3 ms·

>>Do you give them ideas, pretend to give them the means, and encourage (or even nag/pressure) them? I mean, we do, but is that a good thing? All of that shoul

by syshum 5y ago

>>Do you give them ideas, pretend to give them the means, and encourage (or even nag/pressure) them? I mean, we do, but is that a good thing? All of that should be considered entrapment, and law enforcement should not be doing it for FBI, and other law enforcement I have a pretty simple standard, that many people do not agree with. law enforcement should not be allowed to break the law to enforce the law. We however allow them to do so all time. In relation to this story, it is simple. If you just put up a site like this, people then contact you, and as law enforcement you setup a meeting let them incriminate themselves no problems, you did not break the law, it was unsolicited by you, etc. Flip this though and say you embed an agent at a support group of some kind, this agent then prompts a person with "I know someone that could take care of that for you" after establishing a relationship with the person, then over the course of months they entice the person into committing a crime. That is where the line is cross IMO. That is where law enforcement is today

pessimizer 5y ago
> All of that should be considered entrapment, and law enforcement should not be doing it Not in courts in the USA. Entrapment is when you convince someone to do something they wouldn't do if not for your encouragement. This is painted as making it easy for someone to do what they want to do. It's why they target schizophrenics and idiots. > law enforcement should not be allowed to break the law to enforce the law. We however allow them to do so all time. That's not a simple standard. If we allow law enforcement to break some laws legally, they aren't breaking the law. It's against the law for you to break my laptop to pieces, but it's not against to law for me to break my laptop to pieces.
- syshum 5y ago
  >>Not in courts in the USA. hmmm I wonder if that is why I stated "SHOULD BE" not that is was. Clearly the indication was that I believe the current position by the court system is wrong, and that we have allowed law enforcement to much latitude in this area. That we as a society to seek to more tightly control what law enforcement is allowed to do in the name of "law and order", then maybe we would not have the clear abuse of power we see on the streets every day. >>If we allow law enforcement to break some laws legally, they aren't breaking the law. Again words matter, clearly I should SHOULD NOT, again indicating my bleif that there should not be exemptions in the law for law enforcement like they have today. We as a society would suffer far less abuse from law enforcement if we did not create a separate class of individual called "law enforcement" that we exempt from the laws that everyone else has to obey. Again to be clear this is a position I believe society SHOULD adopt, not that I believe it has, thus commenting "well under the law today...." is pointless as that is not the conversation. I am fully aware that today we do exempt law enforcement from the very laws they are to enforce upon others. I find that to be unethical and untenable >>It's against the law for you to break my laptop to pieces, but it's not against to law for me to break my laptop to pieces. That is a ridiculous analogy, that that then some how conclude that we are all property of the government, and by extension law enforcement? That some how property rights apply to abuses by government agent? Really?

by syshum 5y ago

pessimizer 5y ago

> All of that should be considered entrapment, and law enforcement should not be doing it Not in courts in the USA. Entrapment is when you convince someone to do something they wouldn't do if not for your encouragement. This is painted as making it easy for someone to do what they want to do. It's why they target schizophrenics and idiots. > law enforcement should not be allowed to break the law to enforce the law. We however allow them to do so all time. That's not a simple standard. If we allow law enforcement to break some laws legally, they aren't breaking the law. It's against the law for you to break my laptop to pieces, but it's not against to law for me to break my laptop to pieces.

syshum 5y ago
>>Not in courts in the USA. hmmm I wonder if that is why I stated "SHOULD BE" not that is was. Clearly the indication was that I believe the current position by the court system is wrong, and that we have allowed law enforcement to much latitude in this area. That we as a society to seek to more tightly control what law enforcement is allowed to do in the name of "law and order", then maybe we would not have the clear abuse of power we see on the streets every day. >>If we allow law enforcement to break some laws legally, they aren't breaking the law. Again words matter, clearly I should SHOULD NOT, again indicating my bleif that there should not be exemptions in the law for law enforcement like they have today. We as a society would suffer far less abuse from law enforcement if we did not create a separate class of individual called "law enforcement" that we exempt from the laws that everyone else has to obey. Again to be clear this is a position I believe society SHOULD adopt, not that I believe it has, thus commenting "well under the law today...." is pointless as that is not the conversation. I am fully aware that today we do exempt law enforcement from the very laws they are to enforce upon others. I find that to be unethical and untenable >>It's against the law for you to break my laptop to pieces, but it's not against to law for me to break my laptop to pieces. That is a ridiculous analogy, that that then some how conclude that we are all property of the government, and by extension law enforcement? That some how property rights apply to abuses by government agent? Really?