Fundamentally, it's not entrapment because entrapment doesn't mean what many of us, myself included, feel that it should mean. The crime was committed. So the

Fundamentally, it's not entrapment because entrapment doesn't mean what many of us, myself included, feel that it should mean. The crime was committed. So the burden of proof falls on the defendant to demonstrate entrapment, which only happens if they can make a convincing case that they were not otherwise inclined or likely to commit the crime. That's quite difficult to do when, in fact, they did commit the crime. I think the standard should be stiffer: it should need a preponderance of evidence (not proof beyond reasonable doubt) that the defendant either also committed similar crimes, or was demonstrably predisposed to committing the crime in question. I rather suspect that the defendants in this case would not be able to mount that defense either. But I've grown quite tired of reading about the FBI hitting up some random resentful teenager and talking him into buying a fake bomb.