Gambling can be hazardous to your health

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%...

The poker game in Cary was right near my house.

I absolutely hate the way US treats gambling. The "land of the free" but we're possibly the only first world country that outlawed online poker/gambling.

Shouldn't this be in the "police state" thread? :p

Seriously, though. This is messed up on so many levels...

Duoae wrote:

Shouldn't this be in the "police state" thread? :p

Seriously, though. This is messed up on so many levels...

I don't venture into that thread.

And yes, it is pretty seriously messed up.

SixteenBlue wrote:

I absolutely hate the way US treats gambling. The "land of the free" but we're possibly the only first world country that outlawed online poker/gambling.

Well thanks to pressure from Nevada and New Jersey based casino enterprises, that ban ended this year. There is licensing, but you can do it.

In this instance, Virginia is being all Virginia. And in the US morality is a valid state interest that is protected by the constitution.

KingGorilla wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

I absolutely hate the way US treats gambling. The "land of the free" but we're possibly the only first world country that outlawed online poker/gambling.

Well thanks to pressure from Nevada and New Jersey based casino enterprises, that ban ended this year. There is licensing, but you can do it.

Yeah I'm excited about that. Unfortunately it will never happen in my state, due to (ironically) pressure from casinos.

I get the initial approach by the cop. Maybe he could uncover a major bookie or something nefarious but...

During the next several months, he talked Culosi into raising the stakes of what Culosi thought were just more fun wagers between friends to make watching sports more interesting. Eventually Culosi and Baucum bet more than $2,000 in a single day. Under Virginia law, that was enough for police to charge Culosi with running a gambling operation. And that’s when they brought in the SWAT team.

That's when it gets real slimey. When did it become their job to befriend people and then stretch and test their limits/morals?

Yeah, that would seem to go into entrapment territory.

Nevin73 wrote:

Yeah, that would seem to go into entrapment territory.

Strictly speaking entrapment is when police or their insiders entice and convince someone to do something they would not otherwise do. Essentially, did the police or other agent entice an otherwise law abiding person to commit a crime?

The victim was already engaged in small scale illegal betting. Our system buys in to the argument that today's small time offender is tomorrow's big time offender. So when police sting a pot dealer by offering to get them heroine or prescription drugs, this is not entrapment in the US. The person is already a drug dealer, in this instance the police are creating a sting to get them in the act and for a much stricter crime.

My grander issue is why they are sending the shock troops in on what is a petty gambling ring? Just like why do California Troopers loaded for bear execute military stings on bootleggers and software pirates?

Because they have all these neat toys, paid for by Homeland Security, and they never get to use them otherwise.

Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense in a bat-sh*t crazy sort of way.

It is largely not a written law defense, it grows out of English common law and American case law. The burden is on the defense to make a case that this action was severely out of character from the defendant, and but for the police he would not have escalated his gambling behavior. And as a strategy, as in the insanity defense it is risky because you essentially admit to the court that your client did every action within the indictment.

The jury will never get to this case, because the police erred, killed the poor man, and paid out a large settlement.

Even still, what makes the police think that is even worth their time? How many dozens over hours over months did the department pay a officer to befriend and egg the guy on for a minor crime? I mean was this cop reporting to his sergeant each week "almost there sarge, he took the points on the Knicks!". This is a good use of police resources?

LeapingGnome wrote:

Even still, what makes the police think that is even worth their time?

Because by the time the cop realized he hadn't discovered a major gambling ring he had already put too much time and effort into the investigation and if he came out of it without a bust his precinct's CompStat metrics would have taken a hit and he'd and his sergeant would have some explaining to do to their bosses. At that point it's just easier to goose things up to a decent charge, make a big show, and declare victory than admit you f'ed up.

Nevin73 wrote:

Because they have all these neat toys, paid for by Homeland Security, and they never get to use them otherwise.

Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense in a bat-sh*t crazy sort of way.

Yeah. I appreciate these explanations of how this stuff is semi-legal. However it gives me *less* faith in America government and policing. Not more.

The victim was already engaged in small scale illegal betting. Our system buys in to the argument that today's small time offender is tomorrow's big time offender. So when police sting a pot dealer by offering to get them heroine or prescription drugs, this is not entrapment in the US. The person is already a drug dealer, in this instance the police are creating a sting to get them in the act and for a much stricter crime.

I have issues with this assumption about social behavior, and how it causes people in authority and power to egg people to commit crimes. I am not certain how this applies to US or Western culture, but what I see is that people, on their own, tend to have an internal barometer for what's right and just, and will not willingly go beyond that limit without encouragement. Someone who shoplifts isn't necessarily ever going to steal a car.

Yeah, that's how the majority of us see it, too. Unfortunately the law is an imperfect instrument. This is one of the areas if failure that I would like to see fixes.

