Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: Entrapment at Seahawks games?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Spokane Washington
    Posts
    285

    Entrapment at Seahawks games?

    So I just saw a news story, where it appears Seattle police will be attending tonights Seahawks game undercover dressed as raiders fans, to ensure that everyone acts "civil".

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't any charges that result be an open and closed case of police entrapment?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Stretch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Pasco, WA, ,
    Posts
    489

    Re: Entrapment at Seahawks games?

    Sincerely doubt it.

    Sent from my SCH-I545

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Spokane Washington
    Posts
    285
    I guess it would depend on the amount of "coaxing" preformed by the officers.

  4. #4
    Regular Member skeith5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    357

    Re: Entrapment at Seahawks games?

    How is that entrapment? If the undercover cops are just there observing then there is no way it could be considered entrapment.
    Too lazy to do a blog! Follow me on Twitter instead! @6ShotScott

  5. #5
    Regular Member Cubex DE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by MattinWA View Post
    So I just saw a news story, where it appears Seattle police will be attending tonights Seahawks game undercover dressed as raiders fans, to ensure that everyone acts "civil".

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't any charges that result be an open and closed case of police entrapment?
    No.

    Entrapment is when a cop convinces someone against their better judgement to commit a crime, then arrests them for it, like a cop convincing an otherwise innocent girl to accept money in exchange for sex when she normally would not.
    Jesus thought it was more important to be armed than well dressed:

    Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his
    scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.~Luke 22:36

    (Emphasis mine.)

    (Note that the word "garment" here refers to an outer cloak, equivalent to today's sport coats or
    suit jackets in that they both provided warmth and conveyed a certain level of sophistication.)

  6. #6
    Activist Member golddigger14s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,990
    "The beauty of the Second Amenment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
    "Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Roux
    http://nwfood.shelfreliance.com

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Spokane Washington
    Posts
    285
    Well, they are looking to arrest people for a certain set if crimes (verbal assault, assault), crimes that would not have occurred had the police not been in an instigating set of apparel... I guess I misunderstood the law. My bad thx for clarifying... Seams like:

    **** (a) The criminal design originated in the mind of law enforcement officials, or any person acting under their direction,

    Would apply because they can reasonably expect the kinds of crimes they expect to be committed.?
    Last edited by MattinWA; 08-29-2013 at 10:09 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Any Seattle police officer worth his weight in salt that wears an Oakland Raiders jersey or other Oakland Raiders clothing should be tarred and feathered.

    CCJ
    Last edited by countryclubjoe; 08-30-2013 at 01:55 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member 509rifas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Yakima County
    Posts
    253
    Nope.

    RCW 9A.16.070Entrapment.

    (1) In any prosecution for a crime, it is a defense that:

    **** (a) The criminal design originated in the mind of law enforcement officials, or any person acting under their direction, and

    **** (b) The actor was lured or induced to commit a crime which the actor had not otherwise intended to commit.

    **** (2) The defense of entrapment is not established by a showing only that law enforcement officials merely afforded the actor an opportunity to commit a crime.


    If Seahawks fans were already so inclined to assault Raiders fans, that's not the LE's doing, but merely giving them the opportunity to do so. That why it's not entrapment when a dealer sells to a cop because they were already intending to sell something.
    LIVE FREE OR DIE TRYING

  10. #10
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by MattinWA View Post
    So I just saw a news story, where it appears Seattle police will be attending tonights Seahawks game undercover dressed as raiders fans, to ensure that everyone acts "civil".

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't any charges that result be an open and closed case of police entrapment?
    No, that's not entrapment.

    Entrapment is where a police officer "helps" someone to commit a crime in some way and then arrests them for it. Since assaulting someone is already illegal and someone cheering for the visiting team does not justify attacking them, wearing Raider's team stuff isn't entrapment.

    A good example of entrapment would be a police officer ordering someone off of a sidewalk and into the street. If they disobey they are disobeying a lawful order. If they obey, jaywalking.
    Last edited by Difdi; 08-30-2013 at 06:05 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    This is another reason to not go to these venues anymore IMHO.

