Makes sense. Stopping real crime puts them at risk. Locking people up for bullshit is zero risk and they still get to jerk off to taking people's freedom away.
Gen Z? We've been making those jokes since the beginning of the Internet, where the men are men, the women are men, and the little girls are FBI agents -- and they're men.
And Zoomers have picked up the torch. Except they believe that they're the ones who made it first. (Although I've realized the last part isn't true anymore, since there's a whole generation of kids who have been on iPads since before they could walk.)
This isn't entrapment. I'll use prostitution as an example: entrapment would be an undercover cop going up to a prostitute and hiring them only to arrest them after they agreed or an undercover cop going up to random people and soliciting sex for money only to arrest anyone who bites, THIS, however, is more like an undercover officer hanging around a known prostitute hot spot and waiting to see if anyone comes up to them and tries to "buy their services".
Basically, if a cop initiates contact then it's entrapment, if the other party does then it's not. Cops just walking around and then arresting people who stare at them would NOT meet the legal definition of entrapment, although it would be (in the US at least) a MASSIVE violation of their rights for other more obvious reasons.
If I dress up like a bear, and then go roaming into the bear-hunting forest, and when the inevitable shot comes - me trying to charge the shooter with attempted murder.. Never, ever, ever would fly for obvious reasons.
I get what you're saying about the law - but it is still entrapment when the cops do it. The law doesn't think so, as if the law was consistent 9/10ths of the laws wouldn't be there, and then where would their cash cow come from?
Entrapment is a LEGAL term with over 120 years of precedent, you can't just say everything you want to be entrapment is entrapment, that's not how the law works. Entrapment specifically requires police to instigate someone to commit illegal activity, if your definition were correct then literally EVERY SINGLE sting operation would be illegal.
So trust the experts?
Lots of idiocy is long running..
Where is the difference?
Police dress up like something they aren't.
I dress up as something I am not.
Police go where they can be confused with something else.
I go where I can be confused with something else.
They charge the person that fell for their ruse.
I try and charge the person that fell for the ruse.
The only difference is that its "legal" when they do it, and it shouldn't take anyone(That isn't a boot licking, NPC) to understand that is, was and never can be the basis for a legitimate law.
You know what the MAIN difference with your "but I can't do that" example is? Bear hunting is legal, whereas soliciting prostitution is not. In your example the person who shot you did so under the assumption they were following the law while you were just being a complete idiot, in the other example the person knew damn well that what they were doing was a crime and then did it completely of their own volition. In your mind is it entrapment if a cop stands around undercover in an area that is known for having a high number of mugging reports and then arrests anyone who attempts to mug them? It would be retarded to consider that entrapment. How about don't mug people?
And I am no "boot licking NPC", you can check my post history I'm VERY critical of the police and the police state. I'm just not a retard who hears a legal term from the internet and then thinks I'm an expert when in reality I know nothing about it.
Your argument is the same as those idiots that upload clips of movies and TV shows on youtube and then scream "IT'S FAIR USE" when they get a copyright strike. That's not how Fair Use works just as how this is not how entrapment works.
The MAIN difference is there is none. Change it to going into the forest after hunting season if it unbinds your panties... The point is there, and all see it. Different application of the law, depending on the occupation of the doer. Right? Thats what it boils down to doesn't it?
I didn't say you were a Boot licking NPC, I said it was clearly and obviously the same thing to anyone other than one.. Of course, claiming its different when they do it, and that its OK cause its legal when they do it - isn't a strong point., but I don't know you well enough to say that about you - I have read your post, and can say that about your post though.
My argument is simply this - from first principles.
Any real basis for a "Law" has to be equally applied to everyone. When it isn't, it isn't really a law. So simple.
Are you really willing to say that Law gets to be applied differently, to different people, depending on the uniform they wear? Their occupation?
Surely not - its an affront against every single notion of a just legal system. Right?
Not right. Police ARE allowed to "go undercover" in certain circumstances. Right?
