So couldn’t you require new recruits to hurt people as part of their hiring process to stop undercover police officers?
I don’t know how relaible my sources are, but I’ve understood that happens. In context of this, it could shed new light on why.
The problem with this approach is that in order to prevent the undercover cops from going through with it, it must be a crime, at which point you are guilty of solicitation the moment you require it of them. Assuming you do this to all your new hires, they’re likely to know about it, and can simply go in knowing they’ll bag you for that crime instead.
Admittedly, they’d probably rather nab you for the greater crimes you’ve committed, but something beats nothing I’m sure.
That’s true of the person who asks. Except undercover operations would generally be considered a horrendous failure if all they caught was the small fry, and only for handling the initiation. In theory at least, they tend to have specific, large-scale goals.
That’s supposedly the reason why having killed someone is a de facto requirement for becoming a “made man” in the mafia.
Makes a certain brutal sense out of gang-rape/sex as an initiation.
“Prove you’re not a cop; service this rugby league.”
I’m pretty sure blowing a rugby team isn’t illegal (in most states, anyway). The cop wouldn’t be prohibited from doing that at all.
Wouldn’t any statute that prohibited servicing a rugby team be unconstitutional under Lawrence V Texas? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
Question: Is the remedy for violation of this rule (e.g. police hurting someone) really dismissal of the charges?
I suspect it’s not, which makes this one of those “And even if they did, it STILL wouldn’t be entrapment” things.