think, however, that if they are intentionally setting up traps that the punishment for the crime should be lighter if they catch someone. Especially since the crime hadn't been perpetrated (yet) and there is no way of knowing what the intended to do. There's a big difference, for instance, between grand theft auto and jacking a stereo out of car, or better yet, grabbing pocket change in the dashboard or a phone charger.

For the most part I don't have sympathy for criminals, however, I do understand why the practice has problems. Generally speaking, I think that this only 'baits' people who would have done it otherwise. If they are caught, then it served its purpose. But I'd rather it serve as a preventative measure than a way for police stations to pad its arrest numbers, etc., and I can't presume to know if there are any politics behind this kind of thing.

- - - Updated - - -

In all cases aside from prostitution, yes I absolutely am.

I think this is a good example of a case where I'd probably be on the fence, too.

[Themius]

Being poor is no excuse for trashing your neighborhood. You dont need to be rich to not throw your trash on the sidewalk or in the street

In Orlong world explaining why things happen is the same as supporting them.

[Very Tired]

I do think, however, that if they are intentionally setting up traps that the punishment for the crime should be lighter if they catch someone. Especially since the crime hadn't been perpetrated (yet) and there is no way of knowing what the intended to do. There's a big difference, for instance, between grand theft auto and jacking a stereo out of car, or better yet, grabbing pocket change in the dashboard or a phone charger.

The cameras in the car show the person attempting to drive off with the car, then the cops move in the arrest them. There really isn't much ambiguity when trying to decide what they were trying to steal.

And I would disagree sting operations should carry a lighter sentence. The people they catch clearly show they have the intent and willingness to follow through on their crimes and therefore should be removed from the general public. Just because it's later revealed the car just so happened to belong to the police doesn't change anything. It could have been anyone else's car.

[The Stormbringer]

If I found that someone's car was unlocked with the keys inside it, I'd take the keys out, lock the car, and report it to the cops. They can take the keys and hold them until an owner comes forward.

[Themius]

The cameras in the car show the person attempting to drive off with the car, then the cops move in the arrest them. There really isn't much ambiguity when trying to decide what they were trying to steal.

And I would disagree sting operations should carry a lighter sentence. The people they catch clearly show they have the intent and willingness to follow through on their crimes and therefore should be removed from the general public. Just because it's later revealed the car just so happened to belong to the police doesn't change anything. It could have been anyone else's car.

"After we tempt them they seem willing to commit crimes!"

How about let's not manufacture more crimes? There are enough crimes as is.

[Very Tired]

"After we tempt them they seem willing to commit crimes!"

How about let's not manufacture more crimes? There are enough crimes as is.

So you're basically going to pretend if they didn't steal a sting car they were never going to steal someone elses car?

[Jonnusthegreat]

Yup, exactly If I see a car with the keys in it, I don't think to myself hmm they are asking to have this stolen it must be for to have.

That's not how it works. If you take something that isn't yours without permission, you have stolen it. If you see a car with the keys in it and drive off with it, you have committed a crime.

[Reaper0329]

The general view is that it's only entrapment if the the temptation is to the extent that a normally law abiding citizen would break the law to gain the benefit being offered. Basically, if we apply the reasonably prudent person standard the law loves so much (which is usually a matter of civil law rather than criminal), the reasonably prudent person would be imprudent to turn down the opportunity offered by taking the bait. There's a further breakdown between the subjective test (wherein the defendant must not have been subjectively predisposed to commit the crime in order to claim entrapment) and the objective test (wherein a normally law abiding citizen would have committed a crime due to the state conduct), but it gets to a point of splitting hairs, really.

Point being, leaving an unlocked car is nowhere remotely close to either of those standards, and I have no trouble throwing the book at people caught by it. It's a really disingenuous argument to suggest that just because the car happened to be rigged, it's entrapment; ordinarily law abiding people, objectively or subjectively, don't steal cars ffs.

I'd be more inclined to agree if, say, an undercover cop was asleep on a bench with a wad of Benjamin's loosely clutched in his hand. Then we get more narrow. But not this.