[vertex-four]

Police in the US don't have to tell you what they're doing up until the point they decide to exercise their power (i.e. searches or arrests) either, last time I checked. They can ask you to go somewhere and you can voluntarily comply or choose not to.

[ekianjo]

So you are OK with women police officers dressing up as prostitutes to attract potential costumers and then arresting them on the spot ? That's extremely twisted. There's a reason why in many countries police officers HAVE to wear uniforms.

[talon88]

Yes? I'm pretty okay with this. I'm okay with police going undercover, too, to bust up gangs. It turns out that policework is more than just standing in a pretty uniform.

[vertex-four]

Which countries are you talking of, may I ask?

[CocaKoala]

Why is it twisted?

[ekianjo]

Because the police should be busy catching criminals instead of trying to trick innocent people into criminal acts when they are not doing any.

[CocaKoala]

There are two points I want to address here: first, let's be clear that if you commit a crime just because somebody asks you to, it's probably better if the police have you on their radar.

Second: Let's not forget what you were originally complaining about. "The fact that they were setting a trap for him" is what you said.

But it's not really the same sort of trap, is it? In one scenario, you think the police are tricking somebody into committing a crime, so they can be arrested. Sure, that's a valid and interesting discussion to have. But in the other scenario, you're complaining that somebody who has ALREADY committed a crime, and confessed to it on the phone, with no duress, is being tricked into being arrested. That's a very different situation, and I'd be very interested to know why you think that this situation in particular is objectionable. The kid committed a crime; he confessed to it freely. The police got busy catching him; isn't that exactly what you think they should be doing? He's not an innocent person being tricked into a criminal act.