Stay Safe, Bros. Important Info

[Dexter]

Immortal

I've no hard feelings whatsoever, Immortal. I'm sure there are others who could offer very valuable information, but what makes it so damned difficult for people to do so? Who wants to contribute to a thread that's going away when it should be a constant "sticky"?

Maybe it's just easier to post on a T-3 thread, like "When should I take clen?"

This thread, as well as your original, IMO, is just fundamentally significant. It is one fine thread.

I think the number of busts would go down 60%, an arbitrary figure, if, as you suggested, people would just use their heads. First, to understand what they're getting into, and then plan for a dozen different contingencies.

Frankly, not only are really good domestics rare IMO, but they just don't make enough money for the risks they constantly take. When I was working in the U.S., I can't count the number of precautions necessary to make sure everyone was safe. I could list a dozen right now; please forgive me for not.

And hats off to the policemen who put their lives on the line everyday, not for the money or glory, but because they are dedicated...even if they do have to enforce the Rule of Law, including AAS possession and distribution, which most knlwledgeable and athletic people consider, well, a joke.

Dexter

 

[Dr.Evil]

Re: Re: Re: Stay Safe, Bros. Important Info

How did they make the charges stick in the cases you saw? I bet there were more factors that contributed to the conviction than simply recieving.

simply by connecting the massive amounts found in the house w/ what's in the package. i don't know if they can prove 100% that the person had knowledge of the contents, but b/c of what was found in the house, there's a possibility that a jury will not see past this.

moral of the story is, clean house when you receive...

 

[Dr.Evil]

Re: What about this scenario...

What if there are actual DEA agents, or what have you, right here on the board posing as sources, I AM IN NO WAY IMPLYING THAT THERE ARE, just playing devils advocate, what would be the case then?? Especially in the case of common individuals ordering 20-40ml's for personal use??

i hate to break it to you pal, but there are actual DEA agents on the boards. a few boards i know actually got subpoenaed by the DEA b/c one of its members was busted and his IP address and other info from the boards were subpoenaed.

DEA and other agents don't pose as sources. they're posing as customers, trying to get to sources. and yes, the boards are swarmed with them now.

it is very unlikely that you'll just get a controlled delivery on a small buy from a source. remember, they're trying to find the big fish, not the little guys. there are times where they might try to get to little guys in order to get to the big fish, but in the world of the internet where it's so easy to go directly to the big fish it would be a waste of the agents' time to first go through the little people.

 

[manny78]

HELL NO - HUGE MISTAKE


Entrapment is when someone is encouraged and persuaded to do something they would not normally do. For example if someone who had never sold drugs before was asked by a narc to try to find some coke for him and kept persisting that the guy find some coke, mabye even suggested a guy to go to. Then if the guy went out and bought the coke only because of the nagging narc, that would be entrapment.

entrapment is no longer used (cause Court of Laws here ruled it was against our Bill of Rights). At least you can't arrest someone who never sold drugs in his life cause of an entrapment op. But you still can bust the source (the guy who first sold the drug to our innocent victim).

 

[Immortal Juicer]

Let me just add...

When police officer use tricks like deceptive quesioning, and threatening penalties to get people to give a statement or consent to a search, they are...

...in effect purposly attempting to make a citizen waive their rights, which were established as laws by the government designed to protect its citizens and guarantee them with their God given rights. The exact same laws the police office swore to honor and uphold so that we could have the luxury of these self- evident rights we found to be true.

So basically they are doing the exact opposite of what the swear by oath.

 

[nycdefender]

I am very happy that Immortal Juicer is spreading the gospel of don't speak to the police without a lawyer and don't consent to any searches of your person or your house. Thanks, Immortal, for listening!

I'm not thrilled by the prospect of a client signing for a package. It's true that without an incriminating statement as to your knowledge of the contents of the package it's difficult (but not impossible) to prove that you knew what you were receiving. If law enforcement makes a controlled delivery to your door (after you have corresponded with the "source"), then doesn't signing for the package bolster the inference that you expected that very package? If I were a DA, I would certainly argue that point. This hypothetical is avoided by receiving packages with siganture waived.

As to the subject of entrapment, Immortal Juicer's paraphrase is correct of the principle of the defense, but the example given is not entrapment. Prodding and persistence by an officer to get a citizen to do something illegal doesn't make out entrapment. At least in New York, the officer's conduct must "create a substantial risk that the offense jwould be committed by a person not otherwise predisposed to commit it." Merely affording the person an opportunity to commit the crime is not sufficient to raise the defense. In practice, it's very hard to receive an entrapment charge at trial. As a side note, if the police conduct was outrageous, federal due process may warrant dismissal of the case, despite a defendant's predisposition to commit the crime. See United States v. Chin , 934 F.2d 393, 398 (2d Cir.1991)

I can't remember everyone's issues on this thread. If I see other issues to address or if anyone has any additional questions, I'll post again.

 

[Immortal Juicer]

Awesome!! Thanks NYC Defender!

The more I learn about how the CJ system works, the more I'm amazed at how helpless and vulenerable I was by not fully understanding my rights.

I read up on proving guilty knowledge, and the number one factor in establishing guilt was inconsistent statements at the time of arrest, when the defendant was scared as hell and basically said anything he could to get out of the situation, and that which he provided in court after he and his attorney had an opprutunity to discuss and prepare the best case possible.

The Ramsey's are a perfect example. They didnt give a statement to law enforcement for over a year after their daughter was found dead in their home. That is some pretty convincing evidence of an extremely severe offense. But look what happened.

The burden of proof is on the state, and civil rights are the luxury of the offender. For gods sake dont waive those rights, incriminate yourself, and do the prosecutors job for them.

There are so many people sitting in prison right now because they did just that!!

 

[nycdefender]

Re: What about this scenario...

What sort of legal issues could arise from utilizing this very board to search for, find, verify with mods and ultimately order from a source found here? Would this fall into the catagory of entrapment where the individual may not have done it in "real time", but due to the annonymous nature of the internet he felt less risk? What if there are actual DEA agents, or what have you, right here on the board posing as sources, I AM IN NO WAY IMPLYING THAT THERE ARE, just playing devils advocate, what would be the case then?? Especially in the case of common individuals ordering 20-40ml's for personal use??

Still not entrapment under any of your scenarios. Just because a discussion board might provide some anonymity to your actions, no law enforcement agent is making you do something you otherwise would not do. Enticement is not entrapment.

If a DEA agent was posing as a source, there might be entrapment if the agent sends you an unsolicited e-mail. But if you request information from the agent and then order--that's not entrapment. Hypothetically speaking--let's suppose a board has a classifides section for sources to advertise. If a DEA agent posed as a source and listed the most incredible prices for AS. Further suppose that you write the "source" and place an order. That's still not entrapment. You're doing something that you wanted to do. The law enforcement agent merely gave you the opportunity to commit the crime.

 

[Immortal Juicer]

How common are controlled deliveries today? It seems like the Feds have much bigger issues to address than some guy buying steroids from overseas where they are legal.

And on HBO Sports and recently in ESPN magazine they referred to the low priority of juice.

I believe it was a DEA agent that said "you dont go rob liquor stores to support a steroid habit." or something to that extent.

Are they really looking for it, or enforcing the law when it is thrown in their face?

 

[Dexter]

nycdefender

You clearly know the law, not to insult your background through my ignorance of it.

PLEASE, do not let this thread go away.

It should be considered "Platinum" privilege without the cost.

Dexter