
Undercover Cops Hired 118 Handymen, Then Arrested Them for Not Having Licenses - seibelj
https://reason.com/2020/02/05/undercover-cops-hired-118-handymen-then-arrested-them-all-for-not-having-licenses/
======
function_seven
This burns me up:

> _These 118 con men and women were posing as contractors & preying on
> innocent homeowners in Hillsborough County, who were just looking to repair
> or improve their home," said Hillsborough County Sheriff Chad Chronister_

I am almost certain that's not what happened. Unless they each lied about
having a contractors' license when asked, they didn't "pose" as anything, and
aren't conning anyone.

Based on the examples in this article, is there _anything_ that doesn't
require a license to do? Unhooking a toilet is apparently an advanced skill in
Florida.

I guess this is my reminder to give some more to www.ij.org

~~~
RaceWon
> Unhooking a toilet is apparently an advanced skill in Florida.

I am a former licensed master plumber, and I still hold a license to work as a
plumber so I just want to weigh in here. I would never, Not Ever drink the
water in Any industrial or commercial complex. Period. The reason is because
although it is not technically difficult to "unhook a toliet" as you say it is
even easier (especially now with the advent of Home Depot and Amazon selling
all manner of "plumbing contraptions") to inadverntly create a potential cross
conection. Here is the reason I do not drink the water (or or soda or soup or
anything that uses their water supply): when I was a plumbing contractor one
of my accounts was a wire and plating facility that made a lot of different
automotive fasteners and what not (pretty cool mavhines btw), one day I walked
into the plating room And I was Horrifired to see washing machine hoses
attached to spigots literally laying in the plating solutions that contained
Cyanide... no vacuum breakers no RPZ's (reduced pressure zone devices) nothing
to protect the water supply from siphoning Cyanide back into it. Fuck that
noise--never since have I drank the water, nor never will I again. And I have
seen coutless cross connections since then in all manner of facilities.

Not to mention not having a clue about proper material and methods while
working on on natural gas or LPG sytems and so on, and so on. You can do a lot
of damage really really fast if you're clueless.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>The reason is because although it is not technically difficult to "unhook a
toliet" as you say it is even easier (especially now with the advent of Home
Depot and Amazon selling all manner of "plumbing contraptions") to inadverntly
create a potential cross conection.

Please tell us how one can screw up hooking up a toilet so badly as to create
a cross connection. It's not easy to confuse a 3" or better closet flange with
a 3/8" compression fitting, and it would be pretty obvious to anyone who tried
it.

~~~
RaceWon
> Please tell us how one can screw up hooking up a toilet so badly as to
> create a cross connection

Sure: unless you understand potable water and drainage systems, proper
appurtenances, proper methods and materials I don't want you touching my
drinking water supply. It's the same reason you don't want me typing random
characters into your code. I'm not a coder, you're not a plumber.

And to be clear I used domestic water as an example, you could just as easily
mess up the sanitary connection and have raw sewage seeping into the building.

It takes 8 years of working experience before you are even allowed to take a
Master Plumbing test... and we aren't stupid people. There is A lot know.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
So, no then.

>It takes 8 years of working experience before you are even allowed to take a
Master Plumbing test... and we aren't stupid people. There is A lot know.

Never said plumbers were stupid. But we're talking about replacing an existing
fixture with a functionally identical replacement. If you try to tell me that
needs a licensed Master plumber, I'll know exactly what your motives are.

------
ravenstine
In my experience, licensed handymen and contractors aren't much better. It
sure is good to know that, while cops in many cities are giving up going after
"low level" property crime, they are now so bored that they've got conduct
elaborate sting operations on people for using a wrench on someone's leaky
pipe without a license.

~~~
antupis
Occupational licensing is bad for economy and people generally
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_licensing#Evidenc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_licensing#Evidence_on_the_effects_of_occupational_licensing)

~~~
jariel
Can't agree there.

You definitely want your doctor, optometrist, dentist to be licensed. You
definitely want your wiring to be done by a proper electrician. You want your
new building signed of by a licensed Engineer. Etc.. General carpentry is a
little bit different, but those with proper apprenticeships are considerably
more likely to be better, but in that case, it's not a guarantee.

The wikipedia article you presented as evidence has some troubling issues.
Much of it is focused on the fact that 'without licensing' there's 'more
growth' in the given field of employment, which is obvious and mostly beside
the point: the issue is competence. When measuring quality they mention "find
that occupational licensing of dentists does not lead to improved measured
dental outcomes of patients, but is associated with higher price" \- which is
deeply disingenuous because it's likely related to specific kinds of licensing
as oppose do the 'material issue of competence' which is the fact said
dentists actually attended dental school. Can you imagine for a second someone
giving you fillings, scrips, pulling out teeth, x-rays _without having gone to
dentistry school_?

