NationStates Jolt Archive

In Canada, an undercover police operation called 'Mr. Big' is often used to lure suspects into confessions. Elaborate, expensive, and intense, this kind of sting operation is illegal in the US, and the UK...but not here.

The Mr. Big (http://www.injusticebusters.com/04/RCMP_Scenario.shtml) scenario is tailored to the suspect, but shares common traits. A suspect is lured into taking part in what he or she is led to believe are criminal transactions...often passing money along in what are supposedly drug buys, taken to staged parties where drugs, weapons and prostitutes are readily available and so forth. The situation escalates as the suspect is drawn further into the 'criminal underground', until finally, he or she meets 'Mr. Big', a supposed crime boss who threatens the suspect with physical harm unless the suspect gives him some information to hold over him or her as surety. Like a confession to a crime.

This technique is extremely controversial. Recently, this technique was used in the case of Shawn Hennessey (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2008/04/14/bail-hennessey.html) and Dennis Cheesemen, residents of Barrhead where I lived for two years. They are now accused of four counts of first degree murder in the deaths of four RCMP officers in the Mayerthorpe Incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayerthorpe_incident). They have been charged with aiding and abetting James Roszko who shot the officers...the claim is that they drove him back to his home that day and knew of his intentions.

Despite the title of the first link I provided...the Mr. Big scenario is NOT illegal. What are your thoughts on this kind of police operation?

Despite the title of the first link I provided...the Mr. Big scenario is NOT illegal. What are your thoughts on this kind of police operation?That confessions obtained under the threat of violence are worthless. That's how it is in Germany, at least.

That confessions obtained under the threat of violence are worthless. That's how it is in Germany, at least.

From the first link:

Staff Sgt. Marsh says his officers "don't make a habit" of issuing direct threats to targets. In the Burns and Rafay case, he says, threats were merely implied. The suspects came to "believe" they might be killed if they refused to confess. This, Staff Sgt. Marsh concedes, is "probably" what the RCMP wanted them to think. "That's different than telling someone he will be killed," he says.

Hold any water in your mind?

From your article:

In the United States, police may not issue threats or offer suspected criminals promises, money or alcohol in exchange for confessions. Such techniques are considered coercive and an infringement of an individual's rights.

However, the police may pretend to be criminals, and anything the suspect says in front of them, such as a confession to a crime in order to impress the roleplaying policeman, is just fine.

It's very similar, really, to some Police operations conducted here. I think the FBI has done almost exactly this sort of thing, when dealing with a Columbian international cartel. They had a field agent masquerade as a Mafia boss, with his disguise supported by the Bureau. When the time was right they sprung a highly coordinated and long-planned trap managing to capture several people in the cartel's heirarchy.

It's very similar, really, to some Police operations conducted here. I think the FBI has done almost exactly this sort of thing, when dealing with a Columbian international cartel. They had a field agent masquerade as a Mafia boss, with his disguise supported by the Bureau. When the time was right they sprung a highly coordinated and long-planned trap managing to capture several people in the cartel's local heirarchy.

Except that US police are not allowed to use coercion to get confessions.

From the first link:
Hold any water in your mind?Not really. Implying a threat is still a threat, even if it isn't an act of threatening.

From your article:
However, the police may pretend to be criminals, and anything the suspect says in front of them, such as a confession to a crime in order to impress the roleplaying policeman, is just fine.

Yes. People often don't understand entrapment laws, either here or in the US. General rule of thumb...you can lead the horse to water, and if he chooses to drink...that's his problem.

What is different about this scenario is that it seems the cops are making the horse drink. Of course...they argue they are merely leading it to the watering hole...

Yes. People often don't understand entrapment laws, either here or in the US. General rule of thumb...you can lead the horse to water, and if he chooses to drink...that's his problem.

What is different about this scenario is that it seems the cops are making the horse drink. Of course...they argue they are merely leading it to the watering hole...

It's the coercion that is the issue here.

Police will often bend the rules a bit to get somebody. Sometimes, it's needed because strict adherence to what is in the book is simply not possible.

