A Place On The . Net

I completely understand the frustration level.  I reject the very idea that "low speed"="safety".  I think it's outrageous for officers to perform duties that are not requested by the public they are sworn to serve and protect.

On the other hand, Entrapment is the act of a law enforcement agent in inducing a person to commit an offence which the person would not have, or was unlikely to have, otherwise committed.  So, for instance, if a police officer comes up to you, undercover, and hands you a brick of herion, and you take it, that would be a mild case of entrapment.  If you refuse to take it, and he says, "C'mon...  I know a guy who will by it from you for, like, $10,000!  Follow me!", that's a more clear case of entrapment.  The point is, the police are causing you, or impelling you, to do illegal stuff.

Now, I can't agree that this enforcement is entrapment.  Is it unethical?  Maybe.  But it's not entrapment, and here's why:  all those people speeding would be speeding whether the police were there or not.  The fact that a police officer is there doesn't suddenly make speeding illegal, that just makes it enforceable.  It was illegal all those times that the cops weren't there too, and the people were doing it "of their own free will and accord"!

I will say, I really think that the government has screwed The People by making law enforcement a for-profit business.  The police no longer "Serve and Protect".  They are out there to find YOU doing something wrong, and make you PAY for your misdeeds.  The thinking is backwards.

If someone calls a cop, God bless him for showing up.  However, if no one called you, and you don't see a real, blackstonian crime taking place, you really aren't doing anyone any favors by enforcing an unapportioned tax.

Read my blog ( http://trollingforretreads.blogspot.com ).  I talk about this a WHOLE lot.

By the way ... I'm a cop.  I mean everything I said, too (and I'm bipedal).

KE7CJV http://trollingforretreads.blogspot.com