NO that was Norris Blount whom is probably the highest integrity person you could meet. He is the asst pastor for athletics and is the one person who's credibility should not be challenged.
Brand New Baylor S&C Coach Arrested in Prostitution Sting
- Thread starter besserheimerphat
- Start date
Entrapment is a defense to criminal charges, and it's based on interaction between police officers and the defendant prior to (or during) the alleged crime. A typical entrapment scenario arises when law enforcement officers use coercion and other overbearing tactics to induce someone to commit a crime.
So, if there were an undercover cop who CONVINCED this coach to go looking for a prostitute, then it would be more likely to be considered entrapment.
We're talking about entrapment in a LEGAL sense, not some idea of MORAL entrapment that doesn't actually make sense.
Thinking it's unfair that this guy was caught by a cop instead of having sex with a prostitute like he expected does not constitute entrapment.
You know. The only way it would possibly be entrapment is if this coach showed up, started to back out, but was convinced to stay and solicit a prostitute. But I doubt that happened and if it did, it would come up in his trial and not in a story about the case.
Bowlsby has said recently the B12 has no investigative arm thus would not undertake anything in regards to baylor deferring to the NCAA... NCAA looking at - get this - impermissable benefits as the sense is folks in the athletic department helped steer players to legal counsel up to and including rides to the lawyers office and that benefit wasn't available to the general student population. Not the rape of course - but giving a guy a ride to talk about his rape with a lawyer.
If some law enforcement agency knows that there is a problem, e.g., child sex trafficking, prostitution, etc., I am all in trying to catch the perps legally and punish the hell of them.
That said, though, Baylor has a cultural problem with their football program. It isn't surprising that they'd attract a coach who has a fondness for prostitutes. Good grief, this is school that kept the son of the former head coach on the staff. The entire previous staff should have been fired and Art should NEVER get another coaching job at an ncaa school.
My legal backing is from a Family Guy episode, but if you get busted you just say you're making a porn film since that becomes protected speech! THANKS Family Guy!
I'd like to state for the record that the defendant has cited legal precedence from The State versus Peter Griffin.
In the eyes of the NCAA paying players hush money is way worse than victimizing women and children.
What are they even thinking?
I think most women would disagree. This just makes the objectification of women and commodification of children worse.
Wow. You are sincerely odd.
I don't think there's any link between legalized prostitution and a reduction in sex trafficking. So I doubt that would help much.
And even if it were legalized, there would still be a huge amount of illegal prostitution by women and pimps who refuse to register and pay taxes. Why would they willingly give money to the government that they've been able to keep. I doubt too many pimps would be willing to LET their prostitutes leave and "go legit".
Also, most rape isn't about sex or being horny, it's about power. Plenty of women are raped in Nevada even with some sort of legalized prostitution.
I agree with you fully Pride. It is a moral and philosophical issue, which are the obvious basis for all "laws." This type of police work is very clearly entrapment.
#1. The police provide the specific opportunity that otherwise doesn't exist.
#2. Since you are committing a "pseudo" crime, you are not actually not committing a crime. Even if you think you are committing a crime, you are not.
#3. The idea that these people are looking to commit these crimes anyway is flawed logic, we can't possibly convict individuals on the idea of knowing what they were thinking. There is a very good chance that they are making decisions based on the proactive actions of law enforcement.
These types of stings clearly violate your God given freedoms as an American, but like so many things, courts have decided what your rights are when they have been clearly defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
If a person searches for and seeks out a prostitute, how is that a pseudo-crime if the prostitute isn't really a prostitute? No one forced him to search for a hooker. No one baited him into offering sex for money.
If it wasn't a sting, the guy would have had sex with someone for money.
That's the point. The person is presented with a situation that doesn't actually exist. We can't say that he would have done anything because we don't know what would have happened if the individual had been presented with an alternate reality. We can assume that we know what they would do, but we can't prosecute on assumptions. I see both sides of the argument, but I'm basing my decision on how I interoperate our rights. Your basing yours decision on yours.
So you're saying that there are no prostitutes, only police who pretend to be prostitutes? This is one of the dumbest pro-prostitution arguments I've ever heard.
