Stunning Arrest Made in Milwaukee

[Blanky]

That is not a defense of this guy. That's questioning the tactics of law enforcement.

I really must say, sir, it's a treat watching you become even more and more fringe as time goes on. What was a small voice before is now just a whimper, even you're not convicted of this crap anymore. Because, eventually, even the ignorant must admit yep there is just something off about islam. Whining that the FBI sold him a gun because he wanted to kill people is getting super duper retarded. Sure, he was entrapped. I know that because I am thinking about all the times the FBI has tried to sell me machine guns and I'm like "nah, uh, guys, I'm not that stupid!". I mean they do this with everyone, right? No particular reason they tried to do it with him. Can't be because he wanted to spread islam through the barrel of a gun and talked at length about it. Nope. It's the FBI's fault.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Not a real muslim! Islam is all about spreading peace, so there's no way he was a real muslim!

I'll bet the two FBI informants were Muslim

 

[michal1980]

An elk is an animal, I take it you were going for ilk.

But who would expect otherwise, you seem to know no better of course.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2459421&page=49

Yes I meant ilk,

Never defended the militia, only had one or two post there, and one of which supported starving them out.

So not sure what you are getting at.

 

[michal1980]

Sorry, don't own an elk. You must have me confused with someone else.

sorry about the elk vs ilk thing.

no ones confused by your defense of terrorists. You do it in every thread.

 

[Orignal Earl]

no ones confused by your defense of terrorists. .

I'd bet there's only a couple of wackjobs here that would think that way

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I know they are illegal. they are also supposed to be hard to get. Considering that less then 1% of shootings are used with one i find it hard to believe.

The article states its a "machine gun" with no other facts. so i still have a hard time thinking its true.

Don't you understand how this works yet? It's either a Glock or an AK47. No doubt about it.

 

[Victorian Gray]

sorry about the elk vs ilk thing.

no ones confused by your defense of terrorists. You do it in every thread.

Must suck to live in your sad fantasy world. Always angry, always frightened and always wrong.

 

[michal1980]

Must suck to live in your sad fantasy world. Always angry, always frightened and always wrong.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.


Are your ISIS checks still coming? or have then sent out IOUs after their cash was bombed?

 

[Genx87]

how did they bait him?

Guy - I want to buy a machine gun
FBI Guy - Ok we can get you one
Guy- heres some money.

That's baiting?

Emotional Engineering? Just stop making up excuses for criminals. If this guy wasn't going to shot up someone, he wouldn't be buying guns to shot them up.

Go search on the topic at hand and see how many of these "plots" ended up being FBI inspired. This guy I suspect is no different. A loner some FBI informant befriends, then gives him an idea to commit a crime, then the FBI supplies the logistics and weapons. That isnt protecting the homeland. That is security theater designed to impress the simpletons. In many many cases it clearly works. Meanwhile people like the Boston bombers and San Bernadino or any other wide range of real criminals goes undetected.

 

[Strk]

Go search on the topic at hand and see how many of these "plots" ended up being FBI inspired. This guy I suspect is no different. A loner some FBI informant befriends, then gives him an idea to commit a crime, then the FBI supplies the logistics and weapons. That isnt protecting the homeland. That is security theater designed to impress the simpletons. In many many cases it clearly works. Meanwhile people like the Boston bombers and San Bernadino or any other wide range of real criminals goes undetected.

There is a bit of a difference in facilitating and entrapment though. I suppose one of our resident lawyers could probably explain it a bit if they pop into this thread. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but that is a slippery slope.

 

[Subyman]

how did they bait him?

Guy - I want to buy a machine gun
FBI Guy - Ok we can get you one
Guy- heres some money.

That's baiting?

Emotional Engineering? Just stop making up excuses for criminals. If this guy wasn't going to shot up someone, he wouldn't be buying guns to shot them up.

Oh look it is my shadow. No mention of SJWs in your post this time though, I'm a bit disappointed. Nice to see you got a hold of the official transcript of the guy's interaction with the FBI. FOIA requests are quick these days!

 

[Subyman]

And for those that actually care about the murky practices the FBI uses, here is another story that made me see the FBI in a new light:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/20/fbi-informant

The FBI has used informants that are the "masterminds" of a fake plot and they go around reeling in citizens with propaganda and then charge them all with terrorist plots. Sometimes it goes as far as the informant having sex the with marks to seduce them. This is, michal1980, why I used the term emotional engineering.

This is why I typically keep a skeptical eye on these stories and wait for more information.

