LogFAQs > #954006565

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Female student is under threat of expulsion for saying that women have vaginas
ChocoboMog123 05/17/21 3:30:00 PM #127:	CommonGrackle posted... again I have no idea what happened. just that it was during a lecture. however if we are asking people what they think and then punishing them that's basically the equivalent of "entrapment". otherwise, what? you want them to be dishonest? Yeah, we don't have context. So saying, "She shouldn't have been put into review that may end in expulsion," is really revealing people's biases (bigotry). And, yes, if you ask someone, "What do you think of Black people?" And they respond calling them the n-work, that's not a entrapment, that's not even a trap.That's just a shitty person showing who they are. BTW, "Entrapment is a practice in which a law enforcement agent or agent of the state induces a person to commit a "crime" that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit.[1] It "is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer or agent, and the procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer or state agent."[2]" In particular, providing the opportunity to commit an offense is protected under law, because, again, it's just a shitty person showing they're shitty. Entrapment that's not ok is convincing or coercing someone to do something they otherwise wouldn't and then nailing them for it. Canada has a pretty simple description of the difference that's relevant here: There are two different forms of entrapment in Canadian law. Random virtue testing: this form of entrapment occurs when the police offer an individual the opportunity to commit a crime without reasonable suspicion that either that individual or where that individual is located is associated with the criminal activity under investigation. If police have such a reasonable suspicion, they are still limited to providing only an opportunity to commit the offence. Inducement of an offence: this form of entrapment occurs when the police go beyond merely providing an opportunity to commit an offence but actually induce the commission of the offense. Some factors a court may consider when deciding whether police have induced the offence include the type of crime being investigated, whether an average person would have been induced, the persistence and number of attempts made by the police, the type of inducement used (fraud, deceit, reward, etc.), and the existence of express or implied threats. --- "You're sorely underestimating the power of nostalgia goggles." - adjl http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110218.gif <cite>ChocoboMog123 posted [p:954006565] in Female stu... [t:79463900]...</cite> <quote>CommonGrackle posted... </cite> <quote>again I have no idea what happened. just that it was during a lecture. however if we are asking people what they think and then punishing them that's basically the equivalent of "entrapment". otherwise, what? you want them to be dishonest?</quote>Yeah, we don't have context. So saying, "She shouldn't have been put into review that may end in expulsion," is really revealing people's biases (bigotry). And, yes, if you ask someone, "What do you think of Black people?" And they respond calling them the n-work, that's not a entrapment, that's not even a trap.That's just a shitty person showing who they are. BTW, <quote>"Entrapment is a practice in which a law enforcement agent or agent of the state induces a person to commit a "crime" that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit.[1] It "is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer or agent, and the procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer or state agent."[2]"</quote>In particular, providing the opportunity to commit an offense is protected under law, because, again, it's just a shitty person showing they're shitty. Entrapment that's not ok is convincing or coercing someone to do something they otherwise wouldn't and then nailing them for it. Canada has a pretty simple description of the difference that's relevant here: <quote>There are two different forms of entrapment in Canadian law. Random virtue testing: this form of entrapment occurs when the police offer an individual the opportunity to commit a crime without reasonable suspicion that either that individual or where that individual is located is associated with the criminal activity under investigation. If police have such a reasonable suspicion, they are still limited to providing only an opportunity to commit the offence. Inducement of an offence: this form of entrapment occurs when the police go beyond merely providing an opportunity to commit an offence but actually induce the commission of the offense. Some factors a court may consider when deciding whether police have induced the offence include the type of crime being investigated, whether an average person would have been induced, the persistence and number of attempts made by the police, the type of inducement used (fraud, deceit, reward, etc.), and the existence of express or implied threats.</quote> --- "You're sorely underestimating the power of nostalgia goggles." - adjl http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110218.gif</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1