Entrapment

[Entmonton]

I work at a gas station, and before being able to work we have to go through an orientation. One of the topics we go over is checking IDs to ensure their validity. However, there's a HUGE difference between watching a video and actually having physical sets of fake IDs for new employees to get the full effect.

One of my co-workers was fired last week for this. A guy came in with an ID saying his birthday was in 1988. However, it was a state-issued fake ID stating 1998, expertly marked to appear to be 1988. This was fully backed by our local police department to discover stores who illegally sell alcohol/tobacco products to minors. As a result, the police reported the incident to our manager, and standard protocol dictated that she fire the clerk on the spot that day. A similar incident happened with our sister store in town to the new manager assigned there, she too being automatically terminated as well within her first week at her new position.
Both stores get a $1,000 fine, and both clerks get a $500 fine personally attached to them.

Personally, I think this is total BS. For one, this technically qualifies as entrapment. I don't care if the police use it, I think that it catches more unwary innocents than unwary criminals. Our videos showed that both people did indeed check the IDs intently. If anything, I believe that the personal fines should be lifted from them and that these IDs need to be confiscated by the company to use as examples for future employees to show them. It doesn't seem fair to me that automatic termination AND a huge fine thrown together does justice.

Supposedly there was an article about in our paper, but I am having a huge headache trying to find it in the papers and on it's website, so cites will have to be forgone until further notice.

What do you think, fellow Nation States? What are your views on entrapment or sting operations? How do you think that the reaction to this situation could have gone differently?

[Kaztropol]

it was a state-issued fake ID stating 1998, expertly marked to appear to be 1988.

what do you mean by state-issued fake ID ?

Who was the person with the fake ID ?

[Vamtrl]

it was a state-issued fake ID stating 1998, expertly marked to appear to be 1988.

what do you mean by state-issued fake ID ?

Who was the person with the fake ID ?

The police obviously.

Police need to line their pockets with whatever money they can get.

[Entmonton]

As in the IDs were taken from valid driver's licenses from minors and reforged to appear that they are older than they are, fully backed by the police department.

Said individual was a minor who assisted the police department to find stores that were illegally selling alcohol and tobacco products to minors.

[Arkolon]

Abolish the drinking age. It's a parent's responsibility, and it only perpetuates the actions within youth groups. It's only fun because it's illegal. Speaking as someone who has been there, done that, by the way.

[Vamtrl]

As in the IDs were taken from valid driver's licenses from minors and reforged to appear that they are older than they are, fully backed by the police department.

Said individual was a minor who assisted the police department to find stores that were illegally selling alcohol and tobacco products to minors.

That's kinda bullshit, the IDs are basically for all purposes real

[Farnhamia]

I work at a gas station, and before being able to work we have to go through an orientation. One of the topics we go over is checking IDs to ensure that we don't sell tobacco or alcohol to minors. However, there's a HUGE difference between watching a video and knowing what to check for in an ID and actually having physical sets of them for people to look at in person rather than on a computer screen.

One of my co-workers (and arguably one of the best employees our store has) was fired last week for this. A guy came in with an ID saying his birthday was in 1988. However, it was a state-issued fake ID stating 1998, expertly marked to appear to be 1988.
As a result, the police came in and told our (NEW) manager about the incident, and doing as her higher-ups said fired her on the spot that day. A similar incident happened with our sister store in town to the new manager assigned there, she too being automatically terminated as well within her first week at her new position.
Both stores get a $1,000 fine, and the "perpetrators" (as our manager calls them) get a $500 personally.

I think this is total BS. For one, this technically qualifies as entrapment. I don't care who commits it, it's wrong in my opinion. The videos showed that both people did indeed check the IDs intently. If anything, I believe that the personal fines should be lifted from them and that these IDs need to be confiscated by the company to use as examples for future employees to show them. It doesn't seem fair to me that automatic termination AND a huge fine thrown together does justice.

Supposedly there was an article about in our paper, but I am having a huge headache trying to find it in the papers and on it's website, so cites will have to be forgone until further notice.

What are we supposed to be discussing? Your trauma over the firing of your co-workers? Your disappointment with company policy? NSG is not your blog site.

[4years]

What are we supposed to be discussing? Your trauma over the firing of your co-workers? Your disappointment with company policy? NSG is not your blog site.

When someone tells a story that very clearly poses a question, the validity of sending out police agents equipped with fake IDs to stores in this case, it is implied that the discussion will be based around that question. We don't need people to say "Let's discuss the principles behind this operation and the ethical/legal questions it raises" that is a given.

At any rate as stated the police action appears absurd. Since when is it a crime to be unable to easily tell a fake ID from a genuine one? All this reveals is that the stores mentioned need better training policies, not that they illegally sell alcohol and other products to minors. In fact, if IDs were checked it tends to suggest the opposite as it implies that if the workers had realized that the IDs were fake they would have upheld the law.

[Blazedtown]

I work at a gas station, and before being able to work we have to go through an orientation. One of the topics we go over is checking IDs to ensure that we don't sell tobacco or alcohol to minors. However, there's a HUGE difference between watching a video and knowing what to check for in an ID and actually having physical sets of them for people to look at in person rather than on a computer screen.

One of my co-workers (and arguably one of the best employees our store has) was fired last week for this. A guy came in with an ID saying his birthday was in 1988. However, it was a state-issued fake ID stating 1998, expertly marked to appear to be 1988.
As a result, the police came in and told our (NEW) manager about the incident, and doing as her higher-ups said fired her on the spot that day. A similar incident happened with our sister store in town to the new manager assigned there, she too being automatically terminated as well within her first week at her new position.
Both stores get a $1,000 fine, and the "perpetrators" (as our manager calls them) get a $500 personally.

I think this is total BS. For one, this technically qualifies as entrapment. I don't care who commits it, it's wrong in my opinion. The videos showed that both people did indeed check the IDs intently. If anything, I believe that the personal fines should be lifted from them and that these IDs need to be confiscated by the company to use as examples for future employees to show them. It doesn't seem fair to me that automatic termination AND a huge fine thrown together does justice.

Supposedly there was an article about in our paper, but I am having a huge headache trying to find it in the papers and on it's website, so cites will have to be forgone until further notice.

What are we supposed to be discussing? Your trauma over the firing of your co-workers? Your disappointment with company policy? NSG is not your blog site.

He gives his opinion, this isn't a one line OP, no need to be such a hard ass.

But anyway, yes this is a bunch of bullshit, these kind of undercover stings don't catch anybody but newly hired clerks.

[Pope Joan]

I wish sting operations were not allowed.

Did you know that if you are a public official and I pretend to offer you a bribe, and you do not promptly tell the authorities, you can be charged with extortion even though you never touched or accepted the bribe?

These stings would not be crimes at all but for the police element. It's fantasy, a make believe offense.

[Farnhamia]

What are we supposed to be discussing? Your trauma over the firing of your co-workers? Your disappointment with company policy? NSG is not your blog site.

He gives his opinion, this isn't a one line OP, no need to be such a hard ass.

But anyway, yes this is a bunch of bullshit, these kind of undercover stings don't catch anybody but newly hired clerks.

What are we supposed to be discussing? Your trauma over the firing of your co-workers? Your disappointment with company policy? NSG is not your blog site.

When someone tells a story that very clearly poses a question, the validity of sending out police agents equipped with fake IDs to stores in this case, it is implied that the discussion will be based around that question. We don't need people to say "Let's discuss the principles behind this operation and the ethical/legal questions it raises" that is a given.

At any rate as stated the police action appears absurd. Since when is it a crime to be unable to easily tell a fake ID from a genuine one? All this reveals is that the stores mentioned need better training policies, not that they illegally sell alcohol and other products to minors. In fact, if IDs were checked it tends to suggest the opposite as it implies that if the workers had realized that the IDs were fake they would have upheld the law.

There are expectations about what an OP should look like. The original did not match those expectations. So I locked the thread, Entmonton and I had a polite conversation about what should and shouldn't be in an OP and I opened it up so he could edit it.

[Blazedtown]

He gives his opinion, this isn't a one line OP, no need to be such a hard ass.

But anyway, yes this is a bunch of bullshit, these kind of undercover stings don't catch anybody but newly hired clerks.

When someone tells a story that very clearly poses a question, the validity of sending out police agents equipped with fake IDs to stores in this case, it is implied that the discussion will be based around that question. We don't need people to say "Let's discuss the principles behind this operation and the ethical/legal questions it raises" that is a given.

At any rate as stated the police action appears absurd. Since when is it a crime to be unable to easily tell a fake ID from a genuine one? All this reveals is that the stores mentioned need better training policies, not that they illegally sell alcohol and other products to minors. In fact, if IDs were checked it tends to suggest the opposite as it implies that if the workers had realized that the IDs were fake they would have upheld the law.

There are expectations about what an OP should look like. The original did not match those expectations. So I locked the thread, Entmonton and I had a polite conversation about what should and shouldn't be in an OP and I opened it up so he could edit it.

People are able to read between the lines and find the subject of discussion. Someone should not have to literally spell out what do you think of X if the topic is obvious enough. I get it, its summer, you're trying to crack down on shitposting, but this is not a case of shitposting.

[Kaztropol]

I'd need to see the ID, the fake one and the real one, side by side, to make a decision on what I think about this.

However, what is it, that the police are trying to achieve here ? I am assuming the local government is trying to combat a perceived problem ?

Anyway:

Did the employee ask for ID ? Yes.
Did the employee actually look at the ID ? Yes.
Did the employee spot a well done fake ? No.

The first two, are the ones where action is justifiable. Asking someone to provide ID, and giving it more than a cursory look, that's how you catch people deliberately or carelessly providing alcohol and tobacco to underage people, committing a crime.

The third one, which is the one that the employees failed on, that's questionable.
Suppose an employee has less than 100% perfect eyesight ?

The employees are gas station cashiers, they're not Immigration Control, it's not reasonable to expect them to be experts in spotting fake IDs.

If there's a problem of underage drinking, the police/local government should be helping retailers to spot fake IDs, educating them on what to look for. Work in partnership with local businesses.

It should have gone like this:
Customer: "I'd like to purchase this"
Cashier: "Do you have ID?"
Customer: "Yes, here it is"
Cashier: "Well, this looks ok, enjoy your purchase"
Customer: "Actually, is your manager here?"
Cashier: "Yes, why ?"
Policeman: "This ID is a cleverly made fake, here is where it has been altered, this is what to look for"
Manager: "I see, well, we'll review our training then"

[Blazedtown]

I'd need to see the ID, the fake one and the real one, side by side, to make a decision on what I think about this.

However, what is it, that the police are trying to achieve here ? I am assuming the local government is trying to combat a perceived problem ?

Anyway:

Did the employee ask for ID ? Yes.
Did the employee actually look at the ID ? Yes.
Did the employee spot a well done fake ? No.

The first two, are the ones where action is justifiable. Asking someone to provide ID, and giving it more than a cursory look, that's how you catch people deliberately or carelessly providing alcohol and tobacco to underage people, committing a crime.

The third one, which is the one that the employees failed on, that's questionable.
Suppose an employee has less than 100% perfect eyesight ?

The employees are gas station cashiers, they're not Immigration Control, it's not reasonable to expect them to be experts in spotting fake IDs.

If there's a problem of underage drinking, the police/local government should be helping retailers to spot fake IDs, educating them on what to look for. Work in partnership with local businesses.

It should have gone like this:
Customer: "I'd like to purchase this"
Cashier: "Do you have ID?"
Customer: "Yes, here it is"
Cashier: "Well, this looks ok, enjoy your purchase"
Customer: "Actually, is your manager here?"
Cashier: "Yes, why ?"
Policeman: "This ID is a cleverly made fake, here is where it has been altered, this is what to look for"
Manager: "I see, well, we'll review our training then"

In my experience, fake ids are not how the vast majority of retail alcohol sales to minors happen, most of the time, they just have an older friend buy it for them. Fake IDs are usually used to get into bars.

[Rebellious Fishermen]

I'm pretty sure this is against the law and there have been similar cases struck down by courts. You could tell your buddy to go to court.

[Entmonton]

Abolish the drinking age. It's a parent's responsibility, and it only perpetuates the actions within youth groups. It's only fun because it's illegal. Speaking as someone who has been there, done that, by the way.

I'm not sure if TOTAL abolition would help. Lower it, perhaps, to 18 (which if people say that promotes people taking alcohol to school, then it's the schools responsibility). I believe if we can have 18-year-olds go into the military, they can surely be able to sit down in a bar and have a cuba libre (or whatever choice of drink you want).

I'm pretty sure this is against the law and there have been similar cases struck down by courts. You could tell your buddy to go to court.

She intends to. Needless to say, she is FURIOUS over the actions the stores have taken.

[Trotskylvania]

While it may be shady, it isn't entrapment.

Entrapment is when the law enforcement officer induces someone to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do that is illegal. It isn't just providing an opportunity to break the law, it requires active encouragement of law breaking behavior.

The purpose of this sting was to determine whether or not employees and alcohol selling establishments were showing due diligence in evaluating fake IDs. It's a questionable use of police time and resources, and firing someone for failing to spot a fake ID, especially one that you made, is a bit harsh. But it isn't entrapment.

[Arkolon]

Abolish the drinking age. It's a parent's responsibility, and it only perpetuates the actions within youth groups. It's only fun because it's illegal. Speaking as someone who has been there, done that, by the way.

I'm not sure if TOTAL abolition would help. Lower it, perhaps, to 18 (which if people say that promotes people taking alcohol to school, then it's the schools responsibility). I believe if we can have 18-year-olds go into the military, they can surely be able to sit down in a bar and have a cuba libre (or whatever choice of drink you want).

It's sixteen where I live, and the world hasn't collapsed unto itself. If they reduce it to, say, 8, then it's a parent's responsibility, the same way it's their responsibility if there is no drinking age.