What the state needs to do is make clear which occupations are licensed, which
are not, and the kinds of work that can be done otherwise. Replacing a
doorknob or a water faucet may be a bridge too far for licensing requirements,
but doing anything 'load-bearing' for example might be within the purview of
regulation.

~~~
yostrovs
Please speak for yourself. I do my own electric work and I can use an app to
create an eye glasses prescription, though electricians have to be licensed
and optometrist are only ones that can write a glasses script. How about
filling up your car with gasoline? Do you do it yourself or have a
professional do it safely instead for you?

~~~
Psyladine
>You definitely want your doctor, optometrist, dentist to be licensed.

>>Please speak for yourself.

90% of any profession can be jury rigged by almost anyone. The remaining 10%,
including the liability behind their actions, is why they get paid to do it
for a living.

If you want to superglue your wounds and run your own electrical grid more
power to you, but none of us are islands and you live within an insulated
bubble created by the professional standards of those around you.

~~~
yostrovs
Superglue is used in medicine, including heart surgery, to bind tissues.

------
belorn
Things might be different in the US.

The reason why Sweden has similar regulations comes down to relative simple
reasons. The state want homeowners to have home insurance in case something
bad happen that would result in the state/city having to step in and pay for
it, such as a fire.

Insurance companies want lower risks (and might also be pressured by the state
to have lower rates). They want everything that is covered by the home
insurance to be installed by a licensed contractor, and in the case the
contractor is at fault, they want them to have insurance against mistakes.

And thus the government create licensed tradespeople to facilitate the above.
Unhooking a toilet is not hard, but home insurance covers water damage.

Sweden also has a lot of social safety nets so in the case that someones home
get destroyed the city is required to help them. Requirements for home
insurance moves some of that risk onto insurance companies.

~~~
smileypete
You don't necessarily need licensing for liability issues, just a requirement
for contractors to carry public indemnity insurance and only work within its
terms.

~~~
belorn
It is not necessary but the situation that the government sits at is tricky.
Intervention like sending out fire trucks or giving health care is usually
paid upfront by the government, as is social support aid in the case the
homeowner become homeless. If neither the contractor nor the homeowner can pay
it will be up to the government to foot the bill.

In theory, if insurance companies would give out public indemnity insurance to
unlicensed contractors then it would lower the risk for the government,
assuming the coverage is broad enough. It also assumes that the cost of
getting such public indemnity insurance is lower than getting a license, or
contractors would just get the license instead.

------
vvanders
> where undercover deputies filmed them performing or agreeing to perform
> prohibited tasks like painting ...

Okay, electrical work I get but... painting? So glad we're protected from
rogue... painters.

~~~
protomyth
If you want the truly bizarre (read protectionist), check out lawmakers
reasons for licensed interior designers.

------
wokkel
What bothers me most about this is the statement: "including several who had
past criminal convictions". The whole reason to put people in jail is to
punish them. After they did their time the original crime should not be held
against them. Not so in the usa where it's once a thief always a thief.

~~~
yostrovs
Isn't a murderer who served his time still a murderer after release? Wouldn't
you be careful around him?

~~~
beerandt
So run a background check on the people you hire, if that's important to you.
But it has nothing to do with technical ability.

And do you think licensed contractors aren't hiring ex-cons to work for them?
Generally only the owner or supervisors are required to be licensed, not all
employees.

------
pjkundert
As the cities go dark, meddling bureaucrats will go to sleep hungry and cold,
but warmed by the knowledge that they crushed someone who knew how those nasty
hammers, wrenches and saws worked.

The world is a safer place.

~~~
vkou
It's not the bureaucrats that want this legislature, it's licensed
tradespeople who want it, so that unlicensed tradespeople don't take work from
them.

You should be turning your ire at the hammer-swingers, wrench-turners, and
saw-operators.

~~~
thrill
Hammer swingers don't legislate.

~~~
pas
They pay lobbyists to influence those who do. Also they might/can be very
vocal, like unions. That is power to affect legislation.

------
droithomme
Why should house and fence painting require licensing?

I hire people. If they are removing a tree, replacing septic lines, doing
electrical work, I want to see they are licensed, bonded, and insured. If
their lackey screws up and hurts himself I want their insurance to pay. If the
tree falls the wrong way and destroys my house I want their insurance to pay.

This is why I always ask them about their bonding and insurance and need to
see evidence of each. Many never come back after I ask for that!

But if I'm hiring someone for painting, it's different. Anyone can do that
okay. Along with minor household repairs.

~~~
masonic
You're fine with lead paint nite being properly remediated and instead
aerosolized through your neighborhood, then? And asbestos fibers?

------
bjt2n3904
Arrested? Good grief. This should be a fine, at most. Maybe if they claimed to
be licensed and weren't, or forged documents that said they were... But this
sounds like nonsense.

~~~
backupcavalry
Prison industrial complex needs its ultracheap labour one way or another.

------
aj7
In Florida, the following scam is common. A person obtains a bonafide General
contractor’s license. Using technicalities, he avoids insurance requirements.
(This is trivial.) He sets up an office in a strip mall or his home. Then,
numerous unlicensed individuals work “under” him. He may or may not make a
specialty of obtaining permits.

