Aside from the fact that the law will vary (potentially) widely, As Carl stated above (in a few more words), entrapment is the inducement by police, of a person to commit a crime that the person otherwise would not have committed.

Almost all criminal offenses require intent, if the intent is formed by the police then the suspect has a defense.

Outside of the movies, in the real world, entrapment is not a common occurrence. If for no other reason than in most jurisdictions police officers that get cases thrown out for such things don’t get to do their jobs for long. Most cops are smart enough to effect an arrest without having to induce the suspect to commit the crime. In my experience there is no shortage of willing criminals.

Although I don’t know the facts of this particular case it’s hard to imagine a “loud zipper sound” being evidence. I’m sure the police have established some basis for that though. I still don’t know one would even do that.

Carl Says:
November 4th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
So Basti, by the established legal definition, what occurred at the Florida mall most likely cannot be found to fall under the legal definition of entrapment.

Carl, you don’t KNOW Basti, he is NEVER wrong, even when he is, and in this case, he is VERY wrong, he has NO knowledge of the law apparently and has let his ignorance and hard head dictate the responses seen in this thread…

I have overlooked several things similar to this in the past, simply because I felt like Basti was one hell of a good guy overall and I considered him to be an online friend, but he will NEVER admit to being wrong, about ANY THING, no matter what it is, no matter how insignificant or important it may be, he is NEVER wrong in HIS opinion…

Well, I will say this, and I don’t give a DAMN who it offends, ANYONE that sides with the pedos and pervs is MY enemy, just as much as the pedos and pervs are my enemy, and that bullshit about entrapment is siding WITH the sorry bastards and only makes the person doing it as scummy as the pervs themselves…

But, when you’re dealing with a mentality that thinks red light cameras are an invasion of privacy, well, you get the picture…

—

ENTRAPMENT – A person is ‘entrapped’ when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. 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.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

—

From http://dictionary.law.com/

entrapment
n. in criminal law, the act of law enforcement officers or government agents inducing or encouraging a person to commit a crime when the potential criminal expresses a desire not to go ahead. The key to entrapment is whether the idea for the commission or encouragement of the criminal act originated with the police or government agents instead of with the “criminal.” Entrapment, if proved, is a defense to a criminal prosecution. The accused often claims entrapment in so-called “stings” in which undercover agents buy or sell narcotics, prostitutes’ services or arrange to purchase goods believed to be stolen. The factual question is: Would Johnny Begood have purchased the drugs if not pressed by the narc?

—

So Basti, by the established legal definition, what occurred at the Florida mall most likely cannot be found to fall under the legal definition of entrapment.

Point #1: Anyone, ANY ONE, trolling in a public restroom – or someone willing to do the nasty in a public restroom – is one sick puppy.

Point #2: Should said sick puppy swing his exposed Johnson towards me or mine, then he will quickly find himself chasing it across the floor! I promise that the blade is both quick and sharp!

The Bull can’t stand a pervert!

BZ

Had braces too: A black and decker pecker wrecker?