sorry, wrong number!
I thought i was texting Brent!
-
Funny story, same person sent another TXT last night, this time it read:
"Just got some dank ass indoor hit me up!!"
Lol, who comes up with these names?!?!Leave a comment:
-
jesus, if yall would have just called the guy and got some sticky dank ya'll wouldn't even be arguing about it right now. lolLeave a comment:
-
Leave a comment:
-
After looking/reading through tons of cases on entrapment (specifically drug related) I am unable to find anything that is a mirror image of the situation that Ratt had. What I did find (but already knew), and IMHO, really seals the deal for this whole discussion is that there is the underlying theme of predisposition. Predisposition is actually the subjective test for entrapment cases.
If the defendent (Ratt in this case if he had bought from a LEO or agent of) was predisposed to purchase drugs and/or use them. In other words, if Ratt was known to smoke weed and/or purchase it then he has a predisposition for those acts. Self-admittedly, Ratt does not have either of these.
I am linking a few cases I found where predisposition is one of the main arguments of the prosecution and subsequent rulings being upheld or a conviction verdict given.
In Sorrells v. United States (287 U.S. 435 (1932)), the case where it had first recognized entrapment as a valid defense, and Sherman v. United States (356 U.S. 369 (1958)), another entrapment case involving an undercover drug investigation, the Court had chosen to ground entrapment in the question of whether it could be established that the defendant had a "predisposition" to commit the crime absent government involvement. This has become known as the "subjective" test of entrapment since it involves evaluating the defendant's state of mind. It was somewhat controversial in both decisions, even though they were unanimous in overturning the convictions, because concurrences in both cases had criticized it sharply and called instead for an "objective" standard which concentrated instead on the behavior of law enforcement.
Connolly and Russell both argued that, in their cases, it was the government agent's assistance in their enterprise — and only that — which had made the specific offenses they were tried for possible. The jury rejected that argument, following instead the subjective entrapment standard, holding that they were
[edit] AppealThe United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed that the conduct of the government agents trumped any inclination to make and deal meth and overturned the conviction. Prosecutors petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari.
This was actually overturned, but not on the basis of entrapment, but by other actions of government officials (providing a key meth ingredient).
United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973), was the first time the United States Supreme Court upheld (albeit narrowly) a conviction where the defendant had argued entrapment. Although an undercover federal agent had helped procure a key ingredient for an illegal methamphetamine manufacturing operation, and assisted in the process, the Court followed its earlier rulings on the subject and found that the defendant had a predisposition to make and sell illegal drugs whether he worked with the government or not.
I also found this, which I feel is a good summation of entrapment.
I could go on and on with case links I found, but once again the underlying theme is predisposition, which did/does not exist in Ratt's case.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: