No, there isn't an expectation, but then again, it's simply another reason not to trust law enforcement overall, in general, period. They can lie to you and call it police work, but if you do it to them, it's a crime. I'm a law abiding citizen, but I don't trust law enforcement one iota and I don't give a shit if you or them want me to believe that they have my interests at heart. They demonstrate daily they don't and never will. I'm not going to go out of my way to antagonize them, but I certainly won't be Mr. Cooperative if I don't have to be with them either.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Undercover Cops Selling Stolen iPhones
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
No, there isn't an expectation, but then again, it's simply another reason not to trust law enforcement overall, in general, period. They can lie to you and call it police work, but if you do it to them, it's a crime. I'm a law abiding citizen, but I don't trust law enforcement one iota and I don't give a shit if you or them want me to believe that they have my interests at heart. They demonstrate daily they don't and never will. I'm not going to go out of my way to antagonize them, but I certainly won't be Mr. Cooperative if I don't have to be with them either.
TheMadHatterXxX
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 3,021
Hence why I was questioning the legality of this whole thing.
I'd want him arrested for breaking and entering, trespassing. If he stole something, then pinch him, if he didn't then call it whatever you want. I'll shoot his ass first so they may not get a chance for attempted anything.
Yeah, I never understood that. They may be creating oportunities for violating the law that people otherwise may not have been exposed to in the first place, thus CREATING crime.
For example, say that you have an armored car with a door rigged to pop open a money bag with a million dollars fall out on the street. Wait for someone to pick it up, and voila, you have your criminal... who may otherwise never have committed a crime.
Same thing with prostitutes, I've seen here they will get these BEAUTIFUL women to pretend to be prostitutes that will go up to guys and say "hey I'll give you a blowjob for $20" and whammo eventually someone says "OMG she's so hot, yes yes yes". But that guy may otherwise have never gone out of his way to look for a ho. ENTRAPMENT!!!
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
Law enforcement isn't concerned about the law abiding citizen. If you obey the law, law enforcement doesn't bother you. The instant these people buy a stolen phone, they are not law abiding citizens.
I don't see how its so hard to believe a stolen cell phone sting is not having the average citizen in mind. If the market dries up due to these activities, the law abiding citizen has less likelihood of getting his cell phone stolen. If you don't buy stolen items, you don't have to worry about it. The only people "hurt" by this are those who think that buying stolen property is acceptable. People who likely wouldn't steal the phone themselves, but who don't have a problem with someone else stealing it and then reaping the benefit of it.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
You couldn't arrest him for any of those. At best you'd get criminal mischief for damaging your property.
Breaking and entering - actually have to enter the structure
Trespassing - either has to be posted, communicated to the suspect that he is not welcome, or actually enter a structure.
The fact that you can pinch him for attempted burglary (felony vs. summary on the crim. mischief) is a benefit to the average law abiding citizen.
Shooting him his your prerogative (depending on the laws of your state). My state allows it, and I wouldn't have a problem with it.
chockomonkey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 8,328
So all you'd have to say is, "Well i don't believe that it's stolen, but for the right price i'll buy it anyway."
But its clearly not stolen property, just because the officer says it is doesn't make it so otherwise what would cops be doing selling actual stolen property?
FearTheCow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,683
If the phones aren't really stolen, how are they charging people with a crime? and if the iphones are stolen, why are the cops not being charged with possession of stolen property?
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
I don't know how to explain this any easier. The fact that the property is stolen or not is irrelevant. The crime is the intention to purchase stolen property. The fact that the phone is not stolen is irrelevant. The suspect purchased the phone believing it to be stolen because the officer told him so. If the officer didn't tell him it was stolen, and he purchased the phone, he couldn't be arrested for purchasing stolen property because it wasn't actually stolen. The key is that the officer told him it was stolen.
chockomonkey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 8,328
What if the phone was stolen, and the officer didn't tell the buyer this, but he bought it anyway. Could you still be arrested for buying stolen property?
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
Theoretically, but it's harder to prove intent because a defense would be that he did not know the phone was stolen. You'd have to point to circumstantial factors such as the price of the phone, the likelihood that the suspect knew that part of town was used for selling illegal items, etc.