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officers will often buy a bike, leave it on a street corner, and wait to see if anybody tries to walk away with it as if it were theres. If somebody does, said somebody is arrested.

Chumming is something else they do, having somebody act like a drug dealer, making deals with drug-heads, and busting them.

I'm just using the LVMPD as an example here. They are by no means the only law enforcement officers in America who do such.

It's the coercion that is the issue here.

Precisely. The RCMP contend, however, that there is no coercion, only that which is invented in the mind of the suspect (along with the help of the elaborate scenes acted out by police). As well, the fact that many people will lie to impress others seems not to matter...the 'confession' is taken as solid.

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officers will often buy a bike, leave it on a street corner, and wait to see if anybody tries to walk away with it as if it were theres. If somebody does, said somebody is arrested. No one is forcing a thief to steal a bike simply placed out enticingly.

However, if you are told that your supposed girlfriend (actually an RCMP officer) is going to be beaten, possibly killed if you don't steal the bike....

You see, we're talking about two different things. Merely providing the opportunity is not entrapment. Harrassing and threatening someone to take the opportunity is dodgy at best, and illegal at worst.

I'm not entirely comfortable with this - to some extent I believe that you do what you do and if you're caught then take the consequences, if you're not then lucky you.

I'm not excusing the heinous crimes committed and missed, I'm more for the ability for people to get away with breaking the law here and there.

I may have done some criminal things, I've certainly passed drugs along but I'd be unhappy to be entrapped in this way, I'd also be unhappy to be influenced to commit further crimes out of fear that I'd be exposed, certainly by law enforcement agencies. I'd like to think I'd resist anyway where it went above and beyond my morals but I can't draw the line as to what they might be until properly tested.

I tend to feel that a little lawlessness is good for society in that, when it matters, there's people who are open to breaking laws that are unreasonable.

No one is forcing a thief to steal a bike simply placed out enticingly.
True, however the beneficial effect of such measures strikes me as dubious. If opportunity creates thieves, why create more opportunities?

What bothers me is how easily the facts of your life can be used against you. Few of us have lived a completely squeaky clean life...were my past spun the right way, I'd look like a hardened criminal...drug use, fights, arrests...

In the Hennessey case I mentioned, I really think these guys were in the wrong place, at the wrong time...and the RCMP have a real need to shift the blame away from themselves for an operation that went terribly wrong. At the beginning of the investigation, a coworker's son was mentioned in the media...they made him sound like a hard-core rig-worker involved eyeballs deep in crime, instead of the straight A, very sweet 19 year old kid he actually was at that time. But because he had some dealings with the man who shot those four officers, he was made to look like a suspect. The effect on his family was horrific...they were harrassed for weeks by the media, and had to disconnect the phones, and have their son live with relatives out of town for a while.

Now imagine the effect of the Mr. Big stings. They ruin people's lives, and are designed to do exactly that.

True, however the beneficial effect of such measures strikes me as dubious. If opportunity creates thieves, why create more opportunities?

The idea is that it's not creating thieves...rather, the thieves would have stolen a bike regardless.

I agree it's dubious, but I do think that merely providing the opportunity does have some enforcement merit.

That confessions obtained under the threat of violence are worthless. That's how it is in Germany, at least.

In Germany, they keep dead babies in their refrigerators.

In Germany, they keep dead babies in their refrigerators.

Spurious references to current news aside, let's not get into a pissing match about comparable levels of crimes, m'kay?

In Germany, they keep dead babies in their refrigerators.And they get caught.

One thing that has always amused me is the belief many Canadians have, that we have many more freedoms in our country than exist in the US. Yet quite often, the reverse is true. Our laws in many situations, are more draconian and restrictive...and opposed much less vehemently than in the US.

Nees, you left out the crush part.

Nees, you left out the crush part.

