Originally posted by robbie carrobie Indeed although I think Big Sam may have a legitimate case for the defence of entrapment.
But he hasn't been accused of nor sacked for committing a crime. He broke FA regulations, that's all. In fact he wasn't even sacked; he left by mutual agreement. So there is nothing to answer for.
Originally posted by divegeester But he hasn't been accused of nor sacked for committing a crime. He broke FA regulations, that's all. In fact he wasn't even sacked; he left by mutual agreement. So there is nothing to answer for.
This is true but he is claiming entrapment though which is really the issue being discussed. He was caught though stating that there are certain ways to get round said regulations and using his position as the England manager to negotiate a deal for 600,000 Sterling when he was already on 3 mill a year. This is hugely embarrassing and rather damaging for the FA and they jettisoned him. You can believe the propaganda of mutual consent if you like. I would like to try to establish whether he has a case for entrapment though and I don't think he does because he should not have been hawking himself around a mere 67 days after getting the England job.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie This is true but he is claiming entrapment though which is really the issue being discussed. He was caught though stating that there are certain ways to get round said regulations and using his position as the England manager to negotiate a deal for 600,000 Sterling when he was already on 3 mill a year. This is hugely embarrassing and rather damagi ...[text shortened]... use he should not have been hawking himself around a mere 67 days after getting the England job.
Yes I understand you and don't disagree with your premise from a technical standpoint. My point is that a "case for entrapment" is only viable as a defense mechanism if he has been charged with a criminal offence; which he hasn't.
You could argue that he was technically "entrapped", but he doesn't have a legal "case for entrapment", as he hasn't been charged with an offence.
Originally posted by divegeester Yes I understand you and don't disagree with your premise from a technical standpoint. My point is that a "case for entrapment" is only viable as a defense mechanism if he has been charged with a criminal offence; which he hasn't.
You could argue that he was technically "entrapped", but he doesn't have a legal "case for entrapment", as he hasn't been charged with an offence.
I am not entirely convinced that an actual crime needs to have been committed for it to constitute entrapment. If one invokes the entrapment defence then yes a crime will obviously have been committed. However as you rightly point out no crime has been committed but this does not negate whether Big Sam was the victim of entrapment. Consider this,
Did the Telegraph undercover reporters introduce the idea of circumventing the FA and FIFA rules on third party ownership of players? Was Big Sam “ready and willing” to help the Telegraph reporters circumvent these regulations? Did the Telegraph reporters do more than just provide an opportunity to Big Sam? Did they actually persuaded or coerce him to use his position as England coach to seal deals?
Depending on how these answers are reached will depend on whether we can see clearly if he was indeed the victim of entrapment as he has claimed.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I am not entirely convinced that an actual crime needs to have been committed for it to constitute entrapment. If one invokes the entrapment defence then yes a crime will obviously have been committed. However as you rightly point out no crime has been committed but this does not negate whether Big Sam was the victim of entrapment. Consider this, ...[text shortened]... epend on whether we can see clearly if he was indeed the victim of entrapment as he has claimed.
As a general principle, news media should report news, not make it. The relevant question would be: to what extent news reporters induced someone to do something he would not have done but for their inducement.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie A similar idea is when police leave a vehicle vulnerable and a would be opportunist comes along, attempts to gain entry and steal the vehicle only to find that the doors lock shut behind him. What does the forum think, is it ethical and why?
Not quite the same thing. Just ask yourself if it's ethical to steal property belonging to someone else.
I'm sure you've heard of the maxim "Let the buyer beware", and since there is no legal excuse for thievery I would call this "Let the thief beware". It's only entrapment if the thief is encouraged by someone working for law enforcement to commit the crime.
But anyone talking to a reporter should be careful of anything they say, and not assume it can't or won't be used against them in a court of public opinion.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I am not entirely convinced that an actual crime needs to have been committed for it to constitute entrapment. If one invokes the entrapment defence then yes a crime will obviously have been committed. However as you rightly point out no crime has been committed but this does not negate whether Big Sam was the victim of entrapment. Consider this, ...[text shortened]... epend on whether we can see clearly if he was indeed the victim of entrapment as he has claimed.
You are not reading what I'm saying. I agree that he was entrapped, but legally the is not "a case for entrapment" as you put it. This is because claiming "entrsprment" is a legal defence claim against being accuse of a criminal act. No criminal act has been committed, therefore there is not a legal case of entrapment.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Indeed although I think Big Sam may have a legitimate case for the defence of entrapment.
Do you mean to say that, despite him voluntarily demonstrating that he is a person who does not meet the ethical standards required of someone in his position, that he should somehow be allowed to keep the job because of the circumstances in which his unsuitability for the job came to light? What do you mean by "legitimate case" in this situation? A case for keeping his job? A case for suing someone? "Legitimate" in the eyes of whom and to what end?
Originally posted by FMF Do you mean to say that, despite him voluntarily demonstrating that he is a person who does not meet the ethical standards required of someone in his position, that he should somehow be allowed to keep the job because of the circumstances in which his unsuitability for the job came to light? What do you mean by "legitimate case" in this situation? A case for keeping his job? A case for suing someone? "Legitimate" in the eyes of whom and to what end?
Do you mean to say that, despite him voluntarily demonstrating that he is a person who does not meet the ethical standards required of someone in his position, that he should somehow be allowed to keep the job because of the circumstances in which his unsuitability for the job came to light? - FMF
No you simply made that up.
What do you mean by "legitimate case" - FMF
He claims he was the victim of entrapment, I want to understand whether the claim is legitimate.
Originally posted by divegeester You are not reading what I'm saying. I agree that he was entrapped, but legally the is not "a case for entrapment" as you put it. This is because claiming "entrsprment" is a legal defence claim against being accuse of a criminal act. No criminal act has been committed, therefore there is not a legal case of entrapment.
Yes we have already discussed this, he committed no crime there is no legal basis for entrapment defence. Good, now lets move on. His claim is that he was the victim of entrapment. I want to understand whether this claim is valid and please note that it does not hinge upon whether he committed a crime, just so that we can be clear.
Originally posted by lemon lime Not quite the same thing. Just ask yourself if it's ethical to steal property belonging to someone else.
I'm sure you've heard of the maxim "Let the buyer beware", and since there is no legal excuse for thievery I would call this "Let the thief beware". It's only entrapment if the thief is encouraged by someone working for law enforcement to commit the c ...[text shortened]... ng they say, and not assume it can't or won't be used against them in a court of public opinion.
Yes, so if law enforcement leave a car with the doors unlocked and a car thief comes along on his way to buy bread and butter from the convenience store, not intent to steal anything, but sees that a car that looks abandoned and vulnerable is sitting with its doors unlocked and he jumps into to the driver seat intent on hot wiring it and driving away only to find that the doors automatically lock and he is apprehended, I'd say thats pretty much putting temptation his way and he is being encouraged to commit a crime.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Do you mean to say that, despite him voluntarily demonstrating that he is a person who does not meet the ethical standards required of someone in his position, that he should somehow be allowed to keep the job because of the circumstances in which his unsuitability for the job came to light? - FMF
No you simply made that up.
What do you mean by ...[text shortened]... He claims he was the victim of entrapment, I want to understand whether the claim is legitimate.
"Legitimate" is what sense? Do you mean "legitimate" as in he has a legally sound case for keeping his job? Or a legally sound case case for suing someone? "Legitimate" according to what authority or standard?
29 Sep '16 15:24
Big Sam is gone.
Back to Top