    I can see a fine line where a comment like we are going to kick your butts today getting someone in trouble. I also have seen Cops push the limit on what is lawful in an attempt to get someone to go too far. While lawful it is dirty pool IMHO. I am all for the Cops arresting folks if they see unlawful behavior but wearing the other teams jerseys to get a reaction out of someone in order to make an arrest only causes my respect level for the Cops to get a bit lower.

    If a big enough problem already exists that justifies the special Cops at the game then why do they need to wear the visitors jerseys they should be able to simply go to a game in plain clothes and make arrests right and left sans the jerseys. This is simply a way to goad people and have fun on the job, and by fun I do not mean watching the game but playing their own game on the citizens that are paying their salary. Disgusting!
    Last edited by Jeff Hayes; 08-30-2013 at 11:19 AM.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Spokane Washington
    Posts
    285
    My point exactly jeff, and cops, being cops, aren't typically type b passive personalities, so how much instigation is being conducted on behalf of this new assignment. Come on you really think these police are just going to blend into the crowd and be silent the entire game and "observe"

    Don't get me wrong, I don't in anyway condone fan on fan violence, but I think the police overstepped their limits a bit, I mean if anyone could believe that they would remain entirely passive the entire game sure, but face it, it's alpha male types at an American NFL football game...

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Violent crime has been going down the last few decades, get rid of cops nope shuffle them around into doing other things.

    In my opinion pretty much all undercover work is entrapment, if it was know the person was a cop would people engage in activities that can get them arrested with said person?

    Even J Edgar Hoover didn't like most those type of tactics.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    In my opinion pretty much all undercover work is entrapment, if it was know the person was a cop would people engage in activities that can get them arrested with said person?
    The point is that you would do it if it wasn't a cop. Setting you up so that you can choose to break the law or choose not to isn't entrapment. To be entrapment the police would have to either coerce you to do it or do something to convince you to do something you normally would never do. It's a fine line at times, but it's there.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    The point is that you would do it if it wasn't a cop. Setting you up so that you can choose to break the law or choose not to isn't entrapment. To be entrapment the police would have to either coerce you to do it or do something to convince you to do something you normally would never do. It's a fine line at times, but it's there.
    I know the line, but here's the crux of the matter a cop under cover is going to go look for trouble that may not have been there if they didn't go looking for it.

    It's shady as hell, and a blatant ugly face of the police state.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Spokane Washington
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    The point is that you would do it if it wasn't a cop. Setting you up so that you can choose to break the law or choose not to isn't entrapment. To be entrapment the police would have to either coerce you to do it or do something to convince you to do something you normally would never do. It's a fine line at times, but it's there.
    Sounds like a fuzzy line, instead of a fine line... Sounds like something that shouldn't be attempted without proper oversight.

    Funny how the more citizens cry out for oversight, the more the police in this state seam to be driven "undercover". How Many unmarked city, county and state police cars do you see now? Why do the police feel the need to hide to build cases and arrests as SOP. While remaining inconspicuous you may get to pull off a few more speeding tickets, but if one citizen-in-need cannot identify an officer, well I think the trade off is not a worthwhile one... Most people not being criminals would receive civil benefit from clearly marked, and identical policing vehicles. Imho

  17. #17
    Regular Member Stretch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Pasco, WA, ,
    Posts
    489
    The issue isn't entrapment, the issue is there are "fans" who are blatantly step over the line of a playful ribbing. I don't like the Seahawks, that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to go, enjoy a game, and risk my safety because of some @$$hole$ threatening me or my wife. My friends who have gone to support their teams have been threatened as well. We aren't there to start trouble, we are there to support our team that is in town.

    It is a problem that SPD and Seahawks security need to deal with, and if wearing the jersey of the visiting team is all it takes for some "fan" to assault someone, haul the "fan" off. I and several of my friends won't be back to any Seattle game until it is resolved.

  18. #18
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Best seat in the house is in my living room in front of the "Plasma". I don't have someone spilling beer down my neck, jumping up in front of my view, my seat reclines, the food and drink is affordable, and I don't have to stand ankle deep in someone else's urine when I go relieve myself.

    Last time I went to a live game was in Denver and some a-hole got tossed down on top of a bunch of seated fans. A couple went to the hospital with serious injuries all because someone left their brain home.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Spokane Washington
    Posts
    285
    Just sounds like they are looking for trouble where it wouldn't be had the officers not been there looking for it to begin with. If elimininating crimes at seahawks games like assaults was the real goal, wouldn't that goal be better served by focusing on prevention, ie: increased presence of plain closed officers? If all these undercover patrols were plain clothed patrols, do you think a rowdy fan would be less likely to initiate an assault in the first place? Its the logic behind the decision that gets me, not so much the entrapment part (but I still think its borderline at best)

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Best seat in the house is in my living room in front of the "Plasma". I don't have someone spilling beer down my neck, jumping up in front of my view, my seat reclines, the food and drink is affordable, and I don't have to stand ankle deep in someone else's urine when I go relieve myself.

    Last time I went to a live game was in Denver and some a-hole got tossed down on top of a bunch of seated fans. A couple went to the hospital with serious injuries all because someone left their brain home.
    +1, the last game I went to cost me about $250 for 2 of us.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  21. #21
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329

    Entrapment at Seahawks games?

    Quote Originally Posted by MattinWA View Post
    Funny how the more citizens cry out for oversight, the more the police in this state seam to be driven "undercover". How Many unmarked city, county and state police cars do you see now? Why do the police feel the need to hide to build cases and arrests as SOP. While remaining inconspicuous you may get to pull off a few more speeding tickets, but if one citizen-in-need cannot identify an officer, well I think the trade off is not a worthwhile one... Most people not being criminals would receive civil benefit from clearly marked, and identical policing vehicles. Imho
    It's like the reason we OC, deterrence factor. If more cars were marked and showed more "police presence" maybe less people would think they can get away with criminal behavior. But they like turning people into criminals. It makes them feel like they're accomplishing something. Can't put numbers on crimes deterred.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  22. #22
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329

    Entrapment at Seahawks games?

    Quote Originally Posted by MattinWA View Post
    Just sounds like they are looking for trouble where it wouldn't be had the officers not been there looking for it to begin with. If elimininating crimes at seahawks games like assaults was the real goal, wouldn't that goal be better served by focusing on prevention, ie: increased presence of plain closed officers? If all these undercover patrols were plain clothed patrols, do you think a rowdy fan would be less likely to initiate an assault in the first place? Its the logic behind the decision that gets me, not so much the entrapment part (but I still think its borderline at best)
    +1
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kelso, Washington, USA
    Posts
    258
    Here's a question I have: Why even go in the FIRST place?! With all these new TSA level "Security Restrictions", that's enough for me to say "F it" and watch the game(s) at home.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Entrapment is one of the most misunderstood legal concepts amongst the lay public.
    I happened to work deep undercover for a couple of years (paid under a different name, changed my particulars with social security admin, no gun, no wire, etc.) so I had to know entrapment case law in and out

    What is boils down to - is the conduct the officer(s) is engaging in, or the situation they are creating - SO enticing or in the case of raider's jerseys, SO offensive,, that it would (and in the case of the arrestee/defendant DID) cause an otherwise law abiding person to engage in criminal activity, same person not otherwise disposed to engage in same.

    An undercover officer offering sexual favors for, or more subtly.. hinting at sexual favors, in exchange for the person buying or selling drugs to him/her.

    Offering a price that is absurdly high "I'll pay you $5000 for a gram of coke!"

    Cajoling, belittling etc. the person into commiting the crime "cmon don't be a *****. We're all going to think you are a ***** and you arn't going to have any friends if oyu don't steal this car right now, so we can jump in and get a ride. "

    etc.

    not entrapment:

    Setting up a vehicle on the street with the ignition running and keys left in the ignition -
    Asking somebody if they would sell you drugs
    Asking somebody if they want to buy drugs from you (again, without offering pressure, etc.)

    etc.