[Trotskylvania]

I'm not sure if TOTAL abolition would help. Lower it, perhaps, to 18 (which if people say that promotes people taking alcohol to school, then it's the schools responsibility). I believe if we can have 18-year-olds go into the military, they can surely be able to sit down in a bar and have a cuba libre (or whatever choice of drink you want).

It's sixteen where I live, and the world hasn't collapsed unto itself. If they reduce it to, say, 8, then it's a parent's responsibility, the same way it's their responsibility if there is no drinking age.

There is no safe level of alcohol consumption as a minor. Any parent who enables their fifteen year old to drink is being criminally negligent.

Alcohol is a controlled substance for a reason, and no amount of libertarian fairy dust will change that.

[Arkolon]

It's sixteen where I live, and the world hasn't collapsed unto itself. If they reduce it to, say, 8, then it's a parent's responsibility, the same way it's their responsibility if there is no drinking age.

There is no safe level of alcohol consumption as a minor. Any parent who enables their fifteen year old to drink is being criminally negligent.

Alcohol is a controlled substance for a reason, and no amount of libertarian fairy dust will change that.

I don't know, man, I used to know thirteen-year-olds that drank regularly only because they looked sixteen. And I drank wine at table since the age of twelve, maybe thirteen, because, well, I am a Frenchman after all. Banning alcohol from the hands of kids only makes it more interesting for those kids to steal some of it. It leads to, hyperbolically, a life of crime, and a life of alcoholism.

[Trotskylvania]

There is no safe level of alcohol consumption as a minor. Any parent who enables their fifteen year old to drink is being criminally negligent.

Alcohol is a controlled substance for a reason, and no amount of libertarian fairy dust will change that.

I don't know, man, I used to know thirteen-year-olds that drank regularly only because they looked sixteen. And I drank wine at table since the age of twelve, maybe thirteen, because, well, I am a Frenchman after all. Banning alcohol from the hands of kids only makes it more interesting for those kids to steal some of it. It leads to, hyperbolically, a life of crime, and a life of alcoholism.

The plural of anecdote is not data

It's a simple fact that alcohol causes brain damage, especially in people whose brains are still maturing. Drinking at an early age increases the risk of developing alcoholism dramatically, and it can greatly impair brain maturation and intelligence.

There is no safe dosage. There is no "appropriate moderation" at that age.

[Arkolon]

I don't know, man, I used to know thirteen-year-olds that drank regularly only because they looked sixteen. And I drank wine at table since the age of twelve, maybe thirteen, because, well, I am a Frenchman after all. Banning alcohol from the hands of kids only makes it more interesting for those kids to steal some of it. It leads to, hyperbolically, a life of crime, and a life of alcoholism.

The plural of anecdote is not data

It's a simple fact that alcohol causes brain damage, especially in people whose brains are still maturing. Drinking at an early age increases the risk of developing alcoholism dramatically, and it can greatly impair brain maturation and intelligence.

There is no safe dosage. There is no "appropriate moderation" at that age.

You're assuming abolishing the legal drinking age will cause every single minor, toddlers and teenagers alike, to go out on pub crawls every night of the week, the same way people assume legalising heroin will cause everyone to become addicted, or legalising gay marriage will cause everyone to turn homosexual.

[Trotskylvania]

The plural of anecdote is not data

It's a simple fact that alcohol causes brain damage, especially in people whose brains are still maturing. Drinking at an early age increases the risk of developing alcoholism dramatically, and it can greatly impair brain maturation and intelligence.

There is no safe dosage. There is no "appropriate moderation" at that age.

You're assuming abolishing the legal drinking age will cause every single minor, toddlers and teenagers alike, to go out on pub crawls every night of the week, the same way people assume legalising heroin will cause everyone to become addicted, or legalising gay marriage will cause everyone to turn homosexual.

If there were no law against murder, most people still wouldn't commit murder. And yet we still have a law against it.

[Ifreann]

As noted, this isn't entrapment. If there's a problem it's probably that cashiers aren't being properly trained. Or the OP's colleague wasn't properly trained. Or is just incompetent.

---

Abolish the drinking age. It's a parent's responsibility, and it only perpetuates the actions within youth groups. It's only fun because it's illegal. Speaking as someone who has been there, done that, by the way.

You must have been drinking some awful moose urine if you only did it because it was illegal.

[Arkolon]

You're assuming abolishing the legal drinking age will cause every single minor, toddlers and teenagers alike, to go out on pub crawls every night of the week, the same way people assume legalising heroin will cause everyone to become addicted, or legalising gay marriage will cause everyone to turn homosexual.

If there were no law against murder, most people still wouldn't commit murder. And yet we still have a law against it.

For very different reasons.