17 ms·

ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation

183 points by JackFr 13y ago

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mortyseinfeld 13y ago
This is what you get when people keep on voting in big government types all in the name of safety, security and social justice.
- hyperpape 13y ago
  Don't conflate things that are different. The libertarian two axis view of politics is still far too simple, but it's a start: plenty of people who rail against "big government" support the drug war, while plenty of people who like redistribution are adamantly against it.* As long as you don't get that point, you're working with a seriously limited view of politics. * If you really want to blow your mind, there are people who like redistribution, hate the drug war, and also think the government should significantly decrease its economic regulation. Edit: slightly nicer phrasing.
  - w1ntermute 13y ago
    > plenty of people who rail against "big government" support the drug war, while plenty of people who like redistribution are adamantly against it.* Because no one actually cares about "big" or "small" government, they care about using the government to impose their beliefs on other people, whether those beliefs are conservative or liberal in nature. Both liberals and conservatives are actually for "big government", it's just that conservatives also lie about being for "small government". Liberals want the government to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, while conservatives want the government to wage war on drugs (read: ethnic minorities), other countries, women's rights, etc. But in the end, it's those with connections that are able to skim money off the top of all these transactions and laugh all the way to the bank. Obama allocated $607 billion for defense-related spending last Thursday - $30 billion more than was in the recent budget deal passed by Congress. So actually, the "liberals" are also supporting the military-industrial complex too.
    - hyperpape 13y ago
      You can say that, but then you have to own up to the fact that the two dimensions of "bigness" are unrelated. The drug war and medicare/social security (to take two other big programs) are good or bad for entirely separate reasons. The fact is, when you say you want the government to be small, you are conflating things that there are different. There are different ways to be big or small, and they have different advantages and disadvantages.
      - w1ntermute 13y ago
        > you have to own up to the fact that the two dimensions of "bigness" are unrelated You're mistaken - they have much in common. In order to be a successful political party, what you have to do is find issues that (a) a lot of people deeply believe in on an emotional level and (b) can be addressed in such a way that you can redirect large sums of money into the pockets of 3rd parties in the process, who will then support the election campaigns of your politicians. Whether this happens through providing obscenely overpriced healthcare to Americans or through buying/using drones to extrajudicially murder and terrorize Yemeni wedding-goers is just a detail. We could debate until the end of time how much value either of these initiatives actually provides to the American citizenry, but that's a completely separate issue (and not one that the vast majority of politicians give a rat's ass about).
- drzaiusapelord 13y ago
  Size is irrelevant. When you declare your mission is a 'war on drugs' you're going to end up losing, plain and simple. Meanwhile, very, very large government programs like the NHS do well and provide healthcare to millions in an affordable way with great outcomes. There's something very lazy about arguing about government size. Its just dumb simpleminded platitudes that libertarians pat each other on the back for, but don't really say anything.
  - Crito 13y ago
    > Size is irrelevant. When you declare your mission is a 'war on drugs' you're going to end up losing, plain and simple. While size may not itself be damaging, size does correlate with collateral damage when a losing strategy (such as 'war on drugs') is chosen. The larger the DEA/ATF are, the more people that they can hurt.
  - JHSheridan 13y ago
    > Meanwhile, very, very large government programs like the NHS do well and provide healthcare to millions in an affordable way with great outcomes. Isn't NHS facing bankruptcy?
    - michaelt 13y ago
      There's facing bankruptcy and there's facing bankruptcy. The government devolves responsibility for these things to local groups (to cut management overhead and let them respond to local needs | to transfer blame for under-funding away from elected MPs who set funding levels) and there are usually some local groups who report not having enough money (because the unