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".
You're missing the point - You're talking about what 'they' consider to be legal. Not what is just, or within the basis of actual law.
Its the UK female cops wearing short skirts, and then arresting the people that comment on it. Same thing.
Sure it might be 'legal' in the sense that it those with the guns will enforce that - but there is no basis of actual "Law" there, because it treats people differently based on who/what they are.
Unless the law is blind, it isn't the law.
We all know this to be true.
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".
You're missing the point - You're talking about what 'they' consider to be legal. Not what is just, or within the basis of actual law.
Its the UK female cops wearing short skirts, and then arresting the people that comment on it. Same thing.
Sure it might be 'legal' in the sense that it those with the guns will enforce that - but there is no basis of actual "Law" there, because it treats people differently based on who/what they are.
Unless the law is blind, it isn't the law. We all know this to be true.