Trying to arrest 'Johns' while in uniform? Not likely unless they have a cosplay fetish :> But dress normally, sexy outfits will get the charges thrown out, and then arrest Johns who approach her? Perfectly legal.
The female officers usually wear the same outfit in court to show the judge they weren't "enticing solicitation".
I've also heard that they won't arrest someone who just asks, then goes away. They'll arrest Johns who are persistent in spite of being told "no".
Because the English are so cucked that they will not resist anything under any circumstance. They're the equivalent of the fudd that says "youre a legal gun owner until the government says youre not."
Honking and cat calls? Not a big deal. But STARING? Who defines that? How can you prove they were the targets of being stared at? Maybe there was a kitty behind them! I'd be staring at the kitty over those two.
AND I BET they did NOT do this in a Muslim neighborhood. I bet every arrested man was White. By design.
Really? I bet (in my comment) that they were only Whites. They'd never do this in a non-White neighborhood, eh? They'd ignore any PoC cat-calling as "cultural enrichment" and only grab the Whities.
Right?
They probably did focus the sting on a primarily White area, but the only takers were the takers, so that is why as PSX_X says it has been abandoned.
Yes, I agree they chose areas with a high % of White population, if any remain in the UK!
So yes, they still probably did arrest mostly PoC and thus haven't released any names & abandoned the operation.
I was thinking they'd just let all the PoC skate, while arresting Whites only :/
That was the goal - it is pure entrapment, and has no basis in actual law.
The "legal" system has been corrupted, and we all know it, its being directed and targeted based not on actions, but on who/what the person is. That isn't the law, and those promoting it need to be really sat down and spoken to about the reasons why Law has to be blind, or else it simply isn't the Law.
Stop Gang Rapes? No.
Stop looky looing? Yes.
Makes sense. Stopping real crime puts them at risk. Locking people up for bullshit is zero risk and they still get to jerk off to taking people's freedom away.
And then women wonder why men don't approach them
All the "Undercover FBI agent" jokes Gen Z make will come true soon.
you_guys_were_making_jokes?_meme.jpg
Gen Z? We've been making those jokes since the beginning of the Internet, where the men are men, the women are men, and the little girls are FBI agents -- and they're men.
And Zoomers have picked up the torch. Except they believe that they're the ones who made it first. (Although I've realized the last part isn't true anymore, since there's a whole generation of kids who have been on iPads since before they could walk.)
Is entrapment not illegal in the UK?
This isn't entrapment. I'll use prostitution as an example: entrapment would be an undercover cop going up to a prostitute and hiring them only to arrest them after they agreed or an undercover cop going up to random people and soliciting sex for money only to arrest anyone who bites, THIS, however, is more like an undercover officer hanging around a known prostitute hot spot and waiting to see if anyone comes up to them and tries to "buy their services".
Basically, if a cop initiates contact then it's entrapment, if the other party does then it's not. Cops just walking around and then arresting people who stare at them would NOT meet the legal definition of entrapment, although it would be (in the US at least) a MASSIVE violation of their rights for other more obvious reasons.
Counter point...
If I dress up like a bear, and then go roaming into the bear-hunting forest, and when the inevitable shot comes - me trying to charge the shooter with attempted murder.. Never, ever, ever would fly for obvious reasons.
I get what you're saying about the law - but it is still entrapment when the cops do it. The law doesn't think so, as if the law was consistent 9/10ths of the laws wouldn't be there, and then where would their cash cow come from?
Entrapment is a LEGAL term with over 120 years of precedent, you can't just say everything you want to be entrapment is entrapment, that's not how the law works. Entrapment specifically requires police to instigate someone to commit illegal activity, if your definition were correct then literally EVERY SINGLE sting operation would be illegal.
So trust the experts? Lots of idiocy is long running..
Where is the difference?
Police dress up like something they aren't. I dress up as something I am not.
Police go where they can be confused with something else. I go where I can be confused with something else.
They charge the person that fell for their ruse. I try and charge the person that fell for the ruse.
The only difference is that its "legal" when they do it, and it shouldn't take anyone(That isn't a boot licking, NPC) to understand that is, was and never can be the basis for a legitimate law.
