4 ms·

Legally it is not entrapment. Entrapment requires that the defendant not have a propensity to comment the offense.

bediger4000 14y ago
The whole of morality is not contained within the law.
bluedanieru 14y ago
I'm not really familiar with the case, and the article isn't clear. Had they already decided to carry out the act and were merely discussing a target, or were they bullshitting the best way to "disrupt the 1%" or whatever other nonsense, when the informant offered up the C4 and where and how to detonate it?
its_so_on 14y ago
I totally called this (here - http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/tdw6j/tsa_agents_in_salt_lake_city_destroy_teens_10000/c4lwzq9 http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/tdw6j/tsa_agents_i... ). If you read my followup comment, you will see what people are really afraid of. Nobody cares if someone innocent is busted for saying "Yeah, let's bomb a bridge!" What people are afraid of is that the FBI is the only thing pushing real terrorism forward. That but for the FBI, it would ALL be just talk. That's pretty dangerous if you ask me. (To my follow-up comment, I forgot to add: what if the person who precipitates the terrorist plot and manoeuvers into being the final link in the chain simply CAN'T be that link. Maybe they get EXTREMELY ill, maybe they die, maybe someone else convinces the rest of the organization to let THEM do it, what if all the pieces are laid and then the informant is simply replaced by someone who doesn't know enough not to set the thing off at the end...)
- tomjen3 14y ago
  The bombs are duds. Meaning that even if they attempt to set them of, nothing will happen. And, presumably the FBI is keeping so well tap on them that if they somehow got acces to real explosives (which can't be that hard, considering Tanerite is legal, as is fertilizer if purchased in small enough quantities) they would be arrested earlier.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 14y ago
    They may be 'duds', but there are plenty of instances of the FBI providing actual explosives even if the 'detonator' is not going to work large quantities of high explosives in and of themselves are dangerous.
wisty 14y ago
> Legally it is not entrapment I think the law is a bit more complicated than that. Anyone who commits a crime has some propensity. Entrapment is meant to draw a line between encouraging a person to commit a crime, and simply giving them an opportunity (i.e. a sting operation). Most sting operations (not entrapments) aim to catch habitual criminals - drug addicts, dealers, thieves, etc. Habitual criminals have a propensity to commit the offense, people who were talked into it by an agent do not.

The whole of morality is not contained within the law.

I'm not really familiar with the case, and the article isn't clear. Had they already decided to carry out the act and were merely discussing a target, or were they bullshitting the best way to "disrupt the 1%" or whatever other nonsense, when the informant offered up the C4 and where and how to detonate it?

its_so_on 14y ago

I totally called this (here - http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/tdw6j/tsa_agents_in_salt_lake_city_destroy_teens_10000/c4lwzq9 http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/tdw6j/tsa_agents_i... ). If you read my followup comment, you will see what people are really afraid of. Nobody cares if someone innocent is busted for saying "Yeah, let's bomb a bridge!" What people are afraid of is that the FBI is the only thing pushing real terrorism forward. That but for the FBI, it would ALL be just talk. That's pretty dangerous if you ask me. (To my follow-up comment, I forgot to add: what if the person who precipitates the terrorist plot and manoeuvers into being the final link in the chain simply CAN'T be that link. Maybe they get EXTREMELY ill, maybe they die, maybe someone else convinces the rest of the organization to let THEM do it, what if all the pieces are laid and then the informant is simply replaced by someone who doesn't know enough not to set the thing off at the end...)

tomjen3 14y ago
The bombs are duds. Meaning that even if they attempt to set them of, nothing will happen. And, presumably the FBI is keeping so well tap on them that if they somehow got acces to real explosives (which can't be that hard, considering Tanerite is legal, as is fertilizer if purchased in small enough quantities) they would be arrested earlier.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 14y ago
  They may be 'duds', but there are plenty of instances of the FBI providing actual explosives even if the 'detonator' is not going to work large quantities of high explosives in and of themselves are dangerous.

wisty 14y ago

> Legally it is not entrapment I think the law is a bit more complicated than that. Anyone who commits a crime has some propensity. Entrapment is meant to draw a line between encouraging a person to commit a crime, and simply giving them an opportunity (i.e. a sting operation). Most sting operations (not entrapments) aim to catch habitual criminals - drug addicts, dealers, thieves, etc. Habitual criminals have a propensity to commit the offense, people who were talked into it by an agent do not.