they send a package to his house and he opens it, then they arrest him?
in the real story he kind of sells the drugs and recived money for them so they arrest him, but wouldnt in the context of the movie a lawyer could get him out quickly? he even says to his friend that he doesnt want the package so they cant even charge him with conspiracy.
It's a casebook example of entrapment by the DEA (in the movie).
They have zero evidence against him aside from having a package that the DEA mailed to him and some drug dealer's word against his. Even using the video chat as evidence, the kid tells the drug dealer flat out "NO" and "NOT INTERESTED" then ends the video chat.
I've not yet finished watching the film, it's very frustrating to watch. Somehow a lone gangbanger undid a professional wrestler's seat belt, unlocked and opened the door to his truck, and pulled him out of the vehicle and got him on the ground before his friends helped out.
This better turn into The Rock with an M60 killing all of the corrupt (in the film) DEA agents and US justice system officials or I'm just going to have to stop watching.
Yeah, I dont get why the DEA would be after Jason anyway? He's only connection with drugs is Craig who is already cought? Def. a hole in the plot. A bit annoying.
shareIn the movie he is not a professional wrestler lmao... and he was the one trying to get out of the car, not being pulled out if you actually watch that scene.
Later on the kid admits he wanted the drugs to "try it" but not to sell it, so obviously at some point he got back in touch with the dealer. Then deciding to run from the DEA gave them all the evidence they needed as well. Our stance on drugs in the US is over-kill and very ridiculous unfortunately.
----
John 3:16 : Eternal life through Christ only.
Regarding the "professional wrestler" issue - you're right that in the film, the character isn't a pro wrestler. But he's played by former pro wrestler Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, who is still built like a wrestler. It strains suspension of disbelief when he's forced into physical confrontations and somehow can't defend himself against a bunch of guys who - combined - probably don't weigh as much as him.
I think that he was miscast; there's a similar issue in the remake of "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", where Daniel Craig isn't believable as the everyman character that he plays, simply because of his screen presence. The lead character in "Snitch" isn't meant to be physically imposing, and yet he's played by Dwayne Johnson.
I also seem to remember in the film that I'm pretty sure it's mentioned that the DEA picked the other kid up when he was about to POST the drugs. So I see a lot of people saying that on when they chatted on cam it could have been recorded, but if the DEA did pick this other kid up when he was just about to post them they couldn't have recorded the cam chat. I agree the kid signed for a package opened it up and there was drugs in there with a camera or wire or something then bam the DEA bursts in. Pretty much any lawyer worth there salt would have gotten this kid off since kid could easily have said um yeah I had no idea what was in the package. What proof would the DEA have? the word of his drug dealing friend who they told if he rats out his mates he gets a reduced sentence? Also what would have happened if the mother got the package and opened it? would she have been the one arrested? Also even if the DEA went, "oh the kid ran though" no *beep* if a bunch of scary looking guys with guns burst into my house just after I opened a package that had drugs in it I would run too anyone would. So yeah the movie should have showed the kid sell some of the drugs to a mate or something because the way they showed it here even the worst lawyer in the world would get this kid off.
shareLol.. Your grasp of law is insane. You forgot to mention that you are one of those looney "freeman on the land"-conspiracy theorists.
Google the term and jref, and have a laugh..
You must be referring to the jon death idiot. All blab. If Mr. Know-it-all ever found himself in a holding cell with 60 sweaty guys facing a felony, i'm certain he could just tell the jailers that "he don't play that" and they'd usher him out, hand him an ice cream cone, and beg for forgiveness. Yeaaaaaa.... 'Cause that's how it works!
shareI just watched the movie and came here to post about this. He signs for the package, opens it and sees the pills. The DEA rushes him as soon as this happens. He didn't have a chance to try to sell them or even stash them somewhere. Who's to say he wouldn't have reported it to the authorities right away? Obviously that wouldn't have happened but you can't prove he wouldn't have done that just like you can't prove he intended to sell them. He'd at least have to make some kind of move to prove intent.