But it is not stolen. Therefore they have not purchased any stolen property.
The thugs here are the ones committing fraud by misrepresenting what they are selling.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
What stolen property?
UrielDagda
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,844
Lets just create a bunch of fake crimes so we can arrest people that might do real crimes before they do real crimes (maybe)!
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
They didn't indicate in the article that they were charging them with "receiving stolen property" ... it is quite possible that the "attempted purchased of stolen property" is also a crime ... many jurisdictions have both the actual success of a crime as well as the attempt to commit a crime on their books (Murder/Attempted murder, rape/attempted rape, robbery/attempted robbery, etc) ... how many of these laws exist varies by jurisdiction and they are still dependent on the jury system for enforcement ... if the juries refused to convict these "attempted" criminals then the police would pursue different avenues of enforcement
In this case SFO has a problem with stolen iPhones ... it is difficult to prevent all the thefts directly so they are attempting to make the market for selling the phones less attractive and thereby make the stealing of the phone to begin with less profitable and desirable
If this was a pedephile sting I doubt there would be much opposition to this ... but if it is drugs or stolen property suddenly everyone is up in arms
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,690
If this was a pedephile sting I doubt there would be much opposition to this ... but if it is drugs or stolen property suddenly everyone is up in arms
I just have a difficult time understanding how it would work in court.... I can see the how and why, just don't see it as a very good way of doing it. Seems like it wouldn't hold up in court. I'm not a lawyer, and it may be 100% workable. But, it's just my lack of understanding why I'm commenting. Ignorance, I guess.
So, I bought a phone that someone said was stolen, when in reality it was not stolen. So, because they said it was stolen and I tried buying it, it's a crime. So, if I were to run off and get caught two days later, what would the crime be? I purchased a phone that technically wasn't stolen. There is no crime, correct?
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
Once again...the crime is not purchasing the stolen phone, it's the intention to purchase the stolen phone. The phone is described as "stolen." You agree to purchase the phone. Once money changed hands, thus demonstrating your intention to purchase the item, you believed that you purchased a stolen item, or at the very least attempted to do so.
The analogy is the murder thing kbrickley brings up. If you attempt to murder someone, even if you don't actually murder them, you're still in violation of the law even though the person you attempted to murder is still walking around very much NOT murdered.
The analogy is the murder thing kbrickley brings up. If you attempt to murder someone, even if you don't actually murder them, you're still in violation of the law even though the person you attempted to murder is still walking around very much NOT murdered.
Agreed. Never trust what they say.
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,690
There is no stolen phone. So, the murder analogy -
A guy gives you a loaded gun and tells you to go into a room and murder his wife and gives you $5000 for the job. Cool, you take the money and gun and walk into the room where there is no wife. You intended on murdering a person. Is that a crime? It would crack down on hitmen.
Now, if they had someone out there selling actual stolen phones to people (not a police officer, just some dude) and they came and arrested the guys, I can see it easily on both sides.
I see why it's a crime, but with so many holes in the execution, it doesn't seem like it would stand up in court. Just intending to do something doesn't work for a lot of things. I intended to do the dishes for my wife and I still didn't get sex. :/
Answered that one already
A thoughtcrime is no crime at all. Just because the state says it is doesn't make it so.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
Well, attempt to buy a "stolen" phone and see how that defense works out for you.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
This is at best a fucked up social experiment to see who would be desperate enough to commit a "crime" by offering up goods at prices so fucking low they test a persons resolve and create criminals in an artificial way.
"you want a stolen iphone for free"
"uh sure"
"You're under arrest"
This is a crime of temptation, and that's it, find someone's breaking point, they have to make an offer? How about you pay me $300 for the phone... sure, you're still under arrest. Go after the motherfuckers who are selling stolen goods, not the ones who can be tempted into buying stolen goods if they're unbelievable cheap.
