Donald Trump fanboys found guilty in anti-muslim terror plot in Kansas

[woolfe9998]

Nah, the problem is you went to a tier 4 toilet school. The problem is precisely that it's allowed by US jurisprudence, when it isn't in civilized nations. It's no good pointing to ridiculous precedent, like some tier 4 us rankings robot.

Really? How would you know where I went to school? And if you did know for some reason, why would you post anything about it on a forum which forbids posting personal information about another poster? Nah, I'm sure that's not what you think you're doing here, is it?

In any event, where I went to school is not relevant because my legal analysis is exactly correct. You've essentially conceded this by arguing that the problem is the law itself, not that I've gotten the law wrong.

The authorities are doing what they're legally permitted to do here. If you have a problem with the law, I suggest taking it up with your representative.

 

[justoh]

Really? How would you know where I went to school? And if you did know for some reason, why would you post anything about it on a forum which forbids posting personal information about another poster? Nah, I'm sure that's not what you think you're doing here, is it?

In any event, where I went to school is not relevant because my legal analysis is exactly correct. You've essentially conceded this by arguing that the problem is the law itself, not that I've gotten the law wrong.

The authorities are doing what they're legally permitted to do here. If you have a problem with the law, I suggest taking it up with your representative.

You mentioned it on this forum. It was a tease. I know those rankings are stupid. I didn't mean to flaunt any rules or anything. Wasn't it the jesuit school in california?

I don't live in the US. I just have an inquisitive mind. Nobody to represent me. I do have a problem with entrapment, and this is a forum.

 

[Noah Abrams]

Point of clarification about entrapment as a legal defense: it requires that the defendant not be the type of person who is generally vulnerable/susceptible to committing the sort of crime he is charged with to work. The irony is Justoh arguing that they are targeting vulnerable people, like people with a history of drug trafficking, or people who constantly say they want to kill Muslims. Those are the very sort of people law enforcement is allowed to ensnare in a sting because they will likely not get off on an entrapment defense. The rationale here is that the sting should ensnare people who present a legitimate risk of offending at some point in time even without the sting, in order to prevent a future crime.

A classic case where the entrapment defense works is say an average middle class Joe with trouble paying his bills suddenly has a huge pile of money dangled in his face by under-cover law enforcement in exchange for say, being a drug courier on a single occasion. That isn't the same as someone with a demonstrated past practice or stated interest in committing the crime in question. For those types, entrapment won't work as a defense.

Remember, people who are targeted by sting operations can always say no to committing a crime. That is their first and best defense.

Thank you for this post. I did not know this, and you have explained it very clearly. This is one of those times where you get genuinely informed about something you didn't know about, on an internet forum. Appreciate it

 

[woolfe9998]

You mentioned it on this forum. It was a tease. I know those rankings are stupid. I didn't mean to flaunt any rules or anything. Wasn't it the jesuit school in california?

No, I'm quite certain I never mentioned where I went to law school on this forum.

I don't live in the US. I just have an inquisitive mind. Nobody to represent me. I do have a problem with entrapment, and this is a forum.

I'm not suggesting you shouldn't express your opinion about entrapment here. But the problem isn't with law enforcement per se. Entrapment as a legal defense always requires prior susceptibility, but how that is interpreted as a matter of precedent varies from one jurisdiction to the next. In some, the definition of entrapment is quite broad, and it's easier for the defense to prevail. I suspect the federal definition is quite narrow or we wouldn't see so many federal sting operations.

The bottom line is that law enforcement will do whatever they are legally permitted to do. And the rationale is to prevent crimes. No doubt these stings have prevented some serious crimes, while others have ensnared people who would likely never have committed them. We'll never know how many fall into each respective category, so it's difficult to evaluate the ethical implications of the practice of ensnaring people in sting operations.

For the record, I support a fairly broad definition of entrapment. I think the state should have to demonstrate that not only has the defendant shown past susceptibility to the crime in question, but that the defendant was actually able, physically and financially, to carry out a similar crime without the involvement of law enforcement. But that isn't the law in every jurisdiction, and until it changes, you can expect law enforcement to continue to operate within the applicable legal boundaries.

 

[justoh]

No, I'm quite certain I never mentioned where I went to law school on this forum.