You'd think the lawyer would try to exploit this, but instead his best suggestion was to find some random person and try to set them up.
First of all the prosecutor explained the purpose of the law in her office when talking to the dad. If you are facing drug charges, or any other charges for that matter, the only way a prosecutor will make a deal with you is if you give them something they want. The guy who sent the package was obviously making a deal with the government, which is why he set up the son. The way snitching works is people keep snitching so the prosecutor can secure more convictions thereby fighting the war on drugs. If you are like the son and you have no one to snitch on you get left holding the bag. In the end the father had to do what the son couldn't, and that is the father snitched on a high ranking cartel member, showing the snitching system works, at least for this movie.
The son was arrested on conspiracy charges for planning how he would receive the drugs and based on the amount of drugs in his possession, the intent to distribute charge because the theory is the amount of pills he had was of course not for personal use; he was caught with about a thousand pills, not just one or two.
What evidence would the prosecutor have to get a conviction? First of all the Skyped conversation. Even though the boy said NOT to send the package, that wouldn't matter. Of course if you're selling drugs you're not going to say " yes, please send the drugs please". His fate was sealed when he accepted the package, so you have (1) the Skyped call, (2) testimony from the sender of drugs, and (3) accepting of the package. This scenerio would not likely happen to the regular law abiding citizen because you wouldn't have all three pieces of evidence. Someone mentioned a person could send a random package of drugs to an enemy's house for revenge just to have them arrested. A conviction wouldn't work in that case because (1) why would you and your enemy or even a false friend have a conversation about them shipping you drugs? I have never had that convo in my entire life. (2) I order packages online all the time but the box will say "Amazon" or "Victoria's Secret" because it's something I ordered. For safety reasons I would not accept a package I didn't order. Lastly, even if I did get my orders mixed up and accepted the drug package, the government certainly would not have a recorded conversation of me talking about drugs to a known drug dealer. Rarely will you find a criminal who says Yeah I did it, which is why enough circumstantial evidence will work. The case would still have to go in front of a jury, if the boy requests a jury trial, and a sympathetic jury might buy his innocent bystander story especially because he has no criminal record, is a good student, on his way to college, etc.
I really liked your explanation, but there is one thing that you, and everyone else forgot. The kid ran. As soon as you run from, all suspected crimes against you have merit right then and there. A really good lawyer may have been able to get him off had he not ran, but that poor decision prevented him from putting up any good type of defense.
shareYes, the running can cut both ways. For the prosecution they will say he ran from the police because he knew he had done something wrong. The defense will argue he ran because he was scared and NOT because he had done something wrong. If twenty federal agents and local police officers show up at your door step, it's not unusual that a person would try to get away from that situation by running, or he thought they were there because of some other minor crime he had committed, but taken together with the skype convo, the accepting of the package, and the running, the prosecution's case is getting stronger.
shareI agree with 99% of what you're saying, but I think where you're going wrong is the Skype call. If you're in a video call clearly talking about drugs while making no attempt to disguise it, why would you suddenly show enough awareness to say NO don't send the drugs but really mean yes? They could have just used code words all along instead of blatantly discussing a drug deal. You're telling me that in a courtroom they'll be able to prove that saying not to send the drugs really means yes?
Since he refused the friend's request on video, I feel like that's even more reason that they'd have to give him the opportunity to do something with the package after it's opened. His argument could be that they saw him tell the friend not to send the drugs, so when he got the suspicious package he wanted to make sure what was inside so that he could turn it over to the police. In reality what would have probably happened is he would have called the friend and told him that he doesn't want it in his house and to take it back. At least that would have helped his claim that he wasn't a drug dealer.
Considering the friend has A LOT to gain and nothing to lose from lying and setting him up, the whole situation would be suspicious and there's just not nearly enough evidence. There was no huge rush for the DEA. They would want to give the kid a chance to incriminate himself even more and to build up the evidence in their case. Why take him immediately when the drugs could possibly lead them to someone else? Obviously if their goal is to take down as many dealers as possibly then they completely jumped the gun.
