I do not believe that. If that was the case then undercovers would never be effective and they are effective (obviously)
Not at all! A "case" doesn't mean convicted. The defense attourney can use "entrapment" as a defense but that doesn't mean the judge and/or jury will buy it. Defense atrouneys do it all the time and loose of course. The threshold to claim entrapment is very low but to convict those accused of the crime the jury must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt, so if it is reasonable to believe that entrapment occured then they go free. That doesn not mean that the officer was convicted of a crime. The officer isn't on trial. But if the district attourney as a result of the trial of the game violators beilievs he could convict the leo he may endict the officer. In that case then it is the governments responsibility to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the officer commited the crime. New threshold!