3 ms·
But then the label "for attempting to destroy ..." is misleading, because a priori all they’ve really proven is he is susceptible to being convinced to attempt
by pxeger1 2y ago
But then the label "for attempting to destroy ..." is misleading, because a priori all they’ve really proven is he is susceptible to being convinced to attempt to destroy it.
It seems to me your argument can be extended to justify any form of entrapment: "if an undercover police officer can convince you to buy a gun with the intent to rob someone at gunpoint, who says someone else couldn’t?"
- cma 2y agoThey said he wanted to shoot it but decided that wouldn't do enough damage.
- MaxikCZ 2y agoLets switch "attempting to destroy" for "attenpting to murder". If an undercover cop sells you a gun knowing you want to use it to murder your spouse, you should definetly be charged with both, illegal purchase of firearm and intent to murder, regardless whether you actually to managed to murder someone first. Does it matter that all someone (be it undercover cop or criminal) proved was you are able to be convinced to murder your spouse AND buy a gun? In my books you either charge the person at that point (for intent to murder), or it will be too late. Same applies to "suspectible to destroy". They proven their intent AND purchased C4... Shall we give them benefit of the doubt until it actually goes boom?