Entrapment at Seahawks games?

MattinWA said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

MattinWA said:

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)

Click to expand...

+1

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.

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

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

sudden valley gunner said:

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.

Click to expand...

If that's true then it would be entrapment. But the thing is, wearing your favored team's jersey and going to cheer for them at an away game isn't illegal, nor is it an assault on the home team's fans. If those home team fans are inclined to assault someone just because they're rooting for the 'wrong' team, it makes Seattle look bad. An undercover cop dressed as a Raiders fan isn't entrapment, since a normal person wouldn't assault someone for that, and there is no coercion to attack.

MattinWA said:

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.

Click to expand...

Except that it does happen without the officers there. Out-of-towners have been assaulted for wearing their team's colors. Would you think it okay for a Seahawks fan to go to an away game and get hospitalized?

MattinWA said:

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)

Click to expand...

What do you think a plain clothes officer IS? They're supposed to look like John Q. Public, and they do -- in a Raiders jersey. It's like the old argument about OC vs CC, which one provides the greatest deterrent? If you answer CC, you're probably hanging out in the wrong forum.

PALO said:

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

Click to expand...

Exactly! Wearing a Seahawks jersey does not justify an assault, so why would wearing a Raiders jersey be such a justification? If you see someone supporting their team, the reaction of a normal, law-abiding citizen is not to rush to destroy the 'enemy'. Only criminals and hooligans (in the sports team sense) do that. And that's exactly what an undercover/plain clothes officer in this case is supposed to be there to deal with. Upon seeing a man in a Raiders jersey, you have a choice to obey the law or not -- choosing to be a criminal of your own free will is not entrapment.

A good example of entrapment would be an undercover cop staging a purse snatching/mugging, bashing the hell out of the 'victim' and then arresting the guy who tackles him -- a normal person witnessing a woman getting beaten up for her purse WOULD step in to stop the crime, even though they are unknowingly assaulting a police officer in the process.

So instead of going and protecting those who get assaulted they go hoping to get assaulted, and we are supposed to believe their is no incentive at all to egg anything on?

sudden valley gunner said:

So instead of going and protecting those who get assaulted they go hoping to get assaulted, and we are supposed to believe their is no incentive at all to egg anything on?

Click to expand...

If going to a game in the opposing teams colors is all it takes for some thug to assault a person, then I am in favor of the UCs being there.

Sent from my SCH-I545

sudden valley gunner said:

So instead of going and protecting those who get assaulted they go hoping to get assaulted, and we are supposed to believe their is no incentive at all to egg anything on?

Click to expand...

Nope. You are supposed to suspend reason. You are supposed to substitute experience with the myth of heroes-in-blue who selflessly protect and serve us.

Stretch said:

If going to a game in the opposing teams colors is all it takes for some thug to assault a person, then I am in favor of the UCs being there.

Sent from my SCH-I545

Click to expand...

How many arrests did the cop make last game?

Citizen said:

Nope. You are supposed to suspend reason. You are supposed to substitute experience with the myth of heroes-in-blue who selflessly protect and serve us.

Click to expand...

Silly me, with all of the abuses and murders and extra privileges I missed that part.

sudden valley gunner said:

How many arrests did the cop make last game?

Click to expand...

Don't know, don't care. If no assaults occurred, good.

Sent from my SCH-I545

Well let's see I was actually at the game. As a season ticket holder I can say this... Raider fans are known for being punks, criminals, misfits and down right morons.....

I suspect many have spent time in the slammer based upon their appearance, tattoos, gang markings, etc...

Anyways towards the end of the beat down upon the Raiders, many (assuming intoxicated) Raider fans were getting a bit unruly with the crowd and several in my section were taken away by Alcohol Enforcement, LE and others (presumably plain clothes LE).

gogodawgs said:

Well let's see I was actually at the game. As a season ticket holder I can say this... Raider fans are known for being punks, criminals, misfits and down right morons.....

I suspect many have spent time in the slammer based upon their appearance, tattoos, gang markings, etc...

Anyways towards the end of the beat down upon the Raiders, many (assuming intoxicated) Raider fans were getting a bit unruly with the crowd and several in my section were taken away by Alcohol Enforcement, LE and others (presumably plain clothes LE).

Click to expand...

I do not think anyone here has a problem with that as long as the Cops are not dressed up and inciting anyone. Notice the AND between up and Inciting. I have been to high school football games where SGT Hayes was handing people their backsides and heard threats to him in the stands, what is wrong with people when it comes to sports?

amlevin said:

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.

Click to expand...

Jeff Hayes said:

+1, the last game I went to cost me about $250 for 2 of us.

