An undercover sting video on ACORN in Baltimore is all over the news. Watch it here on youtube before they take it down, as they did with a similar sting of Planned Parenthood. Watch it for comedic value alone, as stingers O'Keefe and Giles play their pimp and ho roles to the max, complete with fur coat & cane for him, and tiny, tight miniskirt for her.
But no matter how entertaining, it has to be denounced. In our era of police-statism, stings have proliferated. Stings are now used for any and everything. King County runs thousands annually on grocery clerks. If a clerk can be tricked into selling tobacco or booze to a 'decoy,', it means a fine, and often the loss of a job. Stings have been conducted on African hair braiders, and on farmers selling milk. The Ruby Ridge debacle in the 1990's started with a BATF sting.. Weaver, who was not involved in nor suspected of gun violations prior to the sting, was eventually acquitted on the basis of entrapment, but not before his wife and son were killed.
The sting of ACORN was not a law enforcement operation, but stings by journalists are no less insidious. Local gun-rights advocates cried foul when KIRO TV reporter Chris Halsne ran an idiotic undercover sting at a gun show around the time of the DC 'sniper' case. Then there was the sting of the late Sen. Jim West by the Spokesman-Review. They hired a former law enforcement officer to entrap him in an online sting. The tabloid 'Globe' hired a very buxom former flight attendant to lure sports announcer Frank Gifford into adultery in a camera-equipped hotel room. The sting was a success, as Gifford gave in to temptation. I would have too!
The tactic is sleazy, underhanded, and ripe for abuse whether done by police or journalists, whether to advance a left or right-wing agenda. The scenario is controlled from start to finish by the stingers, and they can adjust the level of deception to get the result they want. They may repeatedly fail, but they just move on to the next mark. The misses go unmentioned, and the hits are trumpeted. And they can edit out entrapping moves that might give pause to a disinterested observer. It's bad enough with LE, where oversight is often inadequate.. With a self-styled 'journalist' it is guaranteed that there is zero oversight.
Do we really want a world full of spies, stings, and gotchas? I can see why the deceivers of the left want it, but we on the right must reject it.
Posted by 6p01053690976c970c at September 12, 2009 09:41 PM | Email ThisStings are not 'like anything else.' They are a deception from start to finish and thus inherently subject to abuse. Someone has to decide how to control the level of deception.
For example, can we persuade a girl that her mother is dying, needs money for surgery, then offer to pay it if she will commit an act of prostitution?
Even with the ACORN video, if the workers were clever, they could have claimed after the fact that they were playing along with the guy so that they could set him up and turn him over to police. There must be careful oversight and controls if a sting is to be used at all.
Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on September 13, 2009 02:23 PMYour example of what a Sting is, is Laughable. A Sting, in no way, puts pressure on anybody to commit an illegal act. Let alone, the extreme pressure your example entails. A Sting allows for the opportunity to show a willingness to commit an illegal act and in some cases to follow through in the commission of an illegal act/conduct. A temptation may be in the offering such as, offering a person a bribe but, no pressure of circumstance other than, the dishonest avarice of the individual or group that is involved.
Your position that Stings can be misused and therefore, all Stings should be disallowed is also, Laughable. Just, about everything can be misused and you would certainly not outlaw whatever was misused simply because, it was misused. How Silly! A knife can be misused. Do you outlaw all knifes? Of course not!
Yes, you have offered Phony Crap in order to present and support your position. No surprise there. After all...You're a Liberal!
And it it is liberals who have supported the proliferation of sting operations. Liberals cheered when the BATF took advantage of Randy Weaver's woes to entrap him. Liberals Gary Locke and Ron Sims ramped up the cigarette stings against grocery and convenience clerks. Liberals love stings; it gives them a way to synthetically create legal violations and rake in fine revenue.
Daniel, if there is a liberal here, IT IS YOU!
Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on September 14, 2009 01:10 AMYes, Liberals can be, have been and ARE very capable of being Abusive in their Conduct. This certainly doesn't mean that the tool that they are using should be removed completely. The Tool should be restricted for proper and prudent use just, like anything else. So, start thinking and quit emotionally overreacting on a subject which is Typical Liberal conduct where they think with their emotions rather than, their BRAINS!
There are people who may think of themselves as Conservative yet, still have a lot of Liberal blood in their veins. Maybe, you're one of them.
