the nypd wants you to stop being nice

[b i o n i c]

operation lucky bag (http://gothamist.com/2007/12/05/operation_lucky_1.php)

[ericlee]

It's a trap!

Seriously, all subway riders should know that if they see a suspicious bag like that, they should throw themselves on top of it.

[Yetra Flam]

but seriously, if you leave your bag in a busy place like that, aren't you asking for it to be taken?

[ericlee]

I lost my cellphone in Manhattan once. I figured I'll never see it again so, as soon as I got home that night I called the customer service and had them shut my line off.

In between the hour that it took me to get home, the guy who found it went through my contacts list and sent them text messages saying he found my mobile and wanted to return it to me. My friends called me, gave me his number and I met up with him in Brooklyn to pick it up. I tried to give him twenty bucks and he wouldn't accept it.

Yeah, there's still good people around and leave it to cops to mess things up by planting stuff like that GLB but they're also doing something beneficial cause if you see a bag laying there, ya don't know what it is and the best thing to do is leave it alone and call the cops.

I read the subway safety posters when I have nothing else to look at on the train.

[kaiser soze]

Nice to see NYPD setting people up, especially in a time where suspicious bags could be a bomb.

This is fucking unbelievable, making criminals out of honest people and tempting those looking for a freebie.

It's all about the $$ they will make....plain and simple

[abcdefz]

...isn't that entrapment?

Get Bob in here.

[hardnox71]

Is the crime rate in NYC on such a decline that the NYPD has nothing better to do than plant a bag on a bench and hide behind a tree? I'm suprised the Department actually had the balls to admit to the people what type on boneheaded bullshit their money was being wasted on.

Gotta love the boys in blue.:rolleyes:

[Bob]

...isn't that entrapment?

Get Bob in here.

i'll have a memo for you in a week or so, i'll send you an invoice

my actual answer is "i don't know"

but i'm curious now, i'm gonna look it up. i'm guessing it must not be, since judges apparently convicted people on it, but it really does sound like it, doesn't it?

[abcdefz]

"i don't know"




*hands over three hundred dollars*

[Bob]

according to the NY practice series (which is not law, rather it's a concise summary of legal issues which i always find is a useful place to start doing actual research...i'm not about to read statutes for you people, i hate those things);

§ 2:21. ----Entrapment

Entrapment is an affirmative defense which requires the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was "induced or encouraged to do so by a public servant, or a person acting in cooperation with a public servant, seeking to obtain evidence against him for the purpose of criminal prosecution and where the methods used to obtain such evidence were such as to create a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by a person not otherwise disposed to commit it.[FN1] Inducement or encouragement to commit an offense means active inducement or encouragement. Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment.[FN2]
The defendant is not entitled to a charge to the jury on the affirmative defense of entrapment where he fails to present evidence which raises a question as to whether he was actively induced to engage in a crime or that he was not predisposed to commit the crime.[FN3] As with duress, if the defendant raises the issue of entrapment, the prosecution may present evidence of other uncharged criminal acts to show the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime.[FN4] It is reversible error, however, to instruct the jury that an entrapment defense is only available to someone who has no criminal record.[FN5] It is likewise reversible error to instruct a jury that, to acquit on the basis of the entrapment defense, it must find that the police formed an intent to entrap the defendant prior to their contact with the defendant.[FN6] The issue of entrapment is a factual question to be decided by the jury.[FN7]
A defendant is entitled to assert inconsistent defenses, and may even assert entrapment when he takes the stand and testifies at trial that he did not commit the crime.[FN8]
Moreover, it has been held to be reversible error for a court to give the jury an entrapment instruction over a defendant's objection, thus placing the burden of proof on him, when he has not raised an entrapment defense.[FN9]
Even where a defense of entrapment is not made out because the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime, outrageous police misconduct may warrant dismissal by the court as a matter of federal and state due process.[FN10] Where law enforcement engages in serious misconduct, dismissal by the court would be warranted despite the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime.[FN11]
The factors to be considered in determining whether police misconduct violates basic due process warranting dismissal are (1) whether the police manufactured a crime which otherwise would not likely have occurred, (2) whether the police themselves engaged in criminal or improper conduct, (3) whether the defendant's reluctance to commit the crime was overcome by appeals to humanitarian instincts, and (4) whether the record reveals simply a desire to obtain a conviction and no police motive to prevent further crime to protect the populace.[FN12]

so maybe, maybe not. it sounds like the key thing is, the police have to be actively inducing you to commit the crime, and you must have no disposition to commit the crime on your own. so if the police said "hey, check out that bag, i bet you could steal it and nobody would notice...come on man, do it, are you a chicken?" that would certainly be entrapment. this one seems a little more vague. but the part at the end, about police misconduct warranting dismissal, that sounds kind of relevant to me, all four of them. i mean;

1) whether the police manufactured a crime which otherwise would not likely have occurred. certainly this is true, no bag would have been "stolen" if they hadn't left a bag there

(2) whether the police themselves engaged in criminal or improper conduct. aren't there rules against leaving bags on subways? if you can get arrested for putting up aqua teen hunger force LCD displays surely you can do it for leaving suspicious packages on subways? and i don't know what the legal definition of "improper conduct" is, but it doesn't sound very proper to me

(3) whether the defendant's reluctance to commit the crime was overcome by appeals to humanitarian instincts. this one surely applies to the people who picked up the bag with the intention of finding its (non-existent) rightful owner.

and (4) whether the record reveals simply a desire to obtain a conviction and no police motive to prevent further crime to protect the populace. maybe, maybe not. i guess the idea is to deter crime by busting people in advance or something, i don't know. i don't know if their desire is purely to obtain convictions. maybe.

at any rate, i agree with hardnox. is there seriously so little crime in new york city that the NYPD can dedicate resources to this bullshit? surely not.

[abcdefz]

sigh


*scribbles out a three hundred dollar check*


OKAY STOP TALKING NOW UNLESS IT'S YOUR PRO BONO TALKING