Well, Kellimus, I'm glad to say I agree with you for once. If the cop truly lied like that, then that's definitely a funk on their part. I still don't think it's entrapment, but to me that appears to be a violation of the "due process" clause of the fourteenth amendment, since they screwed up the "due process" required to give you a citation.

Quote from Vrael

Well, Kellimus, I'm glad to say I agree with you for once. If the cop truly lied like that, then that's definitely a funk on their part. I still don't think it's entrapment, but to me that appears to be a violation of the "due process" clause of the fourteenth amendment, since they screwed up the "due process" required to give you a citation.

So lemme get this straight...

You support Authority not doing their job correctly and breaking laws? That's what you've said:

Quote

since they screwed up the "due process" required to give you a citation.

How is the "due process" for Authority screwing up and not following STATE LAWS, to cite an innocent civilian just doing their job???? That's absolutely ludicrous logic if you ask me. The 'due process' for Authority for screwing up, giving a citation to a civilian through illegal means and lying, should be to take the policeman off the force for breaking the laws HE is supposed to 'uphold'.

And how do you not understand that its Entrapment?

Utah State Law has passed laws that allow Police to:

A) Aid and abed a minor to break the law with no repercussions to the minor, due to the fact that they work for the state. No citation, no NOTHING for a Minor in Possession of Tobacco, no citation or anything for them breaking the law. Because they 'work for the state'

B) Superceed Federal Laws that prohibit the use of individuals in use of Commerce.

C) Carry a MINOR passenger in their undercover squad car, to various private property and private stores for use in illicit and illegal activity.

Now, the law also states that if a Minor who is working for the state in these sting-operations is asked to provide an ID at the time of the crime, BY LAW, they have to.

Now this is where its Entrapment:

Underage Minor Working For the State (UMWFS): "Can I get a pack of Marlboro Lights?
Clerk: "Sure." *gets pack* "Do you have your ID with you?"
UMWFS: *Shakes head* "Nope"
Clerk: *Hesitates* "Is there anyone you're with that is over 18 and has an ID I could see?"
UMWFS: *Shakes head again*
Clerk: *Hesistates even more* "I'm not supposed to sell you this without an ID....But I've been in your position before" *Sells the tobacco to the UMWFS, UMWFS leaves and gets in back of car. Clerk watches the undercover cop walk into the store with citations*
Undercover: *Puts hand on hip* "I'm officer Crocket from Tremonton Sherrifs Department, do you know"
Clerk: *Nods head* "I know who you are and you don't need to present yourself"
Undercover: *Ignoring the clerk, proceeds* "Is there any reason why you didn't ask her for ID?"
Clerk: "But officer, I did ask her for ID and she didn't have one. I know what I did was against company policy and against the law for selling without an ID"
Undercover: "Well, you're being cited for selling tobacco to a minor"

Notice the Bolded part. "Well, you're being cited for selling tobacco to a minor" is where the law. FUCKED up.

I don't like to repeat myself, but here: The officer was in the car. The minor was wired. The cop would have known I would have asked her for ID. The cop proceeded to cite me anyways. That = Entrapment.

If you can't see that, then I honestly don't know how else to explain to you to make you understand that its Entrapment and the 'technicality' that the PA is talking about, is the simple fact he knows its a Federal Offence to Entrap someone, and he knows that's what they did.

Seriously, how IS IT NOT Entrapment? I did break the law, yes. I have stated that many times. But they Entrapped me into doing so by not presenting ID when BY LAW, they are supposed to.

Edit: I misread what you said, but my point about the Due Process still remains, that's why I've left it there.

Kellimus, take a chill pill man, I said I agreed with you.

I said it was a failure on their part to correctly execute the "due process" required by not just federal or state law, but the U.S. constitution.

Additionally, the Utah law may take precedence over the federal law because it is not a matter of inter-state commerce, but rather a singe state. Our national (I'll explain in a second why I didn't say federal) government is only supreme in those areas delegated specifically to it by the constitution. Take the 10th amendment:

Quote from U.S. Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So yes, it is possible for Utah state laws to supercede federal laws, so long as they are not powers given specifically to the federal government.
And as to why I called it national, is because our entire government as a whole, the national AND the state governments, is a federal government. It's a common misconception that the national government is a "federal" government, but by itself, it cannot be. Here's the definition of federal from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/federal?qsrc=2888 :
1. pertaining to or of the nature of a union of states under a central government distinct from the individual governments of the separate states: the federal government of the U.S.

Here is where I disagree:

Quote from Kellimus

I don't like to repeat myself, but here: The officer was in the car. The minor was wired. The cop would have known I would have asked her for ID. The cop proceeded to cite me anyways. That = Entrapment.

You were not induced to commit the crime, merely afforded the opportunity. But you're right about this:

Quote from Kellimus

is where the law. FUCKED up.

They failed to properly execute the law, and as such, you shouldn't have to pay for that.