It is common sense to use extra care when a practice is all to easily abused. For example the use of anonymous accusatons has proven to be very dangerous, which is why the sixth amendment gives us the right to confront. Reporters still use anonymous sources, but whether they should is hotly debated. This can mean that miscreants get away scot-free because witnesses fear coming forward, nonetheless it is a tool so easily abused that we handle it with extreme care.
Note that nowhere did I say, as you imply, that the tool should be 'removed completely.'
Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on September 15, 2009 12:54 AMAnybody who wants a legitimate Sting operation REMOVED on further revealing what a known Criminal organization ACORN is, is a hands down LIBERAL! What you are is a Liberal plant, a Pretender, a Faux Liberal...PERIOD! You're a Lying Liberal pretending to be a Conservative in order to covertly push a Liberal agenda. You are a Wolf in Sheep's clothing. Nuff...Said.
"If a clerk can be tricked into selling tobacco or booze to a 'decoy,', it means a fine, and often the loss of a job."
False. Being tricked equals entrapment, against which there are strict laws. Entrapment occurs when the stinger makes false representations about the legality of the others potential actions. For example, if the stinger provides false ID that a reasonable person cannot distinguish from legitimate ID, or if the stinger poses as a store manager and informs a clerk that the law has been changed or is different for this particular store, that is entrapment. By conflating a sting with entrapment, you bankrupt your argument.
"The Ruby Ridge debacle in the 1990's started with a BATF sting.. Weaver, who was not involved in nor suspected of gun violations prior to the sting, was eventually acquitted on the basis of entrapment, but not before his wife and son were killed."
Comparing the botched and deadly raid on Ruby Ridge with an ingenious sting by two young journalists to catch willing coconspirators in a scheme to set up child prostitution is beneath anyone hoping to craft a convincing argument, and making the absurd claim that the sting forced the raid (when in reality the evidence that emerged from the sting convinced everyone except Reno that the situation could be resolved by peaceful means) demonstrates the paucity of reason you have at your command.
"Local gun-rights advocates cried foul when KIRO TV reporter Chris Halsne ran an idiotic undercover sting at a gun show around the time of the DC 'sniper' case."
Did the sting reveal criminal behavior of a non-entrapped nature? If not, the sting deserved scorn. It does not, however, follow that stings which bear fruit, like the ACORN sting, are thus invalidated. It simply means that Halsne did not find what he thought he would find, and more fool he.
"Then there was the sting of the late Sen. Jim West by the Spokesman-Review. They hired a former law enforcement officer to entrap him in an online sting. The tabloid 'Globe' hired a very buxom former flight attendant to lure sports announcer Frank Gifford into adultery in a camera-equipped hotel room. The sting was a success, as Gifford gave in to temptation. I would have too!"
Senator West repeatedly lied to his constituents. Frank Gifford was a willing adulterer. If you wish to empathize or, in Gifford's case, seemingly emulate, these guys, have at it. The rest of us will have to somehow get through life by telling the truth and staying faithful to our wives.
"The tactic is sleazy, underhanded, and ripe for abuse whether done by police or journalists, whether to advance a left or right-wing agenda. The scenario is controlled from start to finish by the stingers, and they can adjust the level of deception to get the result they want. They may repeatedly fail, but they just move on to the next mark. The misses go unmentioned, and the hits are trumpeted. And they can edit out entrapping moves that might give pause to a disinterested observer. It's bad enough with LE, where oversight is often inadequate.. With a self-styled 'journalist' it is guaranteed that there is zero oversight."
Once again, you attempt to conflate investigation with entrapment. It does not bolster your equivalency argument to list the abuses of yellow journalists and corrupt police forces, because the two sides remain two sides: legitimate stings and entrapments.
You can spend all day bloviating about how this guy trapped that guy or this operations lied to this group to get them to break that law. Then, once you are done, and are wiping the outraged spittle from your lips and surrounding area, we will simply state, "Yes, those were terrible abuses of power, and I hope those responsible for them are punished. But see here, in the ACORN sting, where the office folks volunteer to help the stingers hide the fact that they will be pimping 13-year olds? What a great sting; hope the ACORN folks are severely punished."
Two completely different things.
"Do we really want a world full of spies, stings, and gotchas? I can see why the deceivers of the left want it, but we on the right must reject it."