~~~
nitrogen
Is that actually a scam? It sounds like a contracting agency.

~~~
aj7
It’s totally a scam, but it’s legal. If the entrepreneur has incorporated, he
probably can’t be sued. What’s more, he doesn’t have to pay a penny in
workman’s comp, because Florida has loopholes which permit multiple levels of
“independent contractors” with only the top guy having a license, and a
specific form letting the top guy absolve himself of responsibility for his
“subs.” One guy got so good at this scam that he had a LinkedIn page and an
IOS app you could download. Florida’s codes contain numerous devices like
this. Most prominent is the “Notice of Non-Representation” that your buyer’s
agent will get you to sign, just just just before closing.

------
joshfraser
Sigh. If only we cared half as much about real problems plaguing America.

------
onetimemanytime
Sign that they are overstaffed. Imagine the resources spent to go after these
guys.

~~~
SN76477
Yes As I keep saying the expense of perusing crimes should be evaluated like
you would evaluate any expense.

Blindly going after anything just creates more problems.

~~~
onetimemanytime
I don't agree 100% on that because some crimes terrorize communities and
nothing should be spared to fight them. But to jail house painters without a
license? When one can go to Home Depot, buy the stuff and do it by himself.

They need to prioritize and if they have come to this, it means that the
county is very safe and xx% of cops have nothing to do. So fire them.

------
jimnotgym
Can I ask any legal expert to explain the difference between this and
entrapment?

~~~
Fezzik
For it to be entrapment the government would have to have induced/coerced the
actual behavior of operating without a license. These arrests are the same as
if a cop buys drugs from dealer and then arrests the dealer: the dealer goofed
and can probably be charged with a crime since there is no coercion from the
officer for the behavior.

Entrapment is a defense to a crime, and in most (all?) states requires the
accused to prove they would not have committed the crime but-for the
persuasion of the government (usually a police officer/federal agent type, but
not always). It is generally true that if the government merely sets the stage
for someone to commit a crime that does not rise to the level of entrapment -
there has to be more coercive behavior for it to be entrapment.

Here is a good background story on entrapment... and how the defense almost
never works:
[https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2010/12/portland_bomb_pl...](https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2010/12/portland_bomb_plot_case_likely.html)

Edit: slight clarity improvement.

~~~
kbenson
Given this tidbit, it seems less clear cut:

 _Frequently, she says, officers will hire a handyman on the pretext of
performing work that doesn 't need a license, and then during the course of
the job ask them to do something that does, like unhooking a toilet or laying
some tiles.

"When the handyman says no, then the undercover detective moves the
conversation to something else and then comes back to the question later in a
different way," says Sammis. "By the time the handyman gets to the location,
they want to make the homeowner happy and end up agreeing to perform work that
they didn't intend on doing when they first arrived. The undercover
detective[s] are just creating a crime that probably wouldn't occur
otherwise."_

~~~
true_religion
I want to make you happy doesn’t sound like an affirmative defense for
committing a crime, especially when you are getting paid to do that crime.

~~~
kbenson
I think the point is that they refused once, and only under additional
pressure from the undercover officer agreed to actually do the illegal thing.

If you wouldn't have broken the law without the police's involvement, I think
that's entrapment. It wasn't a lot of pressure, and you could say they are
likely to break the law under pressure from other people, but I think we
shouldn't be prosecuting people for what we think they might do in the future,
and instead for what they've actually done. And in some of these cases it
looks like the only thing they've done that we know for sure is allow the
police to pressure then into breaking the law so the police can arrest them
and bolster their arrest numbers.

~~~
true_religion
That the police have to ask you twice to commit a crime before you do it,
doesn’t sound like a very good defense either.

A lot of people are implying that maybe the police bullied the contractors
into submission, or formed some emotional connection and used that to twist
them via friendship.

But there isn’t any evidence of that.

I think it’s way more likely that the contractors simply saw a way to make
more money. They couldn’t refuse the second time because it’s hard to turn
down cash that’s sitting on the table. They probably think they do good work,
so what is the harm?

Now if we think that they shouldn’t be arrested, then we should stop this from
being a crime, not castigate the police for actually enforcing the law.

Personally, I think this sort of thing is worth a small fine at most, and the
law should be changed.

------
yostrovs
How would one know ahead of time what requires licensing and what doesn't?
Does applying wallpaper? What about cleaning the clothes dryer's exhaust pipe?
Electric is obvious, but did the accused here actually know that tiling and
painting requires a license?

------
killaken2000
That's great and all but how was their work?

------
ErikAugust
Without looking, let's take a guess as to where this happened.

Florida?

~~~
aneutron
I was thinking the exact same thing.

------
znpy
> prohibited tasks like painting or installing recess lighting

Does anyone have to add anything?

------
ur-whale
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tbVRC_oOTU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tbVRC_oOTU)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSLy3mtpq2Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSLy3mtpq2Y)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lFwAp8f5kU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lFwAp8f5kU)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2otD8mmZsyA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2otD8mmZsyA)