Click to expand...

Something else to consider. That "yellow stuff" that is running along the floor under your seat isn't always just spilled beer. Some fans are just to lazy to get up and use the "facilities" so they merely fill an empty beer cup while concealing their act under a coat in their lap. Eventually it gets kicked over where they've left it.

The old "Mile High" stadium in Denver was notorious for this because a trip to the restrooms often took an entire quarter, getting there, waiting in line, and then getting back to your seat.

gogodawgs said:

Well let's see I was actually at the game. As a season ticket holder I can say this... Raider fans are known for being punks, criminals, misfits and down right morons.....

I suspect many have spent time in the slammer based upon their appearance, tattoos, gang markings, etc...

Anyways towards the end of the beat down upon the Raiders, many (assuming intoxicated) Raider fans were getting a bit unruly with the crowd and several in my section were taken away by Alcohol Enforcement, LE and others (presumably plain clothes LE).

Click to expand...

Raider Jerseys must have suited the undercover cops well then......(a joke folks).

So the problem is mostly started by Raiders fans so the solution of the gov. is to dress up like the provocateurs? Interesting.

Jeff Hayes said:

I do not think anyone here has a problem with that as long as the Cops are not dressed up and inciting anyone. Notice the AND between up and Inciting. I have been to high school football games where SGT Hayes was handing people their backsides and heard threats to him in the stands, what is wrong with people when it comes to sports?

Click to expand...

Yes, and while SOME Raiders fans *are* disruptive and bring stuff down on themselves, so do SOME people in any victim class. The underlying point about entrapment is that if the cops portray themselves as a member of a victim group (in this case - spectators wearing other team jerseys and specifically raiders jerseys) that is in no way, shape or form "entrapment". If Raiders jerseys DO incite fans to commit assault, then I personally WANT the cops dressed in Raiders jerseys, because they are more likely to catch criminals in the act. That's a good thing.

Assume that at a venue, black guys were being assaulted by racist spectators. Would it be entrapment to have black UC's go to the game? Of course not. Would it be "inciting"? Well, based on the layman's definition of inciting, it would be, but it is certainly legal. You can do this experiment at any venue, where any particular group(s) tend to be victims of assault, etc. - use UC cops that appear to be members of that group - Raiders jersey wearers, black dudes, or whatever. If somebody *is* "incited" by a Raiders jersey, that's THEIR problem, and if a cop dresses as a Raiders fan and gets assaulted, it was neither entrapment nor "incitement" as a legal matter, although again it might be "incitement" from a layman's perspective.

From a legal standpoint, there are two ways that "incitement" becomes criminal

1) fighting words. Look it up. Pretty simple concept. People can be , whether it's constitutional or not, arrested for breaching the peace etc. IF they used fighting words.

2) Incitement as relates to Brandenburg v. Ohio. This case established (it is no longer the falsely shouting fire doctrine, which was schenck, which was used to prosecute a war protester and which was superseded by brandenburg) the limits of speech, where it becomes criminal through incitement to violent action. Note that mere advocacy of violence, even, is not enough to trigger a violation under Brandenburg v. Ohio. In that case, a conviction of Ku Klux Klan members was overturned and a rather strict standard (stricter than SChenck) was established. Look up "Brandenburg" standard for more info. But it's a pretty high bar, in brief.

As for entrapment, again, that's gotta be conduct that would cause a law abiding person, a person NOT disposed to commit crime, to commit the crime. Leaving a vehicle with engine running and keys in the ignition, not entrapment, asking a person if they would see you drugs, not entrapment, etc.

Posing an undercover cop as a passed out drunk businessman with a shiny rolex on his wrist - not entrapment

Posing an undercover cop as a prostitute, by dressing her in scanty neglige etc. not entrapment

Posing as a muslim extremist looking to buy a bomb, not entrapment etc. unless the behavior was so extreme that a person not disposed to bomb making and selling etc. would be convinced to do so (FBI has fought some claims in this regards about some of their UC operations)

Leaving a laptop computer on a car seat of an unlocked vehicle at night in a high crime area - not entrapment

PALO said:

Yes, and while SOME Raiders fans *are* disruptive and bring stuff down on themselves, so do SOME people in any victim class. The underlying point about entrapment is that if the cops portray themselves as a member of a victim group (in this case - spectators wearing other team jerseys and specifically raiders jerseys) that is in no way, shape or form "entrapment". If Raiders jerseys DO incite fans to commit assault, then I personally WANT the cops dressed in Raiders jerseys, because they are more likely to catch criminals in the act. That's a good thing.

Assume that at a venue, black guys were being assaulted by racist spectators. Would it be entrapment to have black UC's go to the game? Of course not. Would it be "inciting"? Well, based on the layman's definition of inciting, it would be, but it is certainly legal. You can do this experiment at any venue, where any particular group(s) tend to be victims of assault, etc. - use UC cops that appear to be members of that group - Raiders jersey wearers, black dudes, or whatever. If somebody *is* "incited" by a Raiders jersey, that's THEIR problem, and if a cop dresses as a Raiders fan and gets assaulted, it was neither entrapment nor "incitement" as a legal matter, although again it might be "incitement" from a layman's perspective.

From a legal standpoint, there are two ways that "incitement" becomes criminal

1) fighting words. Look it up. Pretty simple concept. People can be , whether it's constitutional or not, arrested for breaching the peace etc. IF they used fighting words.

2) Incitement as relates to Brandenburg v. Ohio. This case established (it is no longer the falsely shouting fire doctrine, which was schenck, which was used to prosecute a war protester and which was superseded by brandenburg) the limits of speech, where it becomes criminal through incitement to violent action. Note that mere advocacy of violence, even, is not enough to trigger a violation under Brandenburg v. Ohio. In that case, a conviction of Ku Klux Klan members was overturned and a rather strict standard (stricter than SChenck) was established. Look up "Brandenburg" standard for more info. But it's a pretty high bar, in brief.

As for entrapment, again, that's gotta be conduct that would cause a law abiding person, a person NOT disposed to commit crime, to commit the crime. Leaving a vehicle with engine running and keys in the ignition, not entrapment, asking a person if they would see you drugs, not entrapment, etc.

Posing an undercover cop as a passed out drunk businessman with a shiny rolex on his wrist - not entrapment

Posing an undercover cop as a prostitute, by dressing her in scanty neglige etc. not entrapment

Posing as a muslim extremist looking to buy a bomb, not entrapment etc. unless the behavior was so extreme that a person not disposed to bomb making and selling etc. would be convinced to do so (FBI has fought some claims in this regards about some of their UC operations)

Leaving a laptop computer on a car seat of an unlocked vehicle at night in a high crime area - not entrapment

Click to expand...

Palo

Like I said I have no problem with arresting the idiots, I am glad to see them go. If an undercover Cop is at a game dressed in the oppositions Jersey and he is attacked, threatened etc I am all for the arrest. If the undercover Cop is upping the ante by verbally baiting the other people than I am not on board even if it is lawful. It matters not to me if it is lawful to do if a Cop leads a person on then I disagree with those tactics. The lawfulness is of no concern to me the morality of it is what is important to me. Of course you are welcome to your opinion as always. Lots of good natured ribbing goes on between fans and all it takes is a response from a Cop that is calculated and just inside the line of lawful to get someone going that would not have happened. If you think that is OK then we have different values and further discussion is not going to be productive.

Jeff Hayes said:

Palo

Like I said I have no problem with arresting the idiots, I am glad to see them go. If an undercover Cop is at a game dressed in the oppositions Jersey and he is attacked, threatened etc I am all for the arrest. If the undercover Cop is upping the ante by verbally baiting the other people than I am not on board even if it is lawful. It matters not to me if it is lawful to do if a Cop leads a person on then I disagree with those tactics. The lawfulness is of no concern to me the morality of it is what is important to me. Of course you are welcome to your opinion as always. Lots of good natured ribbing goes on between fans and all it takes is a response from a Cop that is calculated and just inside the line of lawful to get someone going that would not have happened. If you think that is OK then we have different values and further discussion is not going to be productive.

Click to expand...

I would agree with you, that verbal baiting etc. is beyond the pale and the cop shouldn't do it.

Iow, if a uC wearing a Raiders jersey is asked "you like the Raiders?" . Saying " yes" perfectly ok

Otog, saying "yes, and the Seahawks F*in suck! Your team sucks! They are a bunch o talentless child molesater!" is inappropriate

PALO said:

I would agree with you, that verbal baiting etc. is beyond the pale and the cop shouldn't do it.

Iow, if a uC wearing a Raiders jersey is asked "you like the Raiders?" . Saying " yes" perfectly ok

Otog, saying "yes, and the Seahawks F*in suck! Your team sucks! They are a bunch o talentless child molesater!" is inappropriate

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I personally used to enjoy the banter between rivals but those days of friendly exchanges are long gone. I used to coach girls elite travel softball teams and I understand that the girls can not do the cheers & songs they once did because of the hot heads. BTW I never allowed my girls to be disrespectful but I did allow them to have fun with it.