"You man just robbed a bank, I'll give you this stack of 100s for 20 bucks!"
yeah busted for money laundering
"you want a stolen iphone for free"
"uh sure"
"You're under arrest"
This is a crime of temptation, and that's it, find someone's breaking point, they have to make an offer? How about you pay me $300 for the phone... sure, you're still under arrest. Go after the motherfuckers who are selling stolen goods, not the ones who can be tempted into buying stolen goods if they're unbelievable cheap.
"You man just robbed a bank, I'll give you this stack of 100s for 20 bucks!"
yeah busted for money laundering
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
Mystique
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2009
- Messages
- 366
This is stupid. It's not going to stop the original thefts, because the things they steal still have value. There has to be something better for these people to do. If there isn't, fire them and let California not go further in debt.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
This is at best a fucked up social experiment to see who would be desperate enough to commit a "crime" by offering up goods at prices so fucking low they test a persons resolve and create criminals in an artificial way.
"you want a stolen iphone for free"
"uh sure"
"You're under arrest"
This is a crime of temptation, and that's it, find someone's breaking point, they have to make an offer? How about you pay me $300 for the phone... sure, you're still under arrest. Go after the motherfuckers who are selling stolen goods, not the ones who can be tempted into buying stolen goods if they're unbelievable cheap.
"You man just robbed a bank, I'll give you this stack of 100s for 20 bucks!"
yeah busted for money laundering
Although their execution (no pun intended) is a little convoluted, their goal is actually to try and reduce phone thefts ... since it is harder to put the amount of manpower in the field to prevent all thefts they are choosing to try and reduce the market (in the hopes of reducing the thefts) ... the people they are charging are not the ultimate intended targets ... they are just collateral damage in their overall goal ... flawed, perhaps, we'll have to see how it works out for them
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
Although their execution (no pun intended) is a little convoluted, their goal is actually to try and reduce phone thefts ... since it is harder to put the amount of manpower in the field to prevent all thefts they are choosing to try and reduce the market (in the hopes of reducing the thefts) ... the people they are charging are not the ultimate intended targets ... they are just collateral damage in their overall goal ... flawed, perhaps, we'll have to see how it works out for them
No I get the whole idea, remove the supply and the demand shrinks up. The problem with this thinking is that it doesn't work, it's not like the guys stealing the phones are not exactly out money if they can't sell their goods, more likely than not they simply hold onto the stolen phones a little longer before they make a sale.
How's this tactic worked at curbing prostitution? It hasn't, at most it moves it to other locations.
SmithyJones
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2000
- Messages
- 2,085
Soooo.... now that I know about this tactic... If I buy a supposedly stolen iphone, knowing it could be some cop feigning theft, is it still a crime? The sticking point was that they were telling me it was stolen, but since I have previous knowledge that it, in fact, is not actually stolen - do I not just get a cheap iphone?
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,690
Nope. They said it was stolen. Doesn't matter if you knew for a fact it was not stolen. They said it was. Therefore - you're guilty.
That makes no logical sense in light of what was previously posted. The original crime was intent to buy a stolen phone, since you know for a fact the phone is not stolen then you don't have that intent.
But what if you know for a fact it's not stolen?
Even if buying the phone is illegal, it's a shit practice to try and coax people in to buying a phone only to arrest them. If someone offered me an iphone for $1 and told me it was stolen, I'd be tempted to buy it just to turn it in to the cops (assuming I'm not worried I'm about to get the shit kicked out of me in which case I'd just keep walking, I know people who have been violently mugged, lured with the promise of cheap shit in to a dark alley).
The cops should be putting resources in to setting up the sellers for a fall, not setting up the buyers... that's if they actually gave a shit about crime instead of just giving a shit about making money and arrests.
So many people failing to understand entrapment...
It's the same way undercover cops get to setup stings to bust johns. Cop pretends to be a hooker, you accept the offer, go to jail. It doesn't matter that you were never going to get a BJ from the cop, good luck trying to argue that in front of a judge.
It's the same way undercover cops get to setup stings to bust johns. Cop pretends to be a hooker, you accept the offer, go to jail. It doesn't matter that you were never going to get a BJ from the cop, good luck trying to argue that in front of a judge.
This sting is complete rubbish. All it does is ensnare the low-risk offenders...the offenders who comprise a fraction of any amount of crime in the US.
Here is the scenario: cop is walking around with sealed phones asking for offers for his "stolen" merchandise. The phones aren't being represented as stolen off the street, but rather from stores. They then solicit an offer from the prospective buyer. No money needs to change hands after the offer is made on the tenuous claim that the offer is sufficient.
The problem, aside from the smell factor of it, is that the only people who will routinely fall for this kind of sting are those who have minimal experience with law enforcement, low reasoning abilities, and low resources. The kind of offender that can't really do much damage relative to medium or high risk offenders.
Bluntly stated: stupid and/or poor people who don't have much experience breaking the law.
Does that sound like a good segment to spend precious dollars trying to reduce their crime?
No, it's not. It's a poor use of resources and its efficacy is completely undermined by a tremendous amount of social science research regarding deterrence theory and risk-needs assessments.
The problem I have with kirbyrj's responses isn't that he's legally incorrect--he's not--it's that within half a dozen pages he hasn't addressed what the lay persons are picking up on: this kind of behavior completely undermines the legitimacy of the justice system. And that kind of response from otherwise normally law abiding citizens means these kinds of stings do more overall damage than good.
Legally acceptable behavior or not, it's bad social policy and horrible policing strategy. It's just made worse by the fact that it's also ineffective at reducing crime.
Here is the scenario: cop is walking around with sealed phones asking for offers for his "stolen" merchandise. The phones aren't being represented as stolen off the street, but rather from stores. They then solicit an offer from the prospective buyer. No money needs to change hands after the offer is made on the tenuous claim that the offer is sufficient.
The problem, aside from the smell factor of it, is that the only people who will routinely fall for this kind of sting are those who have minimal experience with law enforcement, low reasoning abilities, and low resources. The kind of offender that can't really do much damage relative to medium or high risk offenders.
Bluntly stated: stupid and/or poor people who don't have much experience breaking the law.
Does that sound like a good segment to spend precious dollars trying to reduce their crime?
No, it's not. It's a poor use of resources and its efficacy is completely undermined by a tremendous amount of social science research regarding deterrence theory and risk-needs assessments.
The problem I have with kirbyrj's responses isn't that he's legally incorrect--he's not--it's that within half a dozen pages he hasn't addressed what the lay persons are picking up on: this kind of behavior completely undermines the legitimacy of the justice system. And that kind of response from otherwise normally law abiding citizens means these kinds of stings do more overall damage than good.
Legally acceptable behavior or not, it's bad social policy and horrible policing strategy. It's just made worse by the fact that it's also ineffective at reducing crime.
I don't really think it is the same. Pretending to be a hooker, you're going to find the type of person who will pay for sex and actively seek it out... I feel going up to people and trying to sell them a cheap arse phone is going to catch out a lot of people who would never have thought to buy a stolen phone until presented the opportunity.
Whether it's illegal or not, it doesn't seem all that fair to me.
The undercover cop cannot solicit johns. They must wait for the johns to inquire.
No, it's much murkier than that. There is no specific standard for what constitutes entrapment. The general guideline is that cops can't convince someone to do something that an ordinary law abiding citizen wouldn't do.
Asking someone if they want a "date" and negotiating a price are perfectly legitimate in the eyes of many judges and those types of stings are done routinely. Chasing someone down the street pestering them into engaging in the crime would generally not be upheld.
Like in this article, the cops failed to tell some arrestees that the phones were stolen, solicited beggars to help them find buyers, and badgering people until they cave.
Like mope pointed out
>The officer claimed he needed money to buy his daughter Christmas presents
>Tester bought the iPhone for $20 because he was "feeling sorry" for the seller and his daughter
Falsely tugging on heart strings should be a crime.
Not quite sure what to think on the second quote.
>The officer claimed he needed money to buy his daughter Christmas presents
>Tester bought the iPhone for $20 because he was "feeling sorry" for the seller and his daughter
Falsely tugging on heart strings should be a crime.
Not quite sure what to think on the second quote.