You know what the MAIN difference with your "but I can't do that" example is? Bear hunting is legal, whereas soliciting prostitution is not. In your example the person who shot you did so under the assumption they were following the law while you were just being a complete idiot, in the other example the person knew damn well that what they were doing was a crime and then did it completely of their own volition. In your mind is it entrapment if a cop stands around undercover in an area that is known for having a high number of mugging reports and then arrests anyone who attempts to mug them? It would be retarded to consider that entrapment. How about don't mug people?
And I am no "boot licking NPC", you can check my post history I'm VERY critical of the police and the police state. I'm just not a retard who hears a legal term from the internet and then thinks I'm an expert when in reality I know nothing about it.
Your argument is the same as those idiots that upload clips of movies and TV shows on youtube and then scream "IT'S FAIR USE" when they get a copyright strike. That's not how Fair Use works just as how this is not how entrapment works.
The MAIN difference is there is none. Change it to going into the forest after hunting season if it unbinds your panties... The point is there, and all see it. Different application of the law, depending on the occupation of the doer. Right? Thats what it boils down to doesn't it?
I didn't say you were a Boot licking NPC, I said it was clearly and obviously the same thing to anyone other than one.. Of course, claiming its different when they do it, and that its OK cause its legal when they do it - isn't a strong point., but I don't know you well enough to say that about you - I have read your post, and can say that about your post though.
My argument is simply this - from first principles.
Any real basis for a "Law" has to be equally applied to everyone. When it isn't, it isn't really a law. So simple.
Are you really willing to say that Law gets to be applied differently, to different people, depending on the uniform they wear? Their occupation?
Surely not - its an affront against every single notion of a just legal system. Right?
Not right. Police ARE allowed to "go undercover" in certain circumstances. Right?
Trying to arrest 'Johns' while in uniform? Not likely unless they have a cosplay fetish :> But dress normally, sexy outfits will get the charges thrown out, and then arrest Johns who approach her? Perfectly legal.
The female officers usually wear the same outfit in court to show the judge they weren't "enticing solicitation".
I've also heard that they won't arrest someone who just asks, then goes away. They'll arrest Johns who are persistent in spite of being told "no".
something something they're "subjects" not "citizens"
Someone tell me why any police officer in the UK should be cooperated with in the slightest.
They should be deathly afraid of stepping out of their stations.
It's time for The Troubles 2.0.
Because the English are so cucked that they will not resist anything under any circumstance. They're the equivalent of the fudd that says "youre a legal gun owner until the government says youre not."
you got a loicense to not cooperate?
The third worlders are right about the police. Treat them the same way they do.
You got a loisense for dem eyes?
Probably to distract from the gan grapes that they ignored and covered up for decades for fear of being called racist
Honking and cat calls? Not a big deal. But STARING? Who defines that? How can you prove they were the targets of being stared at? Maybe there was a kitty behind them! I'd be staring at the kitty over those two.
AND I BET they did NOT do this in a Muslim neighborhood. I bet every arrested man was White. By design.
Don't forget the Muzzies too, oi Coppas? (Gets arrested for Wrong Speak.)
Really? I bet (in my comment) that they were only Whites. They'd never do this in a non-White neighborhood, eh? They'd ignore any PoC cat-calling as "cultural enrichment" and only grab the Whities.
Where, ohh where, is there 'Only Whites" there?
Right? They probably did focus the sting on a primarily White area, but the only takers were the takers, so that is why as PSX_X says it has been abandoned.
Yes, I agree they chose areas with a high % of White population, if any remain in the UK!
So yes, they still probably did arrest mostly PoC and thus haven't released any names & abandoned the operation.
I was thinking they'd just let all the PoC skate, while arresting Whites only :/
That was the goal - it is pure entrapment, and has no basis in actual law.
The "legal" system has been corrupted, and we all know it, its being directed and targeted based not on actions, but on who/what the person is. That isn't the law, and those promoting it need to be really sat down and spoken to about the reasons why Law has to be blind, or else it simply isn't the Law.