 

[alien42]

And for those that actually care about the murky practices the FBI uses, here is another story that made me see the FBI in a new light:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/20/fbi-informant

The FBI has used informants that are the "masterminds" of a fake plot and they go around reeling in citizens with propaganda and then charge them all with terrorist plots. Sometimes it goes as far as the informant having sex the with marks to seduce them. This is, michal1980, why I used the term emotional engineering.

This is why I typically keep a skeptical eye on these stories and wait for more information.

that is a great article, scary stuff...

"He was tasked with befriending Muslims and blanket recording their conversations. All this information was then fed back to the FBI who told Monteilh to act like a radical himself to lure out Islamist sympathizers.

Yet, far from succeeding, Monteilh eventually so unnerved Orange County's Muslim community that that they got a restraining order against him. In an ironic twist, they also reported Monteilh to the FBI: unaware he was in fact working undercover for the agency."

 

[BoberFett]

Ethically murky? There's nothing murky about, that's downright vile. Create terrorists so we can fight them. The criminal industrial complex is just as bad as the military industrial complex. This country creates entire classes of criminals intentionally.

 

[bshole]

Ethically murky? There's nothing murky about, that's downright vile. Create terrorists so we can fight them. The criminal industrial complex is just as bad as the military industrial complex. This country creates entire classes of criminals intentionally.

How do you create a terrorist? What kind of sick fuck agrees to mass murder when presented with the option?

 

[Zaap]

How do you create a terrorist? What kind of sick fuck agrees to mass murder when presented with the option?

Apparently everyone would. I'm quaking in my boots that the FBI is going to come after me and entice me with offers of bombs, stinger missiles and machine guns because *everyone* is just an enticement away from agreeing to commit mass murder. It's a common thing.

I think the thing that murks this up is the terrorist label. Does it really matter?

Every time there IS a mass-shooting, people drone: "Stop all these shootings before they happen!" but no one has a fucking clue what you'd actually have to DO in order to catch someone BEFORE they actually went and shot up a school, community center or whatever.

HINT: IF you happen to be onto someone beforehand, you can't actually LET them do it, or get their hands on weapons beyond your control if you're law enforcement. You'd have to *GASP* trap them in a manner that you could then convict them. And no, no one has the budget for *endless* surveillance so you can just watch the guy 24/7 forever until they actually do go and commit mass murder somewhere.

It's fucking retarded to me to wring hands over people committing acts of mass murder, yet get all bent out of shape over a guy arrested for buying what he thinks are illegal weapons... to commit mass murder with! Had he gone through with something, all the same people would be whining "WHY OH WHY didn't someone do something??!!! Quick, let's ban guns or some other draconian stupidity!"

 

[Darwin333]

How do you create a terrorist? What kind of sick fuck agrees to mass murder when presented with the option?

Well someone poor and desperate could try to pretend to go along with it just to steal the money. In their minds, what can they do? Go to the police?

Offering someone desperate $250K cash and they think they have even the slightest chance of ripping you off they will pretend to agree to do damn near anything.

I think the greater point is that by all indications most of the people the FBI has caught would have never considered violent actions if not being coerced by the FBI. I can't say that I have sympathy for people that do get coerced into agreeing but pretending that it's keeping us safe is just silly.

 

[Zaap]

No one offered the guy $250k. (In the case from the documentary, no money exchanged hands before the 4 committed what they thought were terror acts- the money as motive defense is total bullshit in that case.)

In this case, the guy isn't charged with some nebulous 'terrorism' charge, he's charged with possessing illegal firearms. He deserves every minute of whatever sentence that carries.

People seem to be just mixing up facts with all the usual blind cop hatred that festers around here, and making up whatever to try and have sympathy for some dumbass caught in a sting getting what he deserves. Average Jane and Joe Smith don't go around boasting about wanting to kill a bunch of people and buying the means to do so from undercover officers. If they do- good riddance.

 

[zinfamous]

No one offered the guy $250k. (In the case from the documentary, no money exchanged hands before the 4 committed what they thought were terror acts- the money as motive defense is total bullshit in that case.)

In this case, the guy isn't charged with some nebulous 'terrorism' charge, he's charged with possessing illegal firearms. He deserves every minute of whatever sentence that carries.

People seem to be just mixing up facts with all the usual blind cop hatred that festers around here, and making up whatever to try and have sympathy for some dumbass caught in a sting getting what he deserves. Average Jane and Joe Smith don't go around boasting about wanting to kill a bunch of people and buying the means to do so from undercover officers. If they do- good riddance.

It still baffles me that you are confusing a sting operation in the classic case of apprehending known criminals, with this modern bastardization of applying similar tactics to create a criminal case.

You realize this is very different, correct?

