You spin me right 'round, baby right 'round

by Pradamaster on Aug 6, 2007 5:49 PM EDT in Rumors

Considering the emphasis of speed in our modern media world, it's a wonder to me that these types of things don't happen more often.

There's a report out a local station in Syracuse that Andray Blatche wasn't actually charged with sexual solicitation. The basis? Well, Blatche said so when he returned home. And if Blatche says so, then it must be true, right?

Umm...not really. For starters, that's not what the police report says. Additionally...well, there doesn't need to be an additionaly. The police report is the bottom line. Via Wizards Insider:

Defendant 1 (identified by police as Blatche) : "Hey, what's up with you?"
Undercover cop: "You tell me."
AB: I'm trying to see what you're doing."
UC: "Do you want (Blank) or (Blank)?"
AB: "Well, I want both."
UC: "And what about you?"
D-2 (identified as Palmer) : "I want the same."
UC: "I charge $80 but I do two at the same time."
AB: "Yeah, I'm good with it."
UC to Palmer: "And what about you?"
GP: "Yeah, $80 is good."
UC: Aight, you want to pull right?"
AB: "Naw."
UC: "I have a room right here."
AB: "Uh, ok?"

At this point, according to the document, the cop gave a pre-arranged signal to other officers and Blatche and Palmer were arrested and later charged. A hearing for Aug. 31 has been set.

Nice reporting job by News Channel 10, huh? In an attempt to get the story before anyone else, they neglected to even consider that Blatche wasn't telling the truth. Well done. That's called being spun.

As for Blatche, you have to wonder what he's thinking. It's not like being charged is a guilty sentence, so why deny everything right now? This has to be yet another example of the kid's poor judgement. Really, what does he have to gain here?

Now, I'm willing to accept an argument that this was entrapment. According to the police records, it was the undercover cob that first mentioned money, which sort of fits the definition of entrapment (any actual lawyers want to fill me in here). But we still don't know whether Blatche would have brought money up eventually during the whole proceedings, so he's still caused significant damage to the public perception. Finally, whether it's solicitation or forgetting to show up for a driving without a license charge, Blatche was still in a bad position. That's far more important than the charge itself.

Ugh. Back to your regularly scheduled top 20.

Thanks to jackpitt for the heads-up.

0 recs | Comment 6 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Let's not be too judgemental here

Who among us hasn't solicited an undercover cop and lied about it to a local TV station?

by JakeTheSnake on Aug 6, 2007 10:05 PM EDT 0 recs

entrapment

im not a lawyer, but i did a little research on entrapment. its not as straight forward as some people might think. the basic point in most states is whether or not the subject was predisposed to commit the crime. you can be found innocent if you can prove that the subject was otherwise innocent and coerced into criminal activity by the undercover. while i dont know the details it seems to me this is not a case of entrapment. entrapment would be if he and his friend were just walking down the street and the undercover came over to them and solicited them. it looks like they were cruising for tail.

also, hopefully you know if you ask an undercover if they are a cop they are allowed to lie.

by facekdr on Aug 7, 2007 10:10 AM EDT 0 recs

Ahh...okay

Without being there, it's tough to tell whether Blatche and his friend were predisposed to committing the crime. I'm assuming that you have to prove beyond a doubt that they weren't in order to justify entrapment.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Pradamaster on Aug 7, 2007 11:15 AM EDT up 0 recs

yeah

people kill me with that part-- that the undercover HAS to reveal that they are a police officer. No, the arresting officer has to identify themselves as an officer of the law-- that's why the one undercover doesn't arrest you.

I know message boards/ blogs aren't open to political discussions and all...

but why is it illegal again to pay for poontang? we don't have enough real crime in DC to use these officers for?

07-08 Reg Season Stndgs(predicted 8/6/07) 1 Chi 52-30 2 Was 51-31 3 Cle 50-32 4 Bos/Det 48-34 6 Tor/Mia 47-35 8 NJ 44-40 9 NY/Orl 42-42

by kdp922 on Aug 7, 2007 11:04 AM EDT 0 recs

Hmmmm

Looking at the transcript, neither Blatche nor Palmer bring up sex or money. The cop brings up both. I would imagine she knows what she's doing and how to avoid having charges dismissed for entrapment, but it doesn't seem inconceivable to me that Blatche may have a case.

I'm not a big fan of letting people off on technicalities, but I'm even less of a fan of cops trolling for "crimes" like solicitation when there are far more serious crimes (you know, ones with victims and all) going on throughout the city. As kdp put it, why is it illegal to "pay for poontang"? (Heh, he said "poontang"!)

As many people here have said before, the real problem with all of this is that it's affecting the long-term signing of Blatche with the Wizards. It's gonna be awful if this keeps him from returning with the team.

by Vanilla Gorilla on Aug 7, 2007 11:52 AM EDT 0 recs