In my world, I want as many spies as needed to root out scum like the ACORN flesh peddlars. I want as many stings as necessary to put them out of business, along with the other terrorists, bullies, extorters, thieves, and fraudsters who operate in the darkness. I want strict rules to govern these spies and stingers, so that if they stray into the same area as the criminals they target, they get punished as well.
Your simplistic, moralistic, black and white position would strip us of one of the few tools we have to defend ourselves against these parasites. It is an ill-reasoned, ill-placed argument deserving of scorn.
Posted by: Barnstable on September 15, 2009 10:21 AM"False. Being tricked equals entrapment, against which there are strict laws. Entrapment occurs when the stinger makes false representations about the legality of the others potential actions. For example, if the stinger provides false ID that a reasonable person cannot distinguish from legitimate ID, or if the stinger poses as a store manager and informs a clerk that the law has been changed or is different for this particular store, that is entrapment. By conflating a sting with entrapment, you bankrupt your argument."
Entrapment is in theory against the law, but in practice not so much. They would not use the fake ID ploy that you present, but can use a 17-yr-old who is 6'5" with a full beard to try to buy cigs. A friend was busted years ago by these folks. He was a Boeing worker who was laid off, and instead of collecting UI and watching TV, he took a job at his neighborhood convenience store. He was an honest guy, straight as an arrow. They sent in a tall young woman who was holding a baby to buy cigs--she was a decoy. Is a cashier making $10/hr. going to pay a couple thousand to retain an atty? Of course not--they will be offered a plea deal wherein several hundred bucks exchanges hands, and the citation is expunged from their record after a year or so.
"Comparing the botched and deadly raid on Ruby Ridge with an ingenious sting by two young journalists to catch willing coconspirators in a scheme to set up child prostitution is beneath anyone hoping to craft a convincing argument, and making the absurd claim that the sting forced the raid (when in reality the evidence that emerged from the sting convinced everyone except Reno that the situation could be resolved by peaceful means) demonstrates the paucity of reason you have at your command."
You misrepresent what I said. I did not compare the raid to the Acorn sting. I merely noted that Weaver's case arose from a sting. He was targeted & persuaded to supply an illegal shotgun (barrel 1/4th inch shorter than legal, IIRC) to the ATF stinger. The case occurred during the GHW Bush admin btw, so this one was not Janet Reno's fault.
"I want strict rules to govern these spies and stingers, so that if they stray into the same area as the criminals they target, they get punished as well."
Finally we agree. But what 'strict rules' governed the Acorn stingers OKeefe and Giles? Zip, zero, nada. Which of course is why there was no arrest for child prostitution, nor will there be. If this case was as you portray, "n ingenious sting by two young journalists to catch willing coconspirators in a scheme to set up child prostitution" then you should be plenty mad. These purported purveyors of child prostitution get away with nothing more than lost jobs and some bad pub. There will be no charges whatsoever, because these two young journalists went off half-cocked on their own instead of getting LE involved.
Posted by: travis t on September 15, 2009 11:31 AMGive me a quote where I said I wanted the sting 'removed completely.' I never said that. What I said was that I wanted the sting 'denounced.' And again, in typical lib fashion, you substitute invective for an argument.
Posted by: travis t on September 15, 2009 12:39 PM"Entrapment is in theory against the law, but in practice not so much. They would not use the fake ID ploy that you present, but can use a 17-yr-old who is 6'5" with a full beard to try to buy cigs. A friend was busted years ago by these folks. He was a Boeing worker who was laid off, and instead of collecting UI and watching TV, he took a job at his neighborhood convenience store. He was an honest guy, straight as an arrow. They sent in a tall young woman who was holding a baby to buy cigs--she was a decoy. Is a cashier making $10/hr. going to pay a couple thousand to retain an atty? Of course not--they will be offered a plea deal wherein several hundred bucks exchanges hands, and the citation is expunged from their record after a year or so."
It's truly a shame that your friend got caught selling cigarettes to an underage person. Particularly because drug prohibition is a stupid and victimless crime. However, the rules against (and penalties for) doing so cannot be more clearly posted, seemingly everywhere, at every store. How hard is it to say, "I have to see your ID, ma'am. No exceptions. I could get fired if I don't ask."?
I don't know how often or to what extent mitigating circumstances, such as manager pressure or neglect, may reduce a clerk's culpability. But even if it doesn't, your responsibility is to follow the rules, and in this case they really aren't that complicated.
"You misrepresent what I said. I did not compare the raid to the Acorn sting. I merely noted that Weaver's case arose from a sting. He was targeted & persuaded to supply an illegal shotgun (barrel 1/4th inch shorter than legal, IIRC) to the ATF stinger. The case occurred during the GHW Bush admin btw, so this one was not Janet Reno's fault."
You are right about Reno, of course. My apologies for the error.
Regarding the sting, however, it appears that, though the fed admitted no wrongdoing, their contention that Weaver had sold shortened shotguns to the investigators was false, as the charge was dropped. Thus the sting was most probably an improper entrapment, followed by a tragic series of misunderstandings and escalations that led to bloodshed.
I maintain that this is a fundamentally different animal than the ACORN investigation, and that the two cannot be meaningfully compared. And I maintain that your mention of it does have the effect of begging a comparison, else why include it? You are essentially using the enormity of that event to censure the ACORN event through guilt by association, i.e. "Stings are everywhere, and they go wrong and kill people like at Ruby Ridge." You cannot expect to throw something inflammatory like that into an argument without getting some entirely justified blowback.
"Finally we agree. But what 'strict rules' governed the Acorn stingers OKeefe and Giles? Zip, zero, nada. Which of course is why there was no arrest for child prostitution, nor will there be. If this case was as you portray, "n ingenious sting by two young journalists to catch willing coconspirators in a scheme to set up child prostitution" then you should be plenty mad. These purported purveyors of child prostitution get away with nothing more than lost jobs and some bad pub. There will be no charges whatsoever, because these two young journalists went off half-cocked on their own instead of getting LE involved."
You are assuming way too much to be credible here. Who says that the ACORN investigators are not subject to any rules? The Maryland DA has already made noise about potentially indicting them for illegal recording. If a charge is made, there will be the normal discovery process to find out about their methods, edits, etc.
And who says that there won't be arrests for abetting crime on the part of the ACORN workers? From where are you drawing these conclusions? You may well be right, but I think it's premature to write the postmortem on the issue.
Finally, you bemoan the ACORN stingers' failure to bring law enforcement into the equation, even as you previously condemn law enforcement for playing "gotcha." It's hard to have it both ways.
The ACORN case is a very good example of the kind of issue that can be best illuminated through investigative journalism. Do you really think that the MD DA, or other inner city politicos, or the current federal administration (being run by a former ACORN lawyer) would have been receptive to an investigation? Given that reports of abuses by ACORN have been surfacing for about a decade now, and nothing's been done so far?
It would be nice if law enforcement were even-handed and government was not corrupt and that therefore official channels could always carry us through to justice. But they aren't and they can't. Travis, I agree with the larger, more general point that I think you are trying to make, which is that it stinks to live in a world where you always feel like you might be getting set up, or that there's a hidden camera somewhere watching you. Two points, though:
1. Wishing that people, and the culture they build, could be different, and dreaming up the rules that would work if that different world were reality, is an exercise in futility and frustration;
2. I live in this world, and don't often fear I'm being set up, because other than speeding on the freeway, I try not to live in the gray areas of the law, and when I do, usually because I don't agree that the law is just, I do so openly and specifically, with as full knowledge as I can obtain as to the penalties that may accrue to me due to my behavior (again, you can look at speeding as an example).
The world is messy, because people are flawed, and I believe they will always be flawed, so the world will always be messy and imperfect. I believe that, in this world, the kind of investigative journalism that the ACORN stingers pursued represent, on balance, a positive tool.
Posted by: Barnstable on September 15, 2009 12:41 PMWhere the targets are people who are breaking the law, wasting taxpayer dollars, and ABETTING CHILD SEX SLAVERY?
Yes. Yes I do want such a world full of spies, stings, and gotchas.
One note--Randy Weaver did admit to having supplied an illegal shotgun. The BATF undercover guy asked him to do it, and he agreed to. He later said that he did it because he was in desparate financial straits and felt like he needed the money for his family.
But as I stated, he eventually beat the charge on the basis of entrapment. He was lucky enough to get the assistance of hi-powered lawyer Gerry Spence.
