Business 10 Sec EN1 Week 3 Discussion 1 | chatbot las positas community college
Business 10 Sec EN1 Week 3 Discussion 1 | chatbot las positas community college
Disucssion - CHapters 5, 6, and 7
Disucssion - CHapters 5, 6, and 7
Welcome to week 3's discussion.
We have two cases to review this week. One is from chapter
6 and the other is from chapter 7. These cases are based on true
situations, but names and other details have been changed.
Thomas Townsend has an embarrassing criminal past. In
1985, he was convicted of pedophilia, having had sexual relations with a
15-year-old child (at the time, Townsend was 29 years old.) By all
accounts, Townsend has led a relatively uneventful life over the years since
1985, spending most of his time building and selling musical instruments to
earn a living, and reclusively “keeping to himself” on his property on the edge
of town.
Local police investigators are curious whether Townsend has
truly learned from “the error of his ways.” The local sheriff has
received a number of complaints from area citizens, who are appalled that a
child sex offender is “among their midst.” Working in collaboration with
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI,) local police authorities devise and
implement a plan to determine whether Thomas is leading an innocent life.
Over the course of an eighteen-month period, police investigators mail Townsend
a circular they have created, advertising a fictitious publication called
“Lustful Lads and Lasses.” Among other pronouncements, the circular
entices readers to “order now before publication ceases; see young boys and
girls aged 12-16 engaged in all sorts of acts only big boys and girls should be
allowed to do!”
Having received the circular each month and having declined on
seventeen occasions, Townsend finally responds to the circular on the
eighteenth occasion, mailing in the $39.95 purchase price. Local, state,
and federal authorities immediately intervene, arresting Townsend for
solicitation of child pornographic materials.
At Townsend’s arraignment hearing, his attorney moves for
immediate dismissal of the charges, arguing entrapment. Do the police
efforts described constitute entrapment? Does entrapment justify the dismissal
of all charges against the accused? Rather than dismissal of charges, why not
simply sanction those authorities responsible for the entrapment?
Case 2:
Officers Jones and Henderson are well-respected police officers
in the Woodlawn community. They have been recognized, both within the
police department and by the community, for their outstanding service.
While on patrol in downtown Woodlawn late one evening, Jones and Henderson
observe an individual sleeping on a park bench in the town square. The
individual is Fred Ames, a homeless person known in the community for his
trouble with alcohol and illicit substances. Ames has a twenty-year
history of bad choices and bad luck, and most in Woodlawn “know his
story.” Woodlawn does not have a law against vagrancy or homelessness.
Determined to “clean up” the downtown area, the officers demand
that Ames seat himself in the back of the squad car. Reluctantly, and
without the use of force on the part of Jones and Henderson, Ames
complies. Officers Jones and Henderson transport Ames to a rural area,
where they release him on a dark country road and warn him not to return to
Woodlawn until he “cleans up his act once and for all.”
Have Officers Jones and Henderson committed a tort against Ames?
Are the officers within the “privilege of their authority” in removing Ames
from the downtown area? Did the officers act unethically? Should Woodlawn
implement a law against vagrancy/homelessness?
Plus
Respond to at least THREE of your peer's posts.
USA 
India