Steroids from.....Facebook?

Ha okay then, I guess I consider myself well enough educated on the subject to know something wasn’t right with this whole ordeal.

[quote]J-J wrote:
PaddyM wrote:
J-J wrote:
It won’t be the law as that is entrapment, however it will be some idiot trying to scam or make a buck selling gear and they will be shut down very soon indeed.

Of course there will also be a record of all communications between them and ‘customers’ given to the law from facebook too.

Providing an opportunity to buy illegal drugs is not entrapment.

I see… i thought that entrapment would include police pretending to be dealers to trick buyers too.

I’m sure you are right tho - i don’t really know.[/quote]

Then there would be no DEA :slight_smile:

I am not saying that such a site wouldn’t be busted, their records seized and acted on and any buyers at that time charged - BUT is it not entrapment for the DEA to set up a site themselves purely to attract buyers?

Surely that is entrapment - by simple definition of the word!

Of course, it may very well be different in the US, where many government agencies are significantly less ethical than in the UK.

[quote]J-J wrote:
I am not saying that such a site wouldn’t be busted, their records seized and acted on and any buyers at that time charged - BUT is it not entrapment for the DEA to set up a site themselves purely to attract buyers?

Surely that is entrapment - by simple definition of the word!

Of course, it may very well be different in the US, where many government agencies are significantly less ethical than in the UK.[/quote]

Yeah mate, you’ve got it right on entrapment. It’s funny because 9 times out of 10, people scream “entrapment” when it isn’t, but it meets the test here, unless I don’t have all the facts surrounding the nature of his Facebook communications.

(1) Intent to commit the crime originated with the creative activities of government officials (law enforcement), NOT with the defendant

(2) Defendant wasn’t predisposed to commit the act (purchase & use) prior to the initial contact by government officials

Many instance aren’t entrapment because they involve a setup by a private official, or the government official (=cop) is just setting up an opportunity for the commission of the crime.

[quote]whotookmyname wrote:
J-J wrote:
I am not saying that such a site wouldn’t be busted, their records seized and acted on and any buyers at that time charged - BUT is it not entrapment for the DEA to set up a site themselves purely to attract buyers?

Surely that is entrapment - by simple definition of the word!

Of course, it may very well be different in the US, where many government agencies are significantly less ethical than in the UK.

Yeah mate, you’ve got it right on entrapment. It’s funny because 9 times out of 10, people scream “entrapment” when it isn’t, but it meets the test here, unless I don’t have all the facts surrounding the nature of his Facebook communications.

(1) Intent to commit the crime originated with the creative activities of government officials (law enforcement), NOT with the defendant

(2) Defendant wasn’t predisposed to commit the act (purchase & use) prior to the initial contact by government officials

Many instance aren’t entrapment because they involve a setup by a private official, or the government official (=cop) is just setting up an opportunity for the commission of the crime.
[/quote]

hanks - i though so.

Isn’t this the thinking behind cop cars not being allowed to HIDE to catch speeding cars any more in the States (in MA at least) - requiring them to be in plain sight?

[quote]DOHCrazy wrote:
Cortes wrote:
DOH, I am pretty well positive mp did not have you in mind AT ALL when posting what he did above. He has, indeed, been in this game since many of the people on this board were watching Sesame Street. He’s also been a member of a lot of other boards, certainly before T-Nation ever existed. Hell, I’m pretty sure he was connected before the friggin internet existed.

The kind of person he describes certainly does not describe you at all (though you may successfully use TSC). It describes a certain kind of uppity individual which, believe it or not, T-Nation just doesn’t have too much of. The ones the do come here don’t last long because we run them off. They’re not our kind, so to speak.

Again, I am damn well positive that mp is speaking from many years of experience, and what he says, as it applies to the general population at large, really is true. If anything, he wasn’t thinking a damned thing of you when posting what he did, and that is probably as offensive as things would have gotten between the two of you, if not for what I’m certain is a misunderstanding.

Honestly, he’s a really nice guy. He looks really scary and stuff, and he wouldn’t make much of an Easter bunny, but he’s a pretty cool dude :wink:

And for the record, I believe in God, too. But let’s keep that kind of stuff out of the steroid forum. It never leads anywhere good.