I'm not suggesting you shouldn't express your opinion about entrapment here. But the problem isn't with law enforcement per se. Entrapment as a legal defense always requires prior susceptibility, but how that is interpreted as a matter of precedent varies from one jurisdiction to the next. In some, the definition of entrapment is quite broad, and it's easier for the defense to prevail. I suspect the federal definition is quite narrow or we wouldn't see so many federal sting operations.

The bottom line is that law enforcement will do whatever they are legally permitted to do. And the rationale is to prevent crimes. No doubt these stings have prevented some serious crimes, while others have ensnared people who would likely never have committed them. We'll never know how many fall into each respective category, so it's difficult to evaluate the ethical implications of the practice of ensnaring people in sting operations.

For the record, I support a fairly broad definition of entrapment. I think the state should have to demonstrate that not only has the defendant shown past susceptibility to the crime in question, but that the defendant was actually able, physically and financially, to carry out a similar crime without the involvement of law enforcement. But that isn't the law in every jurisdiction, and until it changes, you can expect law enforcement to continue to operate within the applicable legal boundaries.

While I may consider myself brilliant, there's no way I deduced that you went to a jesuit school in california. You mentioned it, a long time ago. I remembered because I notice how you make more sense than most posters, because as the leading US educational experts agree, law school is the only place an american is faced with learning how to think. I know the US news rankings because I spent time in the US, and because it's based on nonsense I thought it would be triggering to point out how your school is either ranked 80-100 or worse. It's no golden gate, but it's not exactly yale or stanford, is it? Again you point out the state of affairs when the point is that it's absurd. It's that kind of mindset that belongs in tier 4.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nah, the problem is you went to a tier 4 toilet school. The problem is precisely that it's allowed by US jurisprudence, when it isn't in civilized nations. It's no good pointing to ridiculous precedent, like some tier 4 us rankings robot.

You're just here to tear it down, obviously, to discredit the institutions of American Democracy.

 

[woolfe9998]

While I may consider myself brilliant, there's no way I deduced that you went to a jesuit school in california. You mentioned it, a long time ago. I remembered because I notice how you make more sense than most posters, because as the leading US educational experts agree, law school is the only place an american is faced with learning how to think. I know the US news rankings because I spent time in the US, and because it's based on nonsense I thought it would be triggering to point out how your school is either ranked 80-100 or worse. It's no golden gate, but it's not exactly yale or stanford, is it? Again you point out the state of affairs when the point is that it's absurd. It's that kind of mindset that belongs in tier 4.

I ran a search and I cannot find any post with the name of my law school posted by me. I'm quite certain I would never have mentioned it.

In any event, I fail to see how my post reflected a "tier 4" mentality. You were railing on about these stings targeting people who are vulnerable and susceptible when that isn't the real problem. It would be far worse, in fact, if they were targeting people with no past history of susceptibility, because those people are logically less likely to ever offend on their own, so the prevention rationale goes out the window. So of course they are targeting susceptible people. The problem is that not everyone who is theoretically susceptible would necessarily offend on their own. In that, you have a valid concern, which is why I support a broader definition of the entrapment defense. I did, however, think it was reasonable to point out the legal framework and the rationale behind it (prevention) in regards to susceptibility.

So far as law enforcement goes, an organization like the FBI is going to be held accountable if someone who they have been tracking for extremist rhetoric then goes and commits a terroristic act (as with the criticism they received after 9/11), so they're going to do a sting whenever they are legally permitted as a matter of self-protection if for no other reason. Accordingly, the law will have to be changed or the practices will never change.

 

[justoh]

I ran a search and I cannot find any post with the name of my law school posted by me. I'm quite certain I would never have mentioned it.

In any event, I fail to see how my post reflected a "tier 4" mentality. You were railing on about these stings targeting people who are vulnerable and susceptible when that isn't the real problem. It would be far worse, in fact, if they were targeting people with no past history of susceptibility, because those people are logically less likely to ever offend on their own, so the prevention rationale goes out the window. So of course they are targeting susceptible people. The problem is that not everyone who is theoretically susceptible would necessarily offend on their own. In that, you have a valid concern, which is why I support a broader definition of the entrapment defense. I did, however, think it was reasonable to point out the legal framework and the rationale behind it (prevention) in regards to susceptibility.