Hahahahaha...been skulking around UMP have you? Yeah, he's a fucking hotty, but I thought it less relevant for this forum. I keep thinking...had I managed some sort of affair with him, imagine how that would have blown up in my face? *shudders*

Hahahahaha...been skulking around UMP have you? Yeah, he's a fucking hotty, but I thought it less relevant for this forum. I keep thinking...had I managed some sort of affair with him, imagine how that would have blown up in my face? *shudders*

Yeah, you wouldn't have appreciated the gangbang by the RCMP.

Yeah, you wouldn't have appreciated the gangbang by the RCMP.

"Well, the suspect was involved with a teacher who enjoys engaging in sadomasochism and threesomes with her husband..."

*watches teaching career flushed down the tubes along with prospects for pretty much anything beyond McDonald's*

Yeah. Like I said ...it's very scary how the details of your life can be spun to make you appear to be a monster.

One thing that has always amused me is the belief many Canadians have, that we have many more freedoms in our country than exist in the US. Yet quite often, the reverse is true. Our laws in many situations, are more draconian and restrictive...and opposed much less vehemently than in the US.

So what? That's just your culture, besides, if you Canada was the new North Korea (stupid comparison I know, but you get the idea), the world would hear about it.

So what? That's just your culture, besides, if you Canada was the new North Korea (stupid comparison I know, but you get the idea), the world would hear about it.

Well, it is a funny place. You can get your ass reamed for publishing Mohammed cartoons (and it only stops because the complainant withdraws the complaint - so no real freedom of speech in Canada). And the police can ream your ass in ways that would be illegal here in the US. Go figure.

Well, it is a funny place. You can get your ass reamed for publishing Mohammed cartoons (and it only stops because the complainant withdraws the complaint - so no real freedom of speech in Canada). And the police can ream your ass in ways that would be illegal here in the US. Go figure.

But so many people claiming Canada is better than the U.S can't be wrong.

So what? That's just your culture, Taking it up the ass and being thankful for it? Perhaps so, but there's no need to just accept it and move on, now is there?


besides, if you Canada was the new North Korea (stupid comparison I know, but you get the idea), the world would hear about it.
There are any number of things Canada has done that has shocked the international community...including the pepperspraying of protesters, and other heavy-handed attempts to curtail the freedom of speech Canada prides itself on. These hypocrisies are brought to light outside of Canada, and pressure is brought to bear on our government in the international forum...why? Because internal pressure is insignificant and stifled. Only when our international reputation begins to be tarnished...like it was when we colluded to have Maher Arar sent to Syria to be tortured...does it seem like the Canadian government decides to finally take action.

Part of the problem is that we, as Canadians, respect authority a little too much. A reason for that is our smug misperception about the realities of the state of our political freedoms, holding ourselves always above citizens of the US whom we deem backwards, and repressive. I chide my countrymen from a position of knowledge, that's 'so what'.

But so many people claiming Canada is better than the U.S can't be wrong.

The whisky is ok, and the weather is fucking freezing. When it's warm, the blackflies come...

But so many people claiming Canada is better than the U.S can't be wrong.

And they'll be right in many cases. But that doesn't translate into 'more freedom for all'.

The whisky is ok, and the weather is fucking freezing. When it's warm, the blackflies come...

Only if you're unucky enough not to be huddled around the southern border.

It's a balmy 17 degrees Celcius right now, not a bug to seen...but eight months of winter is unbearable.

I think you yanks simply have a culture of resistance to authority, which causes you to be royal pains in the asses to the most extreme extent. We, on the other hand, having been shooed off the skirt-strings of the Queen, tend to have cling to authority. I am hoping that this is changing, what with the repeated and widespread scandals within the RCMP, and other formerly respected institutions.

who needs Cuba we should start keeping our unlawful combatants on NATO bases in Canada.

who needs Cuba we should start keeping our unlawful combatants on NATO bases in Canada.

If we wrapped them in wet towels, and stood them up against wooden posts when it's -54 F, problem solved.

Canada is the ideal socialist nation. Small and underused prisons, legal drugs, practically no armed forces and love for authority. Could be good or bad based on your viewpoint. Me? I really couldn't care less, mainly bnecause I don't live there.