DSGamer wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Because they have all these neat toys, paid for by Homeland Security, and they never get to use them otherwise.

Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense in a bat-sh*t crazy sort of way.

Yeah. I appreciate these explanations of how this stuff is semi-legal. However it gives me *less* faith in America government and policing. Not more.

I also suspect that this might be part of your reason.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-b...

LarryC wrote:
The victim was already engaged in small scale illegal betting. Our system buys in to the argument that today's small time offender is tomorrow's big time offender. So when police sting a pot dealer by offering to get them heroine or prescription drugs, this is not entrapment in the US. The person is already a drug dealer, in this instance the police are creating a sting to get them in the act and for a much stricter crime.

I have issues with this assumption about social behavior, and how it causes people in authority and power to egg people to commit crimes. I am not certain how this applies to US or Western culture, but what I see is that people, on their own, tend to have an internal barometer for what's right and just, and will not willingly go beyond that limit without encouragement. Someone who shoplifts isn't necessarily ever going to steal a car.

Unless they've got a friendly undercover policeman egging them on telling them how easy it will be and how they won't get caught...
While it may not legally be considered entrapment, it really should be. Police should be arresting people for what they were actually caught doing, not tricking them into committing more serious crimes so they can be arrested for those instead.

I'm not sure if this has ever been discussed in a textbook or in psychology before, but what I've observed is that one of the most potent triggers for people to do an activity, as individuals and as a group, is the idea that something of that nature can be done - or that it could be realistically done. A person won't climb Mt. Everest if it simply never occurs to ou to do it, or if ou never gets the idea that it's something that's not a complete fantasy. In my mind, I call it "trigger phenomenon," and it's one of the strongest and most potent ways to influence a person or a crowd.

A policeman doesn't have to necessarily egg a target on aggressively to encourage that person to do the activity. Sometimes, just putting forth the idea is enough to influence someone to do something they would not otherwise have done.

Paleocon wrote:

I also suspect that this might be part of your reason.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-b...

Flabbergasted.
Just completely idiotic and small minded.

LarryC wrote:

A person won't climb Mt. Everest if it simply never occurs to ou to do it, or if ou never gets the idea that it's something that's not a complete fantasy.

Is 'ou' really a less clumsy construction than "he or she"? I applaud your egalitarianism, but at least pick a term that's easily pronounceable in English or doesn't look like a typo.

Funkenpants wrote:
LarryC wrote:

A person won't climb Mt. Everest if it simply never occurs to ou to do it, or if ou never gets the idea that it's something that's not a complete fantasy.

Is 'ou' really a less clumsy construction than "he or she"? I applaud your egalitarianism, but at least pick a term that's easily pronounceable in English or doesn't look like a typo.

Actually, yeah, significantly less clumsy. And I praise you, Larry, for using it in context. Based on the conversation in the PAX thread, I consider its use here a success. a huge one.

boogle wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I also suspect that this might be part of your reason.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-b...

Flabbergasted.
Just completely idiotic and small minded.

First step of training a dog is that you need to be smarter than the dog.

Seth wrote:

Actually, yeah, significantly less clumsy.

I don't regard the number of syllables as the sole measure of clumsiness, but it's not worth arguing about.

boogle wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I also suspect that this might be part of your reason.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-b...

Flabbergasted.
Just completely idiotic and small minded.

Well it is a small town in a tiny state. I have a pretty high iq and I know police work would bore the pants off of me. The job is largely sitting in a car, listening to the radio, or driving around listening to the radio. Marked with moments of brief excitement where a drunk or high man is seen naked in a park, or in Milwaukee trying to seduce a cow.

Seth wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
LarryC wrote:

A person won't climb Mt. Everest if it simply never occurs to ou to do it, or if ou never gets the idea that it's something that's not a complete fantasy.

Is 'ou' really a less clumsy construction than "he or she"? I applaud your egalitarianism, but at least pick a term that's easily pronounceable in English or doesn't look like a typo.

Actually, yeah, significantly less clumsy. And I praise you, Larry, for using it in context. Based on the conversation in the PAX thread, I consider its use here a success. a huge one.

I thought he was just mistyping 'you'.

Marked with moments of brief excitement where a drunk or high man is seen naked in a park, or in Milwaukee trying to seduce a cow.

Some poor dude in Chicago did that for years in the Lincoln Park Zoo. They eventually caught him by flushing him out before/during an assault via surveillance and patrols, and finding him hiding with his stepstool, if I remember correctly. They didn't release his name, at least not initially, and put him under psychiatric evaluation. This was in 1990.

So, what's the requirement for max IQ for the judges?

Nevin73 wrote:

Yeah, that would seem to go into entrapment territory.

Maybe that's why the guy got shot, so it wouldn't get thrown out at trial.

Paleocon wrote:

The poker game in Cary was right near my house.

This is the first time I've heard of it.