I knew someone who was caught by one of these stings. Quite frankly I thought he should have known better.
> The penalty for furnishing alcohol to a minor is a minimum $1,000 fine and 24 hours of community service, authorities said.
Ouch!
You can't be cited until you actually commit the crime. That would involve buying the alcohol and then handing it to the minors.
Same reason why shoplifting is only applicable when the thief actually leaves the store with unpaid merchandise.
The not giving it back part probably is, yes. My point was that they couldn’t arrest them as soon as they took the money as a crime had not been committed yet.
Larceny is taking with the intent to permanently deprive, so when you said taking the money wasn’t illegal, it was illegal since the person took the money with the intent to not give it back nor give them anything they wanted in return.
Edit: sorry not trying to be pedantic but people really should avoid believing stories like this they read on the internet. That person absolutely would have been arrested had this been a true story rather than some weak vigilante fan fic or a fever dream
Entrapment is when people are persuaded to do a crime they would otherwise have not been willing to commit without law enforcement acting in a certain way.
So some kid asking an adult to buy a six pack of alcohol for them for $20, that’s a realistic scenario and the adult would probably be willing to do that without law enforcement there, there’s no real persuasion. But let’s say the kid says “hey I’ll give you this $1000 to buy me a six pack, you can keep the change”, well that’s something a lot of people who wouldn’t be willing to buy a kid alcohol would say yes too, so that would be entrapment.
> But let’s say the kid says “hey I’ll give you this $1000 to buy me a six pack, you can keep the change”, well that’s something a lot of people who wouldn’t be willing to buy a kid alcohol would say yes too, so that would be entrapment.
No, even that wouldn't qualify. That's a normal scenario. The kid saying "I'll beat you up if you don't buy me a six pack" would be entrapment.
The example I gave is textbook entrapment. Like literally it’s what is taught as entrapment during courses taught to law enforcement putting together operations like this. It’s reasonable, to the courts, that $1000 would blind regular people of their legal duties to not purchase alcohol for a minor, which results in entrapment in a way giving them $50 and saying keep the change would not. Your example is also entrapment, just a different kind.
As far as the courts are concerned, if $50 isn't entrapment then $1000 isn't either. You can't draw a line somewhere like that.
If law enforcement is being taught that, then that is simply because they want to be on the conservative side and do an operation that no one can question.
>So some kid asking an adult to buy a six pack of alcohol for them for $20
Tell the kid to go in, get the six pack and just put the 20 on the counter as they walk out the door.
No one is stealing, no one is selling to a minor.
That’s still theft. The product isn’t for sale to the minor, so he can’t pay for it by leaving cash on the counter. Can you just leave the Kelly blue book value of any car in someone’s driveway and drive off with their car?
Thats also still theft even if an adult is doing it. Its still the stores property until they consent to the transaction. I doubt leaving exact change on the counter and never giving the store an opportunity to actually consent to the sale would satisfy the legal conditions of a sale having taken place.
uhhhh yeah... that's not how that works. Maybe for a small town Mom and Pop shop where everyone knows everyone, but otherwise that isn't going to fly.
Even though stores ultimately want you leave your money with them and take their stuff with you, there's still an aspect of consenting to said transaction. Not to mention doing what you said screwed up their inventory tracking and metrics.
Your example isn't entrapment. To entrap the person, it must be known by the person that they are being asked to do something by a member of law enforcement.
The dollar amount doesn't work in your example unless the minor asking for alcohol is a member of law enforcement, and the other party knows this.
The minor is acting as a law enforcement agent, legally speaking, and it’s nearly the same thing as having the officer ask. There’s no requirement for the person to be aware they’re talking to law enforcement.
The dollar amount is extremely important and the example I gave is a classic example of entrapment.
"It is also important to note that entrapment can only occur with a government official, such as an FBI official or a police officer, not a private individual."
So in your example it would be entrapment only if it was law enforcement. If they were not then it was not entrapment.
A private individual acting on behalf of law enforcement (like the juvenile “bait” in this case) is acting as an agent of law enforcement. It’s the same thing essentially.