Canada is the ideal socialist nation. Small and underused prisons, legal drugs, practically no armed forces and love for authority. Could be good or bad based on your viewpoint. Me? I really couldn't care less, mainly bnecause I don't live there.

Or know much about it, considering the inaccuracies in the above. But let's not stray too far from the original topic...how far do you think police should be allowed to go when investigating crimes?

Or know much about it, considering the inaccuracies in the above. But let's not stray too far from the original topic...how far do you think police should be allowed to go when investigating crimes?

Less than forcing confessions and by association torture. But we shouldn't cripple our police. I would hope that there is a tolerable medium.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Canada is perhaps the most apathetic country the world has ever know. We have hate speech laws which threaten a prominant and respected magazine for including an excerpt of a controversial book, and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms so full of opt-out clauses, that, to pararphrase Pirates of the Carribean, "it's more of a guideline than actual rules." And then nonsence like this. And most Canadians seem neither to know nor care. This isn't to say that Canada is a particularily opressive country. In fact, its quite the countrary. But on those ocasions where something does happen, no one seems to give a damn.

Of course it helps Canadians to maintain that complacency to spend half their time looking down their noses and those dumb, warmonggering Americans.:rolleyes: Having a nice big target to the south keeps them from ever having to think about what's wrong with their own country.:headbang:

But let's not stray too far from the original topic...how far do you think police should be allowed to go when investigating crimes?
Not this far. This level of coercion sholdn't be a legal means for law enforcement - I know I wouldn't be comfortable with this at all. Rather, I think officers doing stuff like that should be punished.

If we wrapped them in wet towels, and stood them up against wooden posts when it's -54 F, problem solved.

sweet and no more congress bitching about it we will just say it was the Canadians who did it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Canada is perhaps the most apathetic country the world has ever know. We have hate speech laws which threaten a prominant and respected magazine for including an excerpt of a controversial book, We have no hate speech crimes in the criminal code, I'm sorry, you've made this mistake before.


and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms so full of opt-out clauses,
We have ONE opt-out clause, the not-withstanding clause, s.33 (http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/keywords.php?keyword=40). You can opt out ONLY from sections 7 - 15 or section 2 of the Charter, and this option out lasts only for 5 years, then must be voted in again. It is so politically poisonous to attempt to use s.33, that it has been invoked only twice outside of Quebec. In Quebec, it has been used mostly in relation to French language issues for a total of 18 times in total.

Please learn some basic Constitutional history before spouting off, thanks.



that, to pararphrase Pirates of the Carribean, "it's more of a guideline than actual rules."
Hardly. Charter challenges are a mainstay of every area of law in practice, and the tests are onorous. Learn a little legal history before spouting off, thanks.



And then nonsence like this. And most Canadians seem neither to know nor care. This isn't to say that Canada is a particularily opressive country. In fact, its quite the countrary. But on those ocasions where something does happen, no one seems to give a damn. With this, I can agree. Public outcry in situations like this often means the difference between people getting railroaded into convictions, or not.

Of course it helps Canadians to maintain that complacency to spend half their time looking down their noses and those dumb, warmonggering Americans.:rolleyes: Having a nice big target to the south keeps them from ever having to think about what's wrong with their own country.:headbang:
Agreed on this point as well. Especially when we start laughing about how 'conservative' people are in the US...ignoring the big, fat, Harper elephant in the kitchen.

Not this far. This level of coercion sholdn't be a legal means for law enforcement - I know I wouldn't be comfortable with this at all. Rather, I think officers doing stuff like that should be punished.

I'd like to see public inquiries into these sorts of tactics, rather than internal investigations.

I'd like to see public inquiries into these sorts of tactics, rather than internal investigations.

I agree.

...though I would also like to see those using such tactics being fired, fined, or serve prison time.

I agree.

...though I would also like to see those using such tactics being fired, fined, or serve prison time.

And if wishes were fishes we'd never be hungry :(

And if wishes were fishes we'd never be hungry :(

We'd also be a helluva lot wetter... ;)

Where is JuNii when I need a hardcore police supporter to argue with?

Canada is the ideal socialist nation.
Pft, I'd prefer anywhere in Scandanivia.
Small and underused prisons,
No, we have problems with overcrowding.
legal drugs,
Not that many more than in the USA, our terms are less severe, despite the mandatory minimum sentences that the Harper government wants.
practically no armed forces and love for authority. Could be good or bad based on your viewpoint. Me? I really couldn't care less, mainly bnecause I don't live there.

Agreed on this point as well. Especially when we start laughing about how 'conservative' people are in the US...ignoring the big, fat, Harper elephant in the kitchen.

And let's not even get into Stelmach...

Sounds pretty fucking sketch to me Sin.

Well, it is a funny place. You can get your ass reamed for publishing Mohammed cartoons (and it only stops because the complainant withdraws the complaint - so no real freedom of speech in Canada). And the police can ream your ass in ways that would be illegal here in the US. Go figure.

And once more DK finds a way to bring his hate of Muslims into a completely unrelated thread. If I hadn't figured out it was you already, this would have cinched it.

On topic: This kind of entrapment is absurd and should be illegal.

Apparently the Mr. Big scenario was created in BC. Nice.

In another Mr. Big case (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2006/12/27/mrbig-edmonton.html):

The "Mr. Big" scenario — where officers pose as members of criminal organizations to gain apparent confessions to crimes — was a crucial element in the first-degree murder conviction of George Allen in Edmonton on Dec. 21.

In a videotape played at Allen's murder trial, Allen describes to undercover police officers pretending to be underworld figures how he killed his friend Garry McGrath.

After his arrest, Allen said it was really a case of self-defence, but he was trying not to look like a wimp to people he thought were criminals.

One of my profs, speaking about the issue of entrapment:

Steven Penney, who teaches criminal law at the University of Alberta, said the tactic isn't considered entrapment, because the police aren't committing crimes or inducing the suspect commit a crime.

"Outside the context of custody, police are pretty much unrestricted in their ability to set up these kinds of elaborate operations to cultivate a suspect's trust and get them to make incriminating statements."

Fair enough, but when threats are involved? Or coercion? In the Hennessey case, Dennis Cheeseman was deliberately seduced by an undercover cop...Cheeseman, not having had much luck with women was an easy mark for this sort of thing. She involved him in various transactions he believed to be criminal, but it's not something he likely would have ever been involved in had she not been pressuring him.

It's about more than cultivating trust, it's about building relationships with people and deliberately trying to get them to do something wrong. It's pretty fucked up that this is NOT entrapment in Canada.

One of my profs, speaking about the issue of entrapment:


Fair enough, but when threats are involved? Or coercion?

Oh, I could be inclined to agree with him on the part that it can't be defined as "entrapment" because nobody is inducing the suspect commit a crime.

However, I disagree with him about this part: "because the police aren't committing crimes"
and also this:
"Outside the context of custody, police are pretty much unrestricted in their ability to set up these kinds of elaborate operations to ... get them to make incriminating statements."

First of all, threats of physical harm is a crime.

Secondly, even outside of custody there should be (it would be "are" here...) reasonable restrictions on what they can and cannot do. Threats should never be acceptable.

The softer versions could perhaps pass muster...
"Hi, this is Al. He's a mafia Don. He's considering you for a job, and he'd like to know if you've ever killed anyone before."
"Yes, I killed Jimmy Hoffa."
"Yer busted, me old son! We've got evidence to corroborate your statement, so enjoy prison time!"

I wouldn't have such a big problem with that, I don't think. Do you have objections to that approach?

I'd like to see public inquiries into these sorts of tactics, rather than internal investigations.

Heh… good luck.

From the first link:

The suspects came to "believe" they might be killed if they refused to confess. This, Staff Sgt. Marsh concedes, is "probably" what the RCMP wanted them to think. "That's different than telling someone he will be killed," he says.

Hold any water in your mind?

"They aren't really drowning, it only feels like they're drowning." :rolleyes: