[deleted]


[deleted]


Hahahahahahahaha, 3to10 foiled again!

reply

Now he's going to report you for "flaming" his name. Wait and see....

reply

Yeah I just noticed a Mod publicly broke him off to stop announcing flagging of posts the other day. Must have really torpedoed the poor kid's sense of self esteem given how much public pride he had about using the report link. 😂

https://moviechat.org/nm0874339/Donald-J-Trump/5b4343c9eb5bec0014bfae1e/Democrats-support-Chinese-election-meddling

reply

OMG! How embarrassing! Poor thing.

At least he has his $96,000 job to keep him busy. I'm guessing it's a career as hall monitor - he has the experience.

reply

Hmm ... yeah well it's something where he doesn't have online access during business hours, that seems pretty clear. My current guess is he works in a Reynolds aluminum plant in Kentucky as an aluminum smelter or whatever the fuck it is that they do in aluminum refineries. Reynolds is Fortune 500.

reply

Maybe he's hall monitor at Reynolds, reporting every worker who uses the restroom without a hall pass? Or reporting those who smoke outside in the parking lot? It's a responsible $96K job you know.

reply

Charges haven't just been dropped... Remember when I said this was clear entrapment?

Columbus Police Chief Kimberley Jacobs said in a statement that the vice personnel working when Daniels was arrested "believed they had probable cause that state law regulating sexually-oriented business was violated."

The Columbus Division of Police vice personnel are responsible for enforcing laws regulating alcohol sales, after-hours clubs, massage parlors, human trafficking, nuisance properties and other "serious violations of law," according to the police department.

"However, one element of the law was missed in error and charges were subsequently dismissed," Jacobs said. "...a mistake was made, and I accept full responsibility."

Jacobs said the presence of the Vice officers at the club was reasonable, but the motivations behind their actions will be reviewed internally.

That mistake was, very possibly, entrapment. If an officer asked Stormy to disobey the law, then that officer broke the law by doing so.

No dust bitten, but plenty of crow eaten.

Law class is now over for today. Topic dismissed.

reply

Um, no. It is perfectly legal for a law enforcement official to ask someone to disobey the law. It happens all the time and is bread and butter for undercover work. Try again.

reply

Try again.

Entrapment is a defense to criminal charges when it is established that the agent or official originated the idea of the crime and induced the accused to engage in it.

I've worked in the legal field for the last two decades. You're not pulling your idiotic B.S. on me.

On second thought: Don't try again. Plus I've already proven you to be a troll.

reply

LoL!

He's all but officially owned ... by you.

reply

You don't have the analytical mind for legal work if you think anything you quoted (which you failed to provide a source for) contradicts what I said. Undercover agents encourage people to commit illegal acts all the time. Encouraging someone to commit an illegal act is not automatically "Entrapment".

Now, run back to your $13/hr paralegal job. LOLLLLLLLL

reply

" Undercover agents encourage people to commit illegal acts all the time."

You accuse me of not providing a source and then you AGAIN toss out this "all the time" BULLSHIT that you PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS?

You're a hypocrite. You haven't provided a single source for any of your stupid opinions, so don't expect from others what you're not willing to do, you little whiny baby who goes crying to the mods every time someone rightfully insults you.


"Encouraging someone to commit an illegal act is not automatically "Entrapment"."

Yes it is. It's the EXACT LEGAL DEFINITION OF ENTRAPMENT.

You are ignorant, and you are a child.

You're just some random message board nobody who knows absolutely nothing.


"run back to your $13/hr paralegal job"

You think a Paralegal would only make 13 bucks an hour?

The median annual salary for a paralegal in California is $60,940.

Jesus, you really are ignorant.

reply

Straight from the Department of Justice:

"A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the more important."

"Inducement is the threshold issue in the entrapment defense. Mere solicitation to commit a crime is not inducement."

"Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to an entrapment defense. The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant "was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime."

"Also, predisposition may exist even in the absence of prior criminal involvement: "the ready commission of the criminal act," such as where a defendant promptly accepts an undercover agent's offer of an opportunity to buy or sell drugs, may itself establish predisposition. Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 550."

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-645-entrapment-elements

Since you most likely lack the intellect to make sense of this stuff, I'll dumb it down for you:

1. Entrapment requires both "inducement" and a lack of "predisposition" to commit a crime.

2. Mere solicitation of a criminal act by an undercover agent does not constitute "inducement". It generally requires significant coercion and persuasion on the part of the government.

3. Even if inducement can be proven, it is not a sufficient condition for an Entrapment defense. The defendant's lack of predisposition to commit criminal conduct is far more important. One's readiness to commit a criminal act can by itself establish predisposition.

You simply don't understand the difference between Entrapment and "inducement". Perhaps you should spend more time reading law books and less time posting nonsense on the internet.

reply

P.S. -- Stop getting your legal concepts from badly written TV shows.

reply

No, that would be the person who thinks undercover cops aren't allowed to encourage illegal acts. LOL. Hilarious stuff.

reply

Too funneh. Charges were dismissed soon after though. Looked like she had a gangbang of a time in jail. Police detectives got wind of her exposed breasts and were freaked out by how used up they were by other men.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/12/politics/stormy-daniels-arrested-in-ohio/index.html

reply

"Looked like she had a gangbang of a time in jail. Police detectives got wind of her exposed breasts and were freaked out by how used up they were by other men."

Where did it say that?

reply

The cops are admitting they made a mistake with the arrest. From https://www.yahoo.com/gma/adult-film-star-stormy-daniels-arrested-ohio-strip-110904683--abc-news-topstories.html

Columbus Police Chief Kimberley Jacobs said in a statement that the vice personnel working when Daniels was arrested "believed they had probable cause that state law regulating sexually-oriented business was violated."

The Columbus Division of Police vice personnel are responsible for enforcing laws regulating alcohol sales, after-hours clubs, massage parlors, human trafficking, nuisance properties and other "serious violations of law," according to the police department.

"However, one element of the law was missed in error and charges were subsequently dismissed," Jacobs said. "...a mistake was made, and I accept full responsibility."

Jacobs said the presence of the Vice officers at the club was reasonable, but the motivations behind their actions will be reviewed internally.

reply