5 ms·

That's how the FBI has caught terrorists in the past. Agents work with the terrorist and build a dud bomb, then arrest them when it fails to go off.

by ColanR 6y ago

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
If you really want to see how crazy this can get, a quick search for 'voodoo doll attempted murder' will be eye-opening.
- ttul 6y ago
  Canada lost a case against a couple of dimwitted "terrorists" that the mounties engaged in an expensive, drawn out plot to recruit them to build a bomb [1]. In that case, the conduct of police was judged to be entrapment based on a precedent in which it is written, "The state must conduct its law enforcement operations in a manner that is consonant with the community’s underlying sense of fair play and decency. It cannot manipulate suspects’ lives without limit, turning their day-to-day existence into a piece of theatre in which they are unwitting participants." [1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/judge-says-rcmp-entrapped-bc-couple-in-terror-case-overturns-guilty-verdict/article31199892/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/judge-...
  - johnyzee 6y ago
    This has happened again and again, the world over, with the purpose of playing up the perceived threat of terrorism. For example, Richard Reid, the 'shoe bomber', was mentally retarded, and caught trying to ignite the C4 he had somehow acquired, using matches.
gonzo41 6y ago
That seems like it sails very closely to entrapment.
- DiabloD3 6y ago
  By any reasonable interpretation, it is entrapment, and a fair number of lawyers out there were pretty unhappy, some vocally so, with the outcome of that whole shitshow.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    Please compare and contrast "reasonable" and "legal" interpretations. While such a comparison might rub you (and me, for that matter) the wrong way, it's the "legal" interpretation that holds in a US Article III court[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tribunals_in_the_United_States#Article_III_courts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tribunals_in_the_Unite...
    - DiabloD3 6y ago
      My point was, it rubbed lawyers the wrong way. I'm going to listen to a lawyer when they speak of their own craft.
- maxlybbert 6y ago
  It does. My understanding is that as long as the police don’t make the suggestion, then it’s not entrapment. If the officer asks, “hey, do you wanna bomb that building?” it’s entrapment. If you ask “would you help me bomb that building?” and the officer sells you what you think is a bomb, it’s not. Of course, the officer isn’t necessarily wearing a wire or anything, and it’s possible to phrase things carefully to suggest something without literally making the suggestion, so it comes down to the officer’s testimony (“I never suggested that he commit a crime” and maybe “I did suggest that somebody ought to pay for that behavior”) versus the accused’s.
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    My understanding of entrapment is that it's convincing someone to do something they wouldn't ordinarily. I don't think "Wanna bomb that building?" Qualifies as entrapment. It would be difficult for undercover police to catch drug dealers, for example, if they couldn't ask the dealers to sell them drugs. Entrapment would be more like "We're going to bomb that building, and if you don't join us, I'm going to kill you... Hah! Just kidding, you're under arrest!" "Government agents do not entrap defendants simply by offering them an opportunity to commit a crime. Judges expect people to resist any ordinary temptation to violate the law. An entrapment defense arises when government agents resort to repugnant behavior such as the use of threats, harassment, fraud, or even flattery to induce defendants to commit crimes." https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/entrapment-basics-33987.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/entrapment-basics-33...
srtjstjsj 6y ago
They show FBI radicalizes people and creates "terrorists", not catches terrorists. They act like criminals and intimidate people into compliance and then arrest them. But for some reason if you tried pretending to be a terrorist, you'd still be a criminal
- Fnoord 6y ago
  > They show FBI radicalizes people and creates "terrorists", not catches terrorists. They act like criminals and intimidate people into compliance and then arrest them. > But for some reason if you tried pretending to be a terrorist, you'd still be a criminal That depends. The informant/infiltrator needs to "play along" till some extend. However, they should also not stimulate other people to commit crimes. It is a careful balance. So for example, if Alice asks Bob to make a bomb, and Bob complies (with a fake bomb), then how exactly did Bob (who works for the FBI) create a terrorist? They didn't. They caught one by pretending being one. Apart from the ability to safely catch Alice red-handed, Bob can also testify the intend of Alice. 2 in 1. Would you rather see it was Charlie who made the bomb, but then a real one? Of course not. Sometimes, this infiltration method is one of the few or the only viable way to catch a terrorist or criminal. It is not without risk though; it is high risk, high reward. Not the first option to be chosen; you want low risk, high reward options first. EDIT: in hindsight it would've been better to use different names, ie. Mallory. I leave the above as-is.