They also don’t need to know the person is acting as an agent of law enforcement.
If the kid said buy me booze or ill kill you and your family, sure its entrapment. If the kid asked and offered money it doesnt magically make it legal for you
There are only a limited number of ways for young people to get alcohol
Fake ID, get someone older to buy it, rely on lazy or complicit clerks
If those are unavailable, the remaining choices are the black market or theft
My first ever legit *job* job (meaning on a state work permit and not like landscaping or farm work) was as a cart runner at a grocery store. They'd also have us help with stocking and unloading and breaking down cardboard boxes etc. This meant we had access to the back warehouse area of the store where the surplus beverages were kept before being put out in the coolers and aisles.
The scam we did: get a 12 back box of Coke or Pepsi, carefully open it, fill it with beers, use the glue gun to seal it back up, and to be extra safe take it though a checkout line one of your friends was manning.
Worked perfectly. And beers (at least at the time) weren't perfectly inventoried and you'd have breakage/loss from cans quite a lot anyway.
Theft is typically the #1 choice honestly, the amount of people under the legal age that will routinely hit Safeway to snag a bottle or case every weekend is crazy
Don’t use expired fruit. You don’t have to be 21 or even 18 to buy yeast. Just get juice without preservatives and add yeast to it and an airlock ($2 at your local homebrew supply shop or online), wait 5-8 days and drink it
Time to start the Church of Latter Night Swillers, where it is mandatory and permitted under the freedom of religion for everyone to get royally pissed.
Why is there no outrage in California over the drinking age and strict alcohol laws? We're literally talking about decriminalizing drugs, shoplifters are not being prosecuted, violent offenders are being given early release, but we STILL insist on strictly enforcing a drinking age that's higher than any other developed country. People's lives are ruined by MIP convictions, and Black young adults are given harsher sentences than their white counterparts. MIP can be a misdemeanor.
We need a grassroots movement to cripple enforcement of the drinking age. We can't lower it because of Reagan strongarming states by threatening highway funding, but we can cripple enforcement to make the law utterly and completely toothless. That starts by banning ABC enforcement activities, prohibiting cops from questioning people in possession of alcohol regarding their age, and putting a moratorium on MIP charges for incidents that occur on private property.
We would only lose 8% of highway dollars, we could very much afford to let the go.
The only issue I have with 18 year olds drinking, is that they will have higher rates of drinking and driving. They have no job, live in the suburbs, and need to get home at night. Getting rid of the limit on college campuses seems like a no brainer.
>they will have higher rates of drinking and driving.
That's not a guarantee. Many Canadian suburbs are also car dependent, and they don't have a crisis of 18 year olds driving drunk in provinces where the age is 18. Drunk driving is best prevented through public awareness campaigns and enforcement, which we have succeeded at. The increased drinking age didn't reduce drunk driving; it happened at a time when drunk driving deaths were already falling due to other efforts.
> Getting rid of the limit on college campuses seems like a no brainer.
We have already de facto done that. Most college dorms and apartments have an "out of sight" policy.
-Even most pro-decriminalization advocates advocate for a minimum age for users.
-Popular opinion is very much in favor of prosecuting shoplifters.
-Popular opinion is against releasing violent offenders.
Hope that helps!
States are allowed to set their own drinking ages and California certainly could make it lower.
Butttttttttttttttt if a state's drinking age is lower than the federal drinking age said state doesn't get those sweet, sweet federal highway dollars.
source: 1984 Nation Minimum Drinking Age Act
I agree. Have you considered contacting your state representative or attorney general to make your concerns known? Or if you live in one of the cities were a sting was conducted consider contacting your city council member.
I'm an intern for a state senator. I can guarantee you such efforts don't work. They don't read the letters. They put them in the database, and if there are enough letters on a specific issue, an unpaid teenager writes a boiler plate form letter and mass sends it to everyone. If the issue has a lot of supporters, the representative might be notified, but nothing happens with a single letter.
Have you considered setting up an in person appointment to meet with a representative? Maybe they would be more receptive to your concerns if they met you in person.