Quote from Kellimus

You support Authority not doing their job correctly and breaking laws? That's what you've said:

Please keep your posts to what I've actually said, and not what you think or want me to mean:

Quote from SD Rules

5. Clarity and Effort. Please do not be unnecessarily ambiguous or deceptive in your posts. It is disruptive when there is a debate spanning a large amount of posts when you could have simply explained it well at the beginning. You will be held to what you SAY, not what you MEAN. If you do not have time or are not willing to put forth the effort to fully formulate and develop an idea, don't post. Posts judged to be of a low quality will be deleted at moderation's discretion.

I apologize if what I said was ambiguous, however.

Quote from Vrael

Kellimus, take a chill pill man, I said I agreed with you.

I said it was a failure on their part to correctly execute the "due process" required by not just federal or state law, but the U.S. constitution.

Additionally, the Utah law may take precedence over the federal law because it is not a matter of inter-state commerce, but rather a singe state. Our national (I'll explain in a second why I didn't say federal) government is only supreme in those areas delegated specifically to it by the constitution. Take the 10th amendment:

Quote from U.S. Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So yes, it is possible for Utah state laws to supercede federal laws, so long as they are not powers given specifically to the federal government.
And as to why I called it national, is because our entire government as a whole, the national AND the state governments, is a federal government. It's a common misconception that the national government is a "federal" government, but by itself, it cannot be. Here's the definition of federal from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/federal?qsrc=2888 :
1. pertaining to or of the nature of a union of states under a central government distinct from the individual governments of the separate states: the federal government of the U.S.

Here is where I disagree:

Quote from Kellimus

I don't like to repeat myself, but here: The officer was in the car. The minor was wired. The cop would have known I would have asked her for ID. The cop proceeded to cite me anyways. That = Entrapment.

You were not induced to commit the crime, merely afforded the opportunity. But you're right about this:

Quote from Kellimus

is where the law. FUCKED up.

They failed to properly execute the law, and as such, you shouldn't have to pay for that.

Quote from Kellimus

You support Authority not doing their job correctly and breaking laws? That's what you've said:

Please keep your posts to what I've actually said, and not what you think or want me to mean:

Quote from SD Rules

5. Clarity and Effort. Please do not be unnecessarily ambiguous or deceptive in your posts. It is disruptive when there is a debate spanning a large amount of posts when you could have simply explained it well at the beginning. You will be held to what you SAY, not what you MEAN. If you do not have time or are not willing to put forth the effort to fully formulate and develop an idea, don't post. Posts judged to be of a low quality will be deleted at moderation's discretion.

I apologize if what I said was ambiguous, however.

Explain to me how I was 'not induced to commit the crime' if you could, please? You aren't me, so you were not there to witness first hand, the illegal activity done so by the Undercover Policeman and the minor coming in, lying to me, and getting me cited.

I was induced to commit the crime by them coming onto Private Property with a Minor with intent to use a Minor (against the law) in Commerce (against Federal Law) to try to break the law. They didn't follow the rules they were supposed to, and I was deemed a criminal because of such actions by being cited for faulty police work.

How is having a worker OF THE STATE that looks of age come into the store wanting to buy tobacco and not following the LAWs that have been inacted by the state, not being induced? You could say its because I sold her the tobacco without the ID which is against the law but I followed protocol regarding the act of asking for ID, but it all boils down to something simple: She lied to me.

Which thus; has created the Entrapment

Quote from Kellimus

lying to me, and getting me cited.

If that convo you posted was the actual convo, then she never lied to you.

Quote from Kellimus

Explain to me how I was 'not induced to commit the crime' if you could, please?

Quote

in⋅duce
–verb (used with object), -duced, -duc⋅ing.
1. to lead or move by persuasion or influence, as to some action or state of mind: to induce a person to buy a raffle ticket.

Based on your conversation, she didn't lead you or move you by persuasion or influence. Nor did she ask you to break the law and sell her the ciagarettes. You empathized with her, saying that "I've [you've] been in your position before". You decided to break the law. You knew what you were doing was wrong. You went so far as to say so as you were doing it. She made no active attempt to convince you to sell her the cigarettes. She didn't even say please.

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

Quote from Kellimus

Explain to me how I was 'not induced to commit the crime' if you could, please?

Quote

in⋅duce
–verb (used with object), -duced, -duc⋅ing.
1. to lead or move by persuasion or influence, as to some action or state of mind: to induce a person to buy a raffle ticket.

Based on your conversation, she didn't lead you or move you by persuasion or influence. Nor did she ask you to break the law and sell her the ciagarettes. You empathized with her, saying that "I've [you've] been in your position before". You decided to break the law. You knew what you were doing was wrong. You went so far as to say so as you were doing it. She made no active attempt to convince you to sell her the cigarettes. She didn't even say please.

Ah, but her being in the situation is what could have induced me because of influence, if you really want to go on about it, according to the definition you've applied that is.

But its in the past and it doesn't matter. Its been proven they Entrapped me or else I would have still gotten my citation and a fine.