So far as law enforcement goes, an organization like the FBI is going to be held accountable if someone who they have been tracking for extremist rhetoric then goes and commits a terroristic act (as with the criticism they received after 9/11), so they're going to do a sting whenever they are legally permitted as a matter of self-protection if for no other reason. Accordingly, the law will have to be changed or the practices will never change.

The problem is that there is no constitutional argument against entrapment, per se. As long as someone is predisposed, post Frankfurter. Considering American atrocities against countries of predominantly Islamic nature, it's quite easy for the govt to incite terrorism against the US. You guys are awful. So all that is left is due process. Substantive due process. So essentially it comes down to outrage, and the rhetoric of dead children will make any level of govt. incitement "acceptable" or "not outrageous" to idiots. I appreciate that zinfamous guy. Noticed nobody else voicing any concern against entrapment. This world is BS. We're all predisposed to atrocity, arguably.

 

[woolfe9998]

The problem is that there is no constitutional argument against entrapment, per se. As long as someone is predisposed, post Frankfurter. Considering American atrocities against countries of predominantly Islamic nature, it's quite easy for the govt to incite terrorism against the US. You guys are awful. So all that is left is due process. Substantive due process. So essentially it comes down to outrage, and the rhetoric of dead children will make any level of govt. incitement "acceptable" or "not outrageous" to idiots. I appreciate that zinfamous guy. Noticed nobody else voicing any concern against entrapment. This world is BS. We're all predisposed to atrocity, arguably.

There doesn't have to be a Constitutional argument against it. We can change the law by legislative action. Indeed, entrapment is a strong defense in many states such as California. It can be similarly strong everywhere else. I suspect the reason it isn't strong everywhere is because voters just aren't that attuned to the issue and hence they don't make their voices heard about it. That's really a problem in any democracy, however, not just the US.

I'm not entirely buying into the argument that US foreign policy is responsible for terrorist acts committed by nutty religious extremists. These people are killing people everywhere, not just in the US, and they are killing each other in their own countries more than they are killing westerners. But I suppose that is a topic too broad for the thread.

 

[Noah Abrams]

I'm not entirely buying into the argument that US foreign policy is responsible for terrorist acts committed by nutty religious extremists. These people are killing people everywhere, not just in the US, and they are killing each other in their own countries more than they are killing westerners.

Not responsible as such, but it is definitely a factor, and a big one at that. Even Bin Laden's primary beef with the States was that the US forces got stationed in Saudi Arabia after the first attack against Iraq (when Iraq invaded Kuwait). And these nutters, and I would use stronger words than nutters, are not blowing up people in Nepal, are they? Wicked and bad actions always lead to more evil.

 

[woolfe9998]

Not responsible as such, but it is definitely a factor, and a big one at that. Even Bin Laden's primary beef with the States was that the US forces got stationed in Saudi Arabia after the first attack against Iraq (when Iraq invaded Kuwait). And these nutters, and I would use stronger words than nutters, are not blowing up people in Nepal, are they? Wicked and bad actions always lead to more evil.

Complex topic. The problem with this kind of discussion is that people naturally cling to mono-causal explanations for events, when the reasons are invariably multi-causal because the world is complex by nature. For example, did Comey's October surprise letter flip the election to Trump? It was a close election, so perhaps it did. But then, perhaps because the election was so close, any of 10 other variables, if changed, would have given the election to Clinton. The reasons for this outcome were many, and so too are the reasons for Islamic terrorism.

I have no doubt that for some Islamic terrorist attacks, they wouldn't have happened had the US chosen a different foreign policy. I also have no doubt that, for example, had the Arab world not experienced a kind of religious reawakening in the late 1970's to early 1980's, many of these attacks wouldn't have happened and also, US foreign policy might have been different.

I certainly agree that there are consequences to our foreign policy choices, including the possibility of increasing the risk of terrorism. Rhetoric matters too. The fact that many people on the American right argue that this is a war of civilizations against an evil religion is likely to do nothing but increase the risk of terrorism. These people are literally arguing to peaceful Muslims that their religion requires them to attack us. Duh.

There is a lot of responsibility on the part of many parties and nations here. I will leave it at that.