Durham threads and C36

Worf said:

You would think that with C36 coming up later this week, the posts would be dropping off. I haven't seen so much activity in Durham for a long time.

Click to expand...

Celticman said:

Last minute shopping. Men are famous for it

Click to expand...

Worf said:

You would think that with C36 coming up later this week, the posts would be dropping off. I haven't seen so much activity in Durham for a long time.

Click to expand...

Celticman said:

Last minute shopping. Men are famous for it

Click to expand...

Pfoxy said:

Yea business as usual for me as well..
But just in case some of my playmates are quitting . I'm having a "pink Friday sale " LOL I saw someone write that somewhere on terb and just had to use it

Xx Heidi V

Click to expand...

Danisfunny said:

Would the entrapment law not still be in affect, as in if your first question is "Are you a cop?". However I'm not sure if it matters if your just talking on the phone or asking in person.

As someone still sort of new to the scene. I have a very short list of regulars. Any recommendations on who to look for to pass through Peterborough after this weekend?

Thanks

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court of Canada developed the doctrine of entrapment in three major decisions: R. v. Amato, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 418, R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903, and R. v. Barnes, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 449. There are two different forms of entrapment in Canadian law.

The first type of entrapment, "random virtue testing", occurs when the police offer an individual the opportunity to commit a crime without reasonable suspicion that either that individual, or the place where that individual is located, is associated with the criminal activity under investigation. If police do have such a reasonable suspicion, they are still limited to providing only an opportunity to commit the offence.

The second form of entrapment occurs when the police go beyond merely providing an opportunity to commit an offence, and instead actually induce the commission of the offence. Some factors a court may consider when deciding whether police have induced the offence include the type of crime being investigated, whether an average person would have been induced, the persistence and number of attempts made by the police, the type of inducement used (e.g. fraud, deceit, reward), and the existence of expressed or implied threats.

The question of entrapment is only considered after there has been a finding of guilt. If, after finding the accused guilty, the court determines that the accused was entrapped, the court will enter a judicial stay of proceedings. In effect, this is similar to an acquittal.

Some examples of entrapment are as follows:

A police officer encourages a person to commit a crime so that the officer can have them prosecuted for that crime.
The greater the degree of entrapment by the police officer, the more likely the court will see it as entrapment. See the case R v Bryne [2003]. That is, entrapment is not a substantive defense (R v Sang); i.e. it does not automatically negate the prosecution case.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

Click to expand...

Claim: Prostitutes can safely challenge johns with the question "Are you a cop?" because law enforcement officers must answer truthfully.
Status: False.

Police don't have to reveal their status, even when asked flat out. There's nothing in the law to prohibit law enforcement officers from lying in the course of performing their duties. Were this not so, there'd be no sting operations that involve telling wanted criminals they'd just won trips to Bermudas to get them to come on in, or undercover operations where cops pretend to be suppliers to drug buyers......

Source: http://www.snopes.com/risque/hookers/cop.asp

Click to expand...