About the Tutorial (pg. 4 of 18)

Examples of abuse: It is abusive of you to hang around someone equally addicted to abuse. It's called entrapment. Not unlike a police "sting operation" there could be no crime if it weren't for you.

Entrapment is when you, consciously or unconsciously, set someone up by goading them with deceitful,* pathetic, lazy, slothful, wimpy, trying, apologetic, cowardly, irritating, or "loving act" behaviors—communications that trigger emotional and/or physical abuse—so that you can be right, and get community agreement, that your partner/parent is sicker than you. It's how you draw attention away from your sickness, your addiction to covertly creating abuse. * All divorced couples (yes all and both) deceived each other on their very first date.  With 44+ yrs of coaching thousands of 3-hr-sessions, I've yet to find an exception—Kerry

The fact that you continue to relate with an abuser causes the abuser to think less of you. You are a source of embarrassment, a continual reflection; hourly you remind the abuser of his/her bullying behaviors and, that only an equally damaged weak person would hang around someone needing so much therapy. 

Press Continue to take you to page 5 of About the Tutorial. You are not yet agreeing to do the tutorial.

Entrapment:

a) The conscious or unconscious communications that cause (intends, creates space for) another to commit a perpetration.

b) Intending, enabling or empowering another to commit a perpetration through association or companionship.

Note: Contrary to belief, an intention can be unconscious. The measure of one's intention is not what they say or believe they meant/wanted, but the result. Can you see the covert denial in a typical "apology"?  "If I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry. I didn't mean it."

Notice how much agreement there is that it's OK to entrap someone?

The majority of us have given permission to our police to be deceitful. We have voted, non-verbally, silently, that it's permissible for a police officer to pose as someone wanting to buy sex or drugs, thereby causing a crime that would not have taken place had the officer not been there to intend it. It poses the question: Whose intention is more powerful, the prey's or the officer's?

A Police Chief who supports a "sting" policy is out-integrity; he/she is stuck somewhere in the process of becoming a leader.* He/she has yet to develop the leadership-communication skills that inspires (causes) all reports to be accurate, complete, legible, and turned in on time; a leader inspires exemplary behavior evidenced by marital fidelity throughout the department. Presently, an officer on patrol to entrap someone has no intention for their "prey" to have an epiphany that very evening and choose, just at the moment they were thinking about committing a perpetration, to suddenly go straight.

For example:

Each of us can, with a little coaching, remember an incident which, right at a critical moment, we chose to not do something "wrong." Quite often the turning point was when someone walked up, a car came by, a parent came home, a teacher walked down the aisle, a clerk, police officer or a test proctor looked at you.

Picture if you will what life would be like if our police officers had the reputation of impeccable integrity. You could state with absolute conviction, "Our police officers are honest." Visiting a police station would be a spiritual, uplifting, inspiring experience due to the fact that only the nicest, most ethical loving and compassionate people, were selected to serve the community.

What you'll notice among those who advocate entrapment is that they are addicted to arguing and abuse. It is virtually impossible to have a mutually satisfying conversation with most law enforcement personnel about this subject except that you will walk away from the conversation not feeling good, not being gotten; an experience of being invalidated. At best you will get, "Yes, you're right. We don't want you to lie and deceive yet we do it, and, I/we don't value you enough to stop doing it." An honest person needs no reasons or justifications for their actions. Most police officers lie and deceive and create reasons for doing so. Another test of the integrity of a police department is zero spousal infidelities. All "good" officers know of, and therefore non-verbally support, the infidelity of at least one officer in their department.**

So strong is a Police Chief's attachment to his/her position, "It's the only way" or, "The FBI and other police departments do it." that they are unable/unwilling to acknowledge the unethicalness of their actions. Worse yet, they cannot see the awesome effect their belief has throughout the community. The police set and mirror our standards—like ourselves they believe it's OK to deceive another if the reason is good enough. This societal agreement makes it extremely challenging for someone in an abusive relationship to acknowledge that they are entrapping their spouse. I.e. The "victim" entraps the "abuser." In truth there are no "victims" with spousal abuse, only blaming co-conspirators. 

As with all unethical acts there are reasons. Reasons given are never ever the truth as to the source of a behavior.

* A Police Chief (a leader) who operates from integrity causes (inspires) accurate, complete reports turned in on time by all department members each day. Someone in the process of becoming a leader blames subordinates for sloppy, incomplete, late work, and sanctions various deceits and withholds.

** All officers within a police department know of at least one fellow officer who is unfit for police work; these "good" officers non-verbally support (enable) some officers in abusing others for another 24 hours. None can truthfully say, "I didn't know." Living such a lie produces undesirable results for everyone). Kerry, you're saying that if I were completely honest with everyone that it would positively affect my entire community? Yes! "As you've noticed, no police chief is willing to be that powerful. All Rookies are shocked to discover the level of integrity of their department—one must remain silent about observed infractions, else....

trigger

Trigger:

The word "trigger" is a reminder that the hurt (like a bullet in a gun) is already there. The hurt and pain is left over from a childhood conversation, an interaction, a breakdown in communication that remains incomplete. We set up life to recreate such incidents. We look for someone to trigger the memory, with all the associated hurt and pain of the first incomplete, so that we can complete it—instead of dragging it around dramatizing it.

If, after an interaction with you, your partner is upset or angry,

—and, you don't have the ability to clean up the mess (communicate through to mutual love and happiness) within a period of hours, definitely before going to sleep—  

—then no matter what your mind, or anyone tells you, the way you communicated/related produced that result. If you know that you have this effect, if you don't inspire health and happiness, and if you choose to continually interact with him/her, then you are entrapping them, quite possibly to eventually get them sent to jail. Evil is knowing you have this effect and staying with the person.

Remember, you can no longer say you didn't know that there are circumstances in which you lose your prerogative to press charges—that sometimes the police have no choice other than to ignore your wishes to not press charges. In most cases your spouse ends up with a police record and you don't. Look now to see if that's what you're up to.