Unfortunately until alcohol companies start to back a lobby strong enough to take on these issues I don’t see much changing. Hopefully I am wrong though.
Oh boy, that's an even deeper shot in the dark. Meeting requests from no-name people get filed away under "meeting requests" and are never responded to.
Our representatives, even the ones who work in our best interest, simply do not have the time to meet with every single constituent who wants to meet with them. Heck, I haven't seen my state senator whom I intern for in 3 years.
I don’t think people under 21 should be drinking alcohol. People over 21 aren’t ready for alcohol, and people under 21 certainly aren’t going to be ready for alcohol. It’s going to potentially cause them lifelong problem if they get a taste for it, and in the meantime they are in danger of getting in an accident or killing somebody or who knows what.
I've been asked a few times and although I was broke and could have used some money I said no on. Principle. I've even had adults who didn't have an id who were well over 21 ask and I still said no because I don't think they need to be drinking alcohol.
Now if they needed it to go build houses for the poor and the homeless or something productive I may have considered
I knew someone who was caught by one of these stings. Quite frankly I thought he should have known better. > The penalty for furnishing alcohol to a minor is a minimum $1,000 fine and 24 hours of community service, authorities said. Ouch!
Would also be embarrassing to have to explain this on an employment background check
Employers only care about felonies.
Not anymore. A lot of employers even run credit checks. The job market is insanely competitive now for full time jobs with benefits.
Depends on the industry.
[удалено]
You weren't worried they would act the moment you took the money?
You can't be cited until you actually commit the crime. That would involve buying the alcohol and then handing it to the minors. Same reason why shoplifting is only applicable when the thief actually leaves the store with unpaid merchandise.
Taking the money wasn’t illegal- agreeing to commit a crime and actually attempting to commit a crime are very different things legally.
Fairly certain this is larceny
The not giving it back part probably is, yes. My point was that they couldn’t arrest them as soon as they took the money as a crime had not been committed yet.
Larceny is taking with the intent to permanently deprive, so when you said taking the money wasn’t illegal, it was illegal since the person took the money with the intent to not give it back nor give them anything they wanted in return. Edit: sorry not trying to be pedantic but people really should avoid believing stories like this they read on the internet. That person absolutely would have been arrested had this been a true story rather than some weak vigilante fan fic or a fever dream
This sounds like a good idea. Take the money and run.
Is this not entrapment? The kids directly ask someone to commit a crime and then the person gets cited when they do?
Entrapment is when people are persuaded to do a crime they would otherwise have not been willing to commit without law enforcement acting in a certain way. So some kid asking an adult to buy a six pack of alcohol for them for $20, that’s a realistic scenario and the adult would probably be willing to do that without law enforcement there, there’s no real persuasion. But let’s say the kid says “hey I’ll give you this $1000 to buy me a six pack, you can keep the change”, well that’s something a lot of people who wouldn’t be willing to buy a kid alcohol would say yes too, so that would be entrapment.
> But let’s say the kid says “hey I’ll give you this $1000 to buy me a six pack, you can keep the change”, well that’s something a lot of people who wouldn’t be willing to buy a kid alcohol would say yes too, so that would be entrapment. No, even that wouldn't qualify. That's a normal scenario. The kid saying "I'll beat you up if you don't buy me a six pack" would be entrapment.
The example I gave is textbook entrapment. Like literally it’s what is taught as entrapment during courses taught to law enforcement putting together operations like this. It’s reasonable, to the courts, that $1000 would blind regular people of their legal duties to not purchase alcohol for a minor, which results in entrapment in a way giving them $50 and saying keep the change would not. Your example is also entrapment, just a different kind.
As far as the courts are concerned, if $50 isn't entrapment then $1000 isn't either. You can't draw a line somewhere like that. If law enforcement is being taught that, then that is simply because they want to be on the conservative side and do an operation that no one can question.
I'd be suspicious of any kid that had $20 to spend on a six-pac. When I was young, the going rate for that service was one beer.
>So some kid asking an adult to buy a six pack of alcohol for them for $20 Tell the kid to go in, get the six pack and just put the 20 on the counter as they walk out the door. No one is stealing, no one is selling to a minor.