That's how the FBI has caught terrorists in the past. Agents work with the terrorist and build a dud bomb, then arrest them when it fails to go off.

by ColanR 6y ago

That's how the FBI has caught terrorists in the past. Agents work with the terrorist and build a dud bomb, then arrest them when it fails to go off.

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago

If you really want to see how crazy this can get, a quick search for 'voodoo doll attempted murder' will be eye-opening.

ttul 6y ago
Canada lost a case against a couple of dimwitted "terrorists" that the mounties engaged in an expensive, drawn out plot to recruit them to build a bomb [1]. In that case, the conduct of police was judged to be entrapment based on a precedent in which it is written, "The state must conduct its law enforcement operations in a manner that is consonant with the community’s underlying sense of fair play and decency. It cannot manipulate suspects’ lives without limit, turning their day-to-day existence into a piece of theatre in which they are unwitting participants." [1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/judge-says-rcmp-entrapped-bc-couple-in-terror-case-overturns-guilty-verdict/article31199892/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/judge-...
- johnyzee 6y ago
  This has happened again and again, the world over, with the purpose of playing up the perceived threat of terrorism. For example, Richard Reid, the 'shoe bomber', was mentally retarded, and caught trying to ignite the C4 he had somehow acquired, using matches.

gonzo41 6y ago

That seems like it sails very closely to entrapment.

DiabloD3 6y ago
By any reasonable interpretation, it is entrapment, and a fair number of lawyers out there were pretty unhappy, some vocally so, with the outcome of that whole shitshow.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  Please compare and contrast "reasonable" and "legal" interpretations. While such a comparison might rub you (and me, for that matter) the wrong way, it's the "legal" interpretation that holds in a US Article III court[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tribunals_in_the_United_States#Article_III_courts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tribunals_in_the_Unite...
  - DiabloD3 6y ago
    My point was, it rubbed lawyers the wrong way. I'm going to listen to a lawyer when they speak of their own craft.
maxlybbert 6y ago
It does. My understanding is that as long as the police don’t make the suggestion, then it’s not entrapment. If the officer asks, “hey, do you wanna bomb that building?” it’s entrapment. If you ask “would you help me bomb that building?” and the officer sells you what you think is a bomb, it’s not. Of course, the officer isn’t necessarily wearing a wire or anything, and it’s possible to phrase things carefully to suggest something without literally making the suggestion, so it comes down to the officer’s testimony (“I never suggested that he commit a crime” and maybe “I did suggest that somebody ought to pay for that behavior”) versus the accused’s.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  My understanding of entrapment is that it's convincing someone to do something they wouldn't ordinarily. I don't think "Wanna bomb that building?" Qualifies as entrapment. It would be difficult for undercover police to catch drug dealers, for example, if they couldn't ask the dealers to sell them drugs. Entrapment would be more like "We're going to bomb that building, and if you don't join us, I'm going to kill you... Hah! Just kidding, you're under arrest!" "Government agents do not entrap defendants simply by offering them an opportunity to commit a crime. Judges expect people to resist any ordinary temptation to violate the law. An entrapment defense arises when government agents resort to repugnant behavior such as the use of threats, harassment, fraud, or even flattery to induce defendants to commit crimes." https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/entrapment-basics-33987.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/entrapment-basics-33...

srtjstjsj 6y ago

They show FBI radicalizes people and creates "terrorists", not catches terrorists. They act like criminals and intimidate people into compliance and then arrest them. But for some reason if you tried pretending to be a terrorist, you'd still be a criminal

Fnoord 6y ago
> They show FBI radicalizes people and creates "terrorists", not catches terrorists. They act like criminals and intimidate people into compliance and then arrest them. > But for some reason if you tried pretending to be a terrorist, you'd still be a criminal That depends. The informant/infiltrator needs to "play along" till some extend. However, they should also not stimulate other people to commit crimes. It is a careful balance. So for example, if Alice asks Bob to make a bomb, and Bob complies (with a fake bomb), then how exactly did Bob (who works for the FBI) create a terrorist? They didn't. They caught one by pretending being one. Apart from the ability to safely catch Alice red-handed, Bob can also testify the intend of Alice. 2 in 1. Would you rather see it was Charlie who made the bomb, but then a real one? Of course not. Sometimes, this infiltration method is one of the few or the only viable way to catch a terrorist or criminal. It is not without risk though; it is high risk, high reward. Not the first option to be chosen; you want low risk, high reward options first. EDIT: in hindsight it would've been better to use different names, ie. Mallory. I leave the above as-is.