    This is an area of law I consider myself pretty knowledgeable in, since working deep undercover, it was the #1 issue that could harpoon one of my cases, I had to know the law inside and out. A patrol officer almost never deals with entrapment type issues in his cases. Undercover work - very much so

    THIS thing at the Seahawk games isn't even remotely entrapment. They aren't DOING anything to get people to engage in crim activity. NOTHING, that would rise to the level of convincing an otherwise law abiding person to commit assault, etc. Wearing a raiders jersey is something people do day in and day out, thus the conduct of the officers isn't entrapping, since the overwhelming majority of people would never commit a crime AND do not commit a crime pon seeing somebody clad in a raiders jersey. It's called good police work - place yourself in a good vantage point to witness crime and act accordingly vs. jus waiting for victims to call police , so you can respond after the fact and write a report on it

    As an analogy: Cops in BC have been at the forefront of using bait cars. considering the ridiculously high auto theft in some parts of the Pac NW, I wish more agencies would employ bait cars. They leave car with keys in ignition andor engine running and wait to see what happens.

    (it's also much safer when they apprehend the bad guys than normal stolen vehicle stops, since the cars can be stalled remotely eliminating dangerous vehicle pursuit)

    For anybody that wants to wank this is precrime - it isn't . Officers wait for the crime to occur
    Or thought-crime: It isn't. This is STEALING
    Or a victimless crime: It isn't . the car belongs to somebody
    Last edited by PALO; 09-01-2013 at 01:17 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Mattin WA:Just sounds like they are looking for trouble where it wouldn't be had the officers not been there looking for it to begin with.

    Rubbish. The trouble/misconduct will occur and does occur whether or not the UC's are present. Being present just puts them in a position to apprehend the offender, creating both specific and general deterrence of further crimes by the defendant or others who witness the arrest. Wearing a raiders jersey is hardly unusual, or an act that would shock the conscience, or an act that would lead a law abuding person to crime


    MattinWA: If elimininating crimes at seahawks games like assaults was the real goal, wouldn't that goal be better served by focusing on prevention, ie: increased presence of plain closed officers? If all these undercover patrols were plain clothed patrols, do you think a rowdy fan would be less likely to initiate an assault in the first place? Its the logic behind the decision that gets me, not so much the entrapment part (but I still think its borderline at best

    This makes no sense. How would PLAIN CLOTHES patrols deter people from committing these crimes? Plain clothes means - not recognizable as cops. What possible deterrent effect comes from having plain clothes cops walking arou.nd, UNLESS they make arrests, which is what the undercover (plainclothes) cops are doing.

    Fwiw, there are already UNIFORMED officers at Seahawks games. The UC's act to COMPLEMENT the cadre of uniformed officers. And if unifrmed officers alone were doing a good enough job from the property owners perspective, they wouldn't be using OC's. Uniformed guys can only do so much, from their vantage points

    So, they are working for prevention as well, through the uniformeds. It's a multipronged approach

    imo, these stings are good police work! Especially if assaults have been shown to occur when the victim was wearing a raiders jersey or any out of town jersey, it makes sense to put the UC's in similar garb. better they be the victim of an attempt assault than some average joe just trying to watch the game. Similar to stings in some cities where they will dress the cop as a business professiona who has had one too many alcoholc beverages, and have him sit down, nodding out in an alley/sidewalk etc. and then arrest anybody who tries to rob him (which has been a problem in some cities)

    Fwiw, the vast majority of the time cops engage in stings like this at PRIVATE VENUES (e.g. Seahawks stadium), it's at the request or at least with the cosent/approval of the property owners. That's another point being glossed over. the property owners want a safe venue, free from rowdy,disruptive behavior, because it lowers their liability and ultimately improves their ticket sales . when and if people have abd experience with rowdies at a game, many of them won't come back a second time, and may also tell their friends, etc.

    Fwiw, another venue that has both uniforms and plainclothes units are the transit police. And for similar reasons.

    And fwiw, when people learn there are UC's working, the UC's have the advantage of having more impact than their #'s would suggest, such as if they were working in uniform. A person can do a quick visual scan before they commit their criminal act, but that doesn't work if there are UC's working. Thus, it's kind of a force multiplier at work, since just a few UC's can have broad impact due to the offenders never knowing if the person next to them is a UC

    Good police work, imo
    Last edited by PALO; 09-01-2013 at 01:23 AM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •