How do they prove they were already willing? Wouldn't any initial undercover surveillance to ascertain their "willingness" be part of the entrapment process?
From the title I thought this would be about another SJW getting caught in a pedophile sting. I guess the FBI isn't doing those anymore since they would just end up catching their own side.
I'm not a lawyer, but that's not how I've seen entrapment defined previously. I've always understood it to be a question of what was the proximate cause of the criminal act. I.E, but for the actions of law enforcement, would this person ever have committed the crime?
This seems more like a standard where they're judging the defendant's character. "Yeah he didn't have the means or opportunity to commit the crime, but he hated the government, so it's totally not entrapment when I suggested the target, time, place, and supplied the means to attack"
Seething with hate and wanting to hurt someone is legal as long as you don't actually follow through.
but for the actions of law enforcement, would this person ever have committed the crime?
If that was the requirement for entrapment, most pedo stings would fail. As would most gun busts, and "extremists" like KKK or Nazi takedowns. Most crimes aren't planned, they are of opportunity. If the cops never presented these opportunities, they likely wouldn't have ever acted.
Even under the idea of taking them down before a real opportunity comes and hurts somebody, most of the scenarios in which the busts happen are so unlikely that I'd argue the person wasn't a real threat to anyone. Its pretty well known how often a lot of these busts require wearing them down until they finally cross the line, Randy Weaver being a famous example.
So, entrapment has always been a theory of a line the law can't cross, but who is gonna defend pedos or Nazis by getting them off on that technicality? Its only really enforced in absurdly egregious cases.
Now I want an explanation how the fbi planning all this shit out didn't induce people to commit to a plan they wouldn't have without it literally being thrown in their lap. The conspirators didn't seek out the plants or have a plot beforehand it happened the other way around.
How do they prove they were already willing? Wouldn't any initial undercover surveillance to ascertain their "willingness" be part of the entrapment process?
From the title I thought this would be about another SJW getting caught in a pedophile sting. I guess the FBI isn't doing those anymore since they would just end up catching their own side.
I'm not a lawyer, but that's not how I've seen entrapment defined previously. I've always understood it to be a question of what was the proximate cause of the criminal act. I.E, but for the actions of law enforcement, would this person ever have committed the crime?
This seems more like a standard where they're judging the defendant's character. "Yeah he didn't have the means or opportunity to commit the crime, but he hated the government, so it's totally not entrapment when I suggested the target, time, place, and supplied the means to attack"
Seething with hate and wanting to hurt someone is legal as long as you don't actually follow through.
If that was the requirement for entrapment, most pedo stings would fail. As would most gun busts, and "extremists" like KKK or Nazi takedowns. Most crimes aren't planned, they are of opportunity. If the cops never presented these opportunities, they likely wouldn't have ever acted.
Even under the idea of taking them down before a real opportunity comes and hurts somebody, most of the scenarios in which the busts happen are so unlikely that I'd argue the person wasn't a real threat to anyone. Its pretty well known how often a lot of these busts require wearing them down until they finally cross the line, Randy Weaver being a famous example.
So, entrapment has always been a theory of a line the law can't cross, but who is gonna defend pedos or Nazis by getting them off on that technicality? Its only really enforced in absurdly egregious cases.
This is some Minority Report bullshit.
And man do they do a convincing act!
Also, this is such utter bullshit. There would have been no 'crime' if not for the FBI.
Yes that's the law. Congrats
Now I want an explanation how the fbi planning all this shit out didn't induce people to commit to a plan they wouldn't have without it literally being thrown in their lap. The conspirators didn't seek out the plants or have a plot beforehand it happened the other way around.
Hey, they are giving another meaning to the words :
Okay Groomer.
I guess we'll see if the jury has any balls.
Or we'll see if anyone on the jury had an elderly family member killed by the "victim."
I would love to hear this Judge explain what is entrapment, then.