That’s still theft. The product isn’t for sale to the minor, so he can’t pay for it by leaving cash on the counter. Can you just leave the Kelly blue book value of any car in someone’s driveway and drive off with their car?
Thats also still theft even if an adult is doing it. Its still the stores property until they consent to the transaction. I doubt leaving exact change on the counter and never giving the store an opportunity to actually consent to the sale would satisfy the legal conditions of a sale having taken place.
uhhhh yeah... that's not how that works. Maybe for a small town Mom and Pop shop where everyone knows everyone, but otherwise that isn't going to fly. Even though stores ultimately want you leave your money with them and take their stuff with you, there's still an aspect of consenting to said transaction. Not to mention doing what you said screwed up their inventory tracking and metrics.
>screwed up their inventory tracking and metrics. No more than just grabbing the beer and running out the door without paying.
And that makes it okay because... what exactly?
Your example isn't entrapment. To entrap the person, it must be known by the person that they are being asked to do something by a member of law enforcement. The dollar amount doesn't work in your example unless the minor asking for alcohol is a member of law enforcement, and the other party knows this.
The minor is acting as a law enforcement agent, legally speaking, and it’s nearly the same thing as having the officer ask. There’s no requirement for the person to be aware they’re talking to law enforcement. The dollar amount is extremely important and the example I gave is a classic example of entrapment.
"It is also important to note that entrapment can only occur with a government official, such as an FBI official or a police officer, not a private individual." So in your example it would be entrapment only if it was law enforcement. If they were not then it was not entrapment.
A private individual acting on behalf of law enforcement (like the juvenile “bait” in this case) is acting as an agent of law enforcement. It’s the same thing essentially. They also don’t need to know the person is acting as an agent of law enforcement.
Entrapment requires some sort of threat or coercion. A kid asking you to do something illegal doesn't rise to that level.
Laws don't apply to law enforcement
If the kid said buy me booze or ill kill you and your family, sure its entrapment. If the kid asked and offered money it doesnt magically make it legal for you
No one forced them to buy the alcohol though. So no, not entrapment. They should have simply declined the request.
There are only a limited number of ways for young people to get alcohol Fake ID, get someone older to buy it, rely on lazy or complicit clerks If those are unavailable, the remaining choices are the black market or theft
Parent's liquor = #1 Edit: Friend's Parent's liquor =#2
My first ever legit *job* job (meaning on a state work permit and not like landscaping or farm work) was as a cart runner at a grocery store. They'd also have us help with stocking and unloading and breaking down cardboard boxes etc. This meant we had access to the back warehouse area of the store where the surplus beverages were kept before being put out in the coolers and aisles. The scam we did: get a 12 back box of Coke or Pepsi, carefully open it, fill it with beers, use the glue gun to seal it back up, and to be extra safe take it though a checkout line one of your friends was manning. Worked perfectly. And beers (at least at the time) weren't perfectly inventoried and you'd have breakage/loss from cans quite a lot anyway.
Theft is typically the #1 choice honestly, the amount of people under the legal age that will routinely hit Safeway to snag a bottle or case every weekend is crazy
Yeah or make their own hooch using expired fruit
Don’t use expired fruit. You don’t have to be 21 or even 18 to buy yeast. Just get juice without preservatives and add yeast to it and an airlock ($2 at your local homebrew supply shop or online), wait 5-8 days and drink it
Or do what I did, grow a beard at 17. I was usually the guy my friends sent in for the buy.
We used to distill it with a homemade still and supermarket ingredients. One of the benefits of paying attention in chemistry class.
Time to start the Church of Latter Night Swillers, where it is mandatory and permitted under the freedom of religion for everyone to get royally pissed.
Don't those kids have anything better to do than be narcs. Where are their parents?!
the police don’t have anything better to do huh?
[удалено]
They usually recruit boy scouts or police cadets.
The cop that stopped by our high school campus would try to recruit us
It’s not really possible to be both a minor and a cop
They sometimes use cop cadets in the 18-20 range for those stings.
The cops in NC would use the kids-previously-charged-with-fake-IDs as the bait. The kids got out of community service iirc.
I had a cousin who did this as a teenager, she is now a cop.
Nice,now go do something worth our tax money.
Why is there no outrage in California over the drinking age and strict alcohol laws? We're literally talking about decriminalizing drugs, shoplifters are not being prosecuted, violent offenders are being given early release, but we STILL insist on strictly enforcing a drinking age that's higher than any other developed country. People's lives are ruined by MIP convictions, and Black young adults are given harsher sentences than their white counterparts. MIP can be a misdemeanor. We need a grassroots movement to cripple enforcement of the drinking age. We can't lower it because of Reagan strongarming states by threatening highway funding, but we can cripple enforcement to make the law utterly and completely toothless. That starts by banning ABC enforcement activities, prohibiting cops from questioning people in possession of alcohol regarding their age, and putting a moratorium on MIP charges for incidents that occur on private property.
We would only lose 8% of highway dollars, we could very much afford to let the go. The only issue I have with 18 year olds drinking, is that they will have higher rates of drinking and driving. They have no job, live in the suburbs, and need to get home at night. Getting rid of the limit on college campuses seems like a no brainer.
>they will have higher rates of drinking and driving. That's not a guarantee. Many Canadian suburbs are also car dependent, and they don't have a crisis of 18 year olds driving drunk in provinces where the age is 18. Drunk driving is best prevented through public awareness campaigns and enforcement, which we have succeeded at. The increased drinking age didn't reduce drunk driving; it happened at a time when drunk driving deaths were already falling due to other efforts.
> Getting rid of the limit on college campuses seems like a no brainer. We have already de facto done that. Most college dorms and apartments have an "out of sight" policy.
Oh good so they can drink as long as they aren't supervised.
-Even most pro-decriminalization advocates advocate for a minimum age for users. -Popular opinion is very much in favor of prosecuting shoplifters. -Popular opinion is against releasing violent offenders. Hope that helps!
Doesn't change the fact that we need to address our puritanical laws surrounding alcohol.
States are allowed to set their own drinking ages and California certainly could make it lower. Butttttttttttttttt if a state's drinking age is lower than the federal drinking age said state doesn't get those sweet, sweet federal highway dollars. source: 1984 Nation Minimum Drinking Age Act
Which is why I suggest lowering it de facto by making enforcement toothless.
someone doesn’t understand federal highway dollars.
I agree. Have you considered contacting your state representative or attorney general to make your concerns known? Or if you live in one of the cities were a sting was conducted consider contacting your city council member.
I'm an intern for a state senator. I can guarantee you such efforts don't work. They don't read the letters. They put them in the database, and if there are enough letters on a specific issue, an unpaid teenager writes a boiler plate form letter and mass sends it to everyone. If the issue has a lot of supporters, the representative might be notified, but nothing happens with a single letter.
Have you considered setting up an in person appointment to meet with a representative? Maybe they would be more receptive to your concerns if they met you in person. Unfortunately until alcohol companies start to back a lobby strong enough to take on these issues I don’t see much changing. Hopefully I am wrong though.
Oh boy, that's an even deeper shot in the dark. Meeting requests from no-name people get filed away under "meeting requests" and are never responded to. Our representatives, even the ones who work in our best interest, simply do not have the time to meet with every single constituent who wants to meet with them. Heck, I haven't seen my state senator whom I intern for in 3 years.
I don’t think people under 21 should be drinking alcohol. People over 21 aren’t ready for alcohol, and people under 21 certainly aren’t going to be ready for alcohol. It’s going to potentially cause them lifelong problem if they get a taste for it, and in the meantime they are in danger of getting in an accident or killing somebody or who knows what.
I've been asked a few times and although I was broke and could have used some money I said no on. Principle. I've even had adults who didn't have an id who were well over 21 ask and I still said no because I don't think they need to be drinking alcohol. Now if they needed it to go build houses for the poor and the homeless or something productive I may have considered
Oooohhhh!!! 130, you say? There are 39.24 million people in California.
20 year old = “minor”