Evan Thomas
Inactive
In both cases, the investigators set up a situation in which the other party had a choice about whether or not to do something illegal. In the case of the gun show sting, the investigator stated that he might not pass a background check in order to set up the situation -- there's no requirement that a seller ask a prospective buyer if he could pass a background check, so without that statement, there's no setup -- it's just another sale.peetzakilla said:Yes, but they didn't ASK the lottery agents to participate in an illegal action either.
Bloomburgs "agents" initiated what was an illegal transaction.
It might be possible to argue that it's entrapment, but that's a separate issue; and I think it's irrelevant in the gun show case, since there were no adverse consequences for the sellers.
But you're arguing that knowledge of the other party's illegal behavior makes the investigator an accessory to the crime. Whether the investigator's role is that of instigator, or purely that of potential victim, is a separate issue. In the case of the lottery investigation, the investigators knew they had winning tickets, and once a clerk told them they were not winners, they knew the clerk was committing a crime. And in the case of the New York state investigation, there would also have been no legal consequences for the clerk, since the lottery agency had refused to cooperate with the investigation, and in fact wanted to thwart it.
It seems to me that if the investigator is an accessory in one case, he is in the other, as well; and if not, not.