Not a single person here is defending people that purportedly want to commit violent acts. (and yet it is still uncertain if they actually would. which is a different issue)

Anyway, the difference between comments in this thread is the application of justice--some of us hold it to a higher standard than others.

A sting is not a sting if your goal is to first create criminal intent, then prove criminal intent, then justify prosecution through a false situation. The waters are further muddied, quite honestly, when the accused criminals acquire benign weapons, don't you think?

Prosecution for thought and intent is one thing; prosecution over an act that could never happen...that has to concern you, right?

This is a legal/thought issue. Don't confuse my concern with some populist horseshit like, "DERP! YOU LOVE ISIS TERRORISTS DERP DERP!"

Take the time to actually consider what this means.

 

[BoberFett]

How do you create a terrorist? What kind of sick fuck agrees to mass murder when presented with the option?

All it takes is the right target and motivation. Hell, I bet a lot of your fellow Democrats in this forum could be "enticed" into saying some pretty incriminating things on tape if the "targets" were Republicans.

 

[Zaap]

It still baffles me that you are confusing a sting operation in the classic case of apprehending known criminals, with this modern bastardization of applying similar tactics to create a criminal case.

You realize this is very different, correct?

It's only in your imagination that 'known criminal' has anything to do with anything. Was Adam Lanza a known criminal? Were the Boston Bombers? Hell, in fact of mass murders in the past few years, why don't you tell me exactly how many of the attackers were "know criminals"?

A sting is not a sting if your goal is to first create criminal intent, then prove criminal intent, then justify prosecution through a false situation.

Federal prosecutors charged 23-year-old Samy Mohamed Hamzeh with unlawfully possessing a machine gun and receiving and possessing firearms not registered to him.

[Notice he's not being charged with "terrorism" or conspiracy to commit mass murder or anything of the sort. Do tell how he was unfairly charged with the above.]


A spokesman for the U.S. attorney, Dean Puschnig, didn't immediately respond to a question asking why charges were limited to gun possession. Hamzeh's attorney, federal defender Ronnie Murray, didn't immediately return email and voicemail messages left after business hours.

According to an FBI affidavit, agents were tipped off in September that Hamzeh planned to travel to Israel in October to attack Israeli soldiers and citizens in the West Bank. He abandoned those plans due to "family, financial and logistic reasons," the affidavit said, but refocused his efforts on a domestic attack.

Hamzeh discussed his plans extensively with two FBI informants. The affidavit said the FBI started recording his conversations with the informants in October.

The waters are further muddied, quite honestly, when the accused criminals acquire benign weapons, don't you think?

No. As I've said, no LEA on the planet of any merit is going to let s suspect get his hands on deadly weapons and take any chance that that person will then carry out an attack. You'd simply HAVE to control the situation once you're tipped off to a suspect who has plans of mass murder. Also as already stated, OF COURSE law enforcement is going to try and build as strong a case as possible to actually put the person away for some time. This guy frankly is getting off pretty light since illegal gun possession is all they seem to have him on, even though according to his statements he was interested in committing mass murder. Apparently, he can't be charged with that and whatever sting didn't set him up to go as far as a controlled attempt.

But what you're missing is that's pretty much the best you're ever going to get in cases like this. Its likely you're only going to find mass murder suspects because they run their mouths and spout off their plans to informants... not last minute with their fingers on the detonator of an *actual* live method of mass-murder, with the Calvary showing up right on time and saving the day.


But then I notice you and the other armchair detectives don't have any other answers.

Why don't you answer this:

If you (as a LEA) are tippped off that someone is planning mass murder, what do you do?

Keep in mind the consequences of having recieved such s tip and not acted, and that person did go on to commit a mass murder, its on YOUR hands in large part for having known but failed to act. What do you do?

Prosecution for thought and intent is one thing; prosecution over an act that could never happen...that has to concern you, right?

Show me where he's being prosecuted or even charged with something he THOUGHT. Did he think about aquiring the guns, or did he?

In your documentary case... did those 4 merely THINK about carrying what they thought were explosives and placing them outside a Jewish center... or was that them actually caught doing just that?

You'd have a point if people were just being charged with yapping about wanting to commit mass murder or certainly just thinking about it. But I doubt you can really show me a case of just a thought crime. That's exactly why you'd need set up s controlled situation to see if a suspect is serious or not...to actually have a case with real charges. That someone gets tripped in that process after boasting to informants about mass murder... tough shit. Cry me a river.

 

[zinfamous]

Why don't you answer this:

If you (as a LEA) are tippped off that someone is planning mass murder, what do you do?

Keep in mind the consequences of having recieved such s tip and not acted, and that person did go on to commit a mass murder, its on YOUR hands in large part for having known but failed to act. What do you do?