I agree, I think we both misunderstood each other.

I appologize Morepain, and also to you Cortes.
[/quote]

Hey no worries DOH. I just try and follow Rodney King’s philosophy :wink:

[quote]J-J wrote:
whotookmyname wrote:
J-J wrote:
I am not saying that such a site wouldn’t be busted, their records seized and acted on and any buyers at that time charged - BUT is it not entrapment for the DEA to set up a site themselves purely to attract buyers?

Surely that is entrapment - by simple definition of the word!

Of course, it may very well be different in the US, where many government agencies are significantly less ethical than in the UK.

Yeah mate, you’ve got it right on entrapment. It’s funny because 9 times out of 10, people scream “entrapment” when it isn’t, but it meets the test here, unless I don’t have all the facts surrounding the nature of his Facebook communications.

(1) Intent to commit the crime originated with the creative activities of government officials (law enforcement), NOT with the defendant

(2) Defendant wasn’t predisposed to commit the act (purchase & use) prior to the initial contact by government officials

Many instance aren’t entrapment because they involve a setup by a private official, or the government official (=cop) is just setting up an opportunity for the commission of the crime.

hanks - i though so.

Isn’t this the thinking behind cop cars not being allowed to HIDE to catch speeding cars any more in the States (in MA at least) - requiring them to be in plain sight?[/quote]

Nah, that wouldn’t be entrapment, as the idea to speed clearly originates with the driver, and the absence of visible cops only presents an apparent opportunity to speed. Some of the rules & practices that states use regarding speed traps are influenced by the need to comply with RICO, the federal anti-racketeering laws. RICO enforcement led to a crackdown on small-town sheriffs etc… and their corrupt ways of generating revenue.

That would not qualify as entrapment in the US.

LE is simply providing a opportunity to commit a crime. They are not attempting to force or coerce people (as far as I know from what I see in regards to those ads)

Think of it as a cop posing as a prostitute.

[quote]fishebulb wrote:
That would not qualify as entrapment in the US.

LE is simply providing a opportunity to commit a crime. They are not attempting to force or coerce people (as far as I know from what I see in regards to those ads)

Think of it as a cop posing as a prostitute.
[/quote]

If you’re talking about the original poster, he wrote that people added him as a friend and offered to sell him steroids and provide him samples. It’s not as though he stumbled onto their website / honeypot (which would be akin to your example of searching for / finding a hooker, only to discover that she was LE… not entrapment). Furthermore he hadn’t indicated any inclination to use steroids. The offer of samples would be particularly dispositive here, imo, as it is a strong, “creative” effort to entice a non-user to become a user, and far exceeds simply “providing an opportunity”.

Of course affirmative defenses are always going to be a crapshoot at trial, and given the attitude towards AAS amongst the judiciary, one can’t depend entirely on an entrapment defense, but I’d definitely bring forth one hell of a strong argument for the OP… if this was a real situation.

The samples part would probably carry over to entrapment. But I don’t see the friending and offering as the friending step is irrelevant, it would still come down to just offering.

I have seen some shady banner ads on facebook though.

[quote]DOHCrazy wrote:
And before you rebuttal, I know your post will say, “No DOHCrazy, you’re the one who has no clue what he is talking about.”

Well, your ‘super-secret’ source may be good, but I have blood test to prove mine is excellent. I’m afraid you can not describe the differences between your ‘super-secret’ source and a good source on TSC. They both use WU, they both ship you the gear, and they both make it in an UGL. The quality of their gear has nothing to do with where a user found their e-mail. If you can prove other wise, please do.

Last, I have never made fun of anyone who is still at your ‘level one.’ I make fun of people that can’t use the search function, can’t do their own research, can’t spell correctly, and still thinks god is real. I would never make fun of someone who has done years of research, can type correctly, and still hasn’t gotten to your ‘level two.’

[/quote]

i hope the pic in you’re avatar is pre-steroid use… cuz if not, you’re “source is [not] excellent]” at all.