5 ms·

You apparently do not understand the legal concept of 'conspiracy' nor do you understand what 'entrapment' actually means in practice. Until you do it would pr

by evgen 9y ago

You apparently do not understand the legal concept of 'conspiracy' nor do you understand what 'entrapment' actually means in practice. Until you do it would probably be wise for you to stop sharing your unfounded opinions about the law or else preface them with a big, bold statement like 'I have no idea what I am talking about here, but would like the facts of the case to be read in a manner that matches my political whims regardless of existing laws and precedent.' If the facts, as presented in the article and linked complaint, hold up in court then the conspiracy charge is likely to stick and any claims made regarding entrapment will not be made by the defense because counsel for the defendant is unlikely to harbor a desire to be laughed at in court by a judge.

alsetmusic 9y ago
> Until you do it would probably be wise for you to stop sharing your unfounded opinions about the law or else preface them with a big, bold statement like 'I have no idea what I am talking about here, but would like the facts of the case to be read in a manner that matches my political whims regardless of existing laws and precedent.' Given that you have not included links to support your own conclusions, the same could be said about your comment.
- evgen 9y ago
  A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors. In this case the unlawful act is to knowingly participate in a scheme to violate various drug laws regarding the importation and distribution of controlled substances. In addition to the evidence of mens rea given there are several overt acts (e.g. agreeing to remote wipe a phone that was, at the time of this act, known to be held as evidence in a criminal case) that fulfill the requirements to indict for a conspiracy charge. As for entrapment, such a condition does not apply just by the act of a government agent providing someone with the opportunity to commit a crime but by when they use threats, harassment, or fraud to convince someone to do an act that the defendant can show they would not normally perform. Asking the defendant to wipe the phone was not entrapment, but suggesting that your drug cartel buddies might break his legs if he did not wipe the phone would be entrapment. If you need links of supporting evidence I suggest you and parent poster try using Google. Easy to understand explanations will be available for you on the first page of hits.

by evgen 9y ago

alsetmusic 9y ago

> Until you do it would probably be wise for you to stop sharing your unfounded opinions about the law or else preface them with a big, bold statement like 'I have no idea what I am talking about here, but would like the facts of the case to be read in a manner that matches my political whims regardless of existing laws and precedent.' Given that you have not included links to support your own conclusions, the same could be said about your comment.

evgen 9y ago
A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors. In this case the unlawful act is to knowingly participate in a scheme to violate various drug laws regarding the importation and distribution of controlled substances. In addition to the evidence of mens rea given there are several overt acts (e.g. agreeing to remote wipe a phone that was, at the time of this act, known to be held as evidence in a criminal case) that fulfill the requirements to indict for a conspiracy charge. As for entrapment, such a condition does not apply just by the act of a government agent providing someone with the opportunity to commit a crime but by when they use threats, harassment, or fraud to convince someone to do an act that the defendant can show they would not normally perform. Asking the defendant to wipe the phone was not entrapment, but suggesting that your drug cartel buddies might break his legs if he did not wipe the phone would be entrapment. If you need links of supporting evidence I suggest you and parent poster try using Google. Easy to understand explanations will be available for you on the first page of hits.