Show me where he's being prosecuted or even charged with something he THOUGHT. Did he think about aquiring the guns, or did he?

In your documentary case... did those 4 merely THINK about carrying what they thought were explosives and placing them outside a Jewish center... or was that them actually caught doing just that?

You'd have a point if people were just being charged with yapping about wanting to commit mass murder or certainly just thinking about it. But I doubt you can really show me a case of just a thought crime. That's exactly why you'd need set up s controlled situation to see if a suspect is serious or not...to actually have a case with real charges. That someone gets tripped in that process after boasting to informants about mass murder... tough shit. Cry me a river.

Hah! All you can do to respond is to continue to ignore the very assertions, and ask about situations where a "real sting" would actually occur. Yes, of course if there was a legit tip, and this does happen, then we would be talking.

But I'll wait until that happens, as well should you, and then we can continue this discussion.

it seems that deep down you already understand that none of this smells right, but it's more important for your sense of security that you believe LEA is actually capable of preventing such acts (they really aren't), rather than stage them for media sound bites.

Of course Lanza couldn't have been stopped, of course the Boston bombers couldn't have been st--Oh WOOPS! The FBI actually ignored several tips from Russian Intelligence about Surnayev. So, well, maybe they could have done something if they didn't spend most of their attention on setting up dummies for dodgy prosecution to make US citizens feel all warm inside.

 

[WHAMPOM]

It is well known the FBI and CIA manufacture what they cannot find and their informants only get paid for positive results not a "can't find no terrorists anywhere!" All gotta justify their paychecks.

 

[werepossum]

It still baffles me that you are confusing a sting operation in the classic case of apprehending known criminals, with this modern bastardization of applying similar tactics to create a criminal case.

You realize this is very different, correct?

Not a single person here is defending people that purportedly want to commit violent acts. (and yet it is still uncertain if they actually would. which is a different issue)

Anyway, the difference between comments in this thread is the application of justice--some of us hold it to a higher standard than others.

A sting is not a sting if your goal is to first create criminal intent, then prove criminal intent, then justify prosecution through a false situation. The waters are further muddied, quite honestly, when the accused criminals acquire benign weapons, don't you think?

Prosecution for thought and intent is one thing; prosecution over an act that could never happen...that has to concern you, right?

This is a legal/thought issue. Don't confuse my concern with some populist horseshit like, "DERP! YOU LOVE ISIS TERRORISTS DERP DERP!"

Take the time to actually consider what this means.

Problem is, we can never know if the tip is from an outside source or from another FBI asset, someone likely to murder or someone judged ripe to be talked into it. I don't have a lot of sympathy either way - if someone can be easily manipulated into planning a terrorist attack, I'd just as soon stick them safely in prison - but I have to wonder how many of these people actually would have acted on their hatred absent government agents provocateur. Unfortunately there's no way to know, but like you, I can't help thinking they're building them up to smash them down. And after that, the even more unsettling question - what are they missing in their concentration on the low hanging fruit?

 

[Zaap]

Of course Lanza couldn't have been stopped, of course the Boston bombers couldn't have been st--Oh WOOPS! The FBI actually ignored several tips from Russian Intelligence about Surnayev. So, well, maybe they could have done something if they didn't spend most of their attention on setting up dummies for dodgy prosecution to make US citizens feel all warm inside.

LOL notice how you flail around and can't answer a SINGLE one of my questions!

And the above is hilarious.

Tell me, what would the FBI have done based on a TIP (the VERY THING WE'RE DISCUSSING!!) about the Boston Bombers?

Tell me, fucking genius!

You know FUCK WELL anything they would have done BEFORE the fact, you'd be here labeling it a 'dodgy prosecution', declaring it was just a couple of innocent, poor teens targeted, and saying how it accomplished nothing!

What exact charges would you have nailed the Boston bombers on BEFORE the fact?

YOU CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION! Because you KNOW the answer is JACK SHIT!

You ONLY take the Boston Bombers seriously (or ANY mass-murderer) AFTER the fact!

Man, the 20/20 hindsight is sure strong with you, but unfortunately for those *actually* tasked with law enforcement having to deal with TIP-OFFS of mass murder suspects (it's still hilarious how you cite one in the case of the Boston Bombers, but dismiss all others BEFORE anything could happen!) they can't rely on your crystal clear 20/20 hindsight, or use their crystal balls to know exactly who's a real threat, and who has a LEGIT use for a couple of rice-cookers. It's GUARANTEED they would have had to use a sting of some kind to take down the Boston bombers... and you'd be the loudest voice saying how it was all bullshit!