Posted by: travis t on September 15, 2009 01:56 PMI fully agree that the end does not justify the means. Where we diverge, possibly, is the extent to which these means (sting operations) are justified in and of themselves. And the devil is in those details.
If you are correct about Weaver, then I regret the error. I base my statement on Wikipedia, which asserts his denial but does not mention his later admission.
Posted by: Barnstable on September 15, 2009 02:10 PMWhere the targets are people who are breaking the law, wasting taxpayer dollars, and ABETTING CHILD SEX SLAVERY?
Yes. Yes I do want such a world full of spies, stings, and gotchas
"
If someone is abetting child sex slavery, I want them arrested, tried, convicted, and put away for decades, if not hung. I want any casual observer to conclude that involvement in child sex slavery is not worth it--the penalty is too big.
None of that will result from this sting by self-styled journalists. These people will not spend even a nanosecond in jail over this.
Posted by: travis t on September 15, 2009 03:35 PMShrug. They committed crimes on tape and the DA has opened an investigation.
And even if they don't go to jail, the fact that they were fired and ACORN was cut off by the Congress -- saving us taxpayers a ton of money -- is good enough reason for them to do what they did.
I have a degree in journalism, and I left the field in part because I dislike so much of what it has become. You won't find a bigger critic of journalism (or pseudo-journalism) than me. But uncovering corruption and saving money, exposing bad people wasting my taxpayer dollars? Bravo. They're heroes.
I would not suggest anyone else engage in this sort of thing: it's very dangerous and can backfire. But so far, this has been a big net gain for society.
Around of the time of the DC 'sniper' attacks, Halsne did a hidden cam story on how he was able to buy an AR-15-type rifle at a Chehalis gun show with no background check, for cash. Of course that is legal in WA.
The local sheriff was unimpressed; he said that it was legal, and there was no track record of criminality or problems associated with the group that ran the gun show.
WA Ceasefire lauded it, and of the local gun-rights group CCRKBA denounced the sting at the time. Do you?
Posted by: travis t on September 15, 2009 03:55 PM'Denounce' means to speak out against it. 'Removal' would presumably mean passing a law to prohibit it, or taking some other action to forcibly get rid of it. Consult one of the free on-line dictionaries.
Posted by: travis t on September 15, 2009 04:41 PMThat does not apply to what Halsne did. I criticized a similar report by 20/20, where they got a dude whose sister was killed in the Va Tech shooting to go into a gun show and buy guns. They made out what happens at the gun shows to be some crazy thing, and attacked the state rep whose district includes Va Tech for not cracking down on the "loophole."
But they didn't really mention that the guy who killed his sister bought his guns through a normal gun store, NOT through this "loophole." So what does this have to do with the Va Tech shooting? Nothing, of course.
And the undercover camera exposed absolutely no wrongdoing of any kind.
I have no problem with the undercover camera there ... why should I have a problem with exposing legal activity as legal? I have a problem with the deceptive and dishonest reporting that it was used for.
Still I can accept your distinction between the sting that uncovers illegality versus one that doesn't. Hopefully though, the stingers were damn sure beforehand that the target would take the bait; otherwise they would have wasted the time, and unnecessarily bothered someone who was guilty of nothing. If that happened, I wonder if Okeefe and Giles would be prepared to compensate the target for the time & trouble.
Posted by: travis t on September 16, 2009 05:00 AMStop playing the victim, man. Whiny arch-conservatives are truly the most pathetic creatures of all.
Posted by: demo kid on September 17, 2009 11:40 PM@42: "Criminal organization"? That's libel, actually. Name one proven criminal charge against the organization.
Posted by: demo kid on September 19, 2009 02:43 PMYes, ACORN is a well known Criminal Organization. Charges have been filed for Voter Fraud in Neveda and charges dealing with the current recent exposure of aiding and abetting tax evasion and child prositution is on line to be brought forward as well. Naturally, ACORN was very quick to fire those who were directly involved to reduced damages directly befalling ACORN itself. None of these charges have been dismissed and it is up to the Courts to disprove any charges, until then, all charges remain intact until proved otherwise. Get it? Naah...You're a Liberal!
If, however, you believe your definition is appropriate, should we start calling the Catholic Church a "well-known criminal organization"?
Get it? Naaah... you're a goddamned moron.
Posted by: demo kid on September 19, 2009 08:19 PM