Right, and that's why things mentioned above - like speed traps and drug buys as part of ongoing investigations - are not entrapment. If a cop sitting behind a sign dings a speeder, well, the motorist was already speeding to begin with - they were already guilty when the cop observed their excessive speed. But your scenario doesn't fit what's going on with this particular sting operation, however.
The best example I can give of entrapment would be a situation where you have no criminal record and your are unknown to the police for any criminal propensities. You are minding your own business and someone approaches you and says something to the effect that he has some stolen Rolex watches and he would sell you one cheap. You take a chance and buy one and oops - it is an undercover operation. This is entrapment because it was the police who initiated the transaction.
Yes, and that seems to be what is going on here - trying to get people who don't have previous criminal records (at least none that the cops involved in the sting operation knows about) to commit a felony crime. Look at the article again, and we see some interesting things to be drawn from what it says:
1) There's nothing in the article that indicates that the sting was targeting a particular high-theft area or that burglars were working this area, and hence, would be more likely to be available to take the bait.
2) While the article does note that thefts from vehicles increase this time of year, again, there's no evidence that any person or groups of person with a known propoensity for this type of crime was being "stung".
3) Instead, the wording of the article suggests that the police were just laying out bait and hoping that someone, anyone, would take it and get a felony arrest. They're throwing out a net, and hoping to drag in the few who would commit a crime of opportunity - again, not knowing who passing by the car may be, or even that someone who did bite on the bait was previously part of that population.
I believe that what we see here is just a police effort to create criminals and justify a budget.
On the other hand, you see someone you believe is selling stolen watches. You ask him if they are stolen and he says yes and you decide to purchase one anyway. OOPS! It's an undercover operation but you have no defense because you initiated the transaction.
Which has no relevancy to what the police were doing in this case, since it was they who were initiating the transaction, so to speak.
I was making a point by way of explanation. I will say this however. There is no court case you can cite that agrees that if police put out property in public and someone steals it that it is entrapment. NO COURT CASE!
"Yes, and that seems to be what is going on here - trying to get people who don't have previous criminal records (at least none that the cops involved in the sting operation knows about) to commit a felony crime."
Prove that statement! Show me where in the article that the intent of the police is to get people who don't have prior records! The police put the property out there and people are going to make their own decisions regardless of their past. The cops don't have any knowledge who is going to come by and decide to take the property Show me in the article that they know for certain!.
"There's nothing in the article that indicates that the sting was targeting a particular high-theft area or that burglars were working this area, and hence, would be more likely to be available to take the bait."
And how can you say with 100% certainty that on the day of the sting that burglars WOULDN'T be working the area? Are you THAT good at predictions? If so, you need to go into law enforcement. Cops can make good guesses based on recent trends that crooks might be working an area, but no cop that I have ever heard of can predict with pinpoint accuracy a day in advance that crimes will or will not happen in a given populated area. In many cities, burglars work the entire city. They are just as likely to hit one residential area or shopping area as another. There is no requirement for the cops to target any particular area. That might be construed as "profiling" and I am sure YOU wouldn't support THAT! It doesn't matter where the sting operation is set up. The only thing that matters is if someone takes the property.
"While the article does note that thefts from vehicles increase this time of year, again, there's no evidence that any person or groups of person with a known propoensity for this type of crime was being "stung"."
You are hinting around again that the police should be "profiling." Do you support profiling? Anyway, the result is that if no one took any property then no one was stung were they? How can you sting people who don't do anything?
"Instead, the wording of the article suggests that the police were just laying out bait and hoping that someone, anyone, would take it and get a felony arrest. They're throwing out a net, and hoping to drag in the few who would commit a crime of opportunity - again, not knowing who passing by the car may be, or even that someone who did bite on the bait was previously part of that population."
Well it takes a real sucker to take a chance on taking property that doesn't belong to him. The police just might be watching. I, and many of the FReepers here have the common sense God gave us not to take something from a vehicle that doesn't belong to us. If someone else is so jaw droppingly brain dead STUPID that they will commit a crime of opportunity and the police are watching and they get arrested - LOLOLOLOLOL! Screw them!
"I believe that what we see here is just a police effort to create criminals and justify a budget."
Well this one failed. It won't take too many of these failed stings and they will stop. Management wants stats, and zero stats is ungood.
"Which has no relevancy to what the police were doing in this case, since it was they who were initiating the transaction, so to speak."
Wrong. The police are not initiating any transaction here. They are not in direct communications with anyone. The police are passive and waiting until someone commits a "crime of opportunity." That someone could be an illegal alien, a parolee, a gang member, a drug addict, or just an innocent citizen who happens to come by and can't restrain himself and just has to commit a crime on that particular day. In all cases - TOUGH LUCK YA RETARD!