Sorry but it wasn't realistic at all
I think the confusion is coming in because this is a movie and we know too much about the story. We, the watchers of the movie know the son is innocent, but if you were a prosecutor you would not have the knowledge that the friend is really setting up a truly innocent person. Since you don't know you have to look at evidence. Regarding the skype call, yes you could argue both ways, which is what lawyers do, but when taken together with all the other evidence what is more likely true. (1) Is it more likely true that I am a college kid, good student, law abiding citizen who chooses to have conversations about drugs via skype with a known drug dealer friend for fun. When the friend asks me to accept the drugs I say NO, but when a package arrives at my door that I didn't order, I say YES. OR is it more likely(2) I am a strapped for cash, bored college kid looking to make some quick, easy cash as a drug mule hoping that I don't get caught. The jury has to decide which of these descriptions is more believable based on the evidence presented.
As far as how the snitching system works, it is what it is. The theory is let the criminals fight it out. Just because someone has something to gain by snitching doesn't mean it's not true. The dad obviously had something to gain by snitching on all the people he snitched on, but the information he provided was true. You can snitch on people but if the info you provide doesn't pan out, you won't get out. The snitching system works because it puts fire under the criminals feet to turn in more criminals or to rot in jail. In this movie, which was based on real events, a high ranking cartel leader was brought down, and a slew of underlings, so snitching, good or bad, has it's uses.
What I don't understand is how could the father snitching work to get the son out? I mean, if that's acceptable, would they have accepted a neighborhood friend coming forward about a drug dealer down the street? I don't think so. And then to go along with a private citizen who is not the individual facing charges wearing a wire, etc.? Even if that could happen in reality, the police where I come from originally would take the information but it would not have made a difference in the son's case.
shareActually it works quite easily. First of all the prosecutor is a person and he or she has an incredible amount of power and influence. The prosecutor's job and the defense attorney's job is to influence the judge to rule a certain way. The judge does not know the accused from a can of paint so the judge bases his rulings on what the attorneys argue. Now in snitch I don't remember the boy going to trial so he was just in jail waiting until his court date. During this time before trial and even up until the verdict a deal can be made with the prosecutor. Prosecutors have a huge case load so if they can strike a deal to keep from doing all the work to prepare for trial and fore go the possibility of losing and looking incompetent, they will accept a plea bargain. In snitch the dad was turning in a high ranking drug lord and the tip was right. Normally other people won't do this for you because the dad was involved in some really dangerous stuff. If the dad's tip would not have panned out, the boy would be headed to trial to the mercy of a jury. The deal was if I get a drug lord for you will you recommend a lighter sentence for my son, or drop the charges.
Even though the prosecutor played like she was tough as nails, I'm not sure how strong her case would have been against the boy. A jury might have let him go so it"s usually in the prosecution's best interest to make the deal.
Thanks
shareFirst of all the Skyped conversation. Even though the boy said NOT to send the package, that wouldn't matter. Of course if you're selling drugs you're not going to say " yes, please send the drugs please".
His fate was sealed when he accepted the package, so you have (1) the Skyped call, (2) testimony from the sender of drugs, and (3) accepting of the package
the government certainly would not have a recorded conversation of me talking about drugs to a known drug dealer.
Dude, I believe I never left a message on IMDB before, but I really had to this time! Your post is really informative and interesting to read! Really appreciated reading what you had to say! Thank you!
G
As soon as he signed for that package, he was done.
"My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness." - The Dalai Lama
Well he said we'll talk about this later and never denies telling his friend that it is okay to send it. I would assume he told him yes its okay, but I found it to be a little confusing to, I think the friend should have told him meet me at this place then have him searched but yeah i'm not sure a 2nd conversation did not take place and he told him okay
share[deleted]
[deleted]
So, I guess if a crook wanted to, he could send drugs to just anyone he knew and get them 10 years?? Hardly.
Mountain Man
They arrested him after he ran, how he explained why he ran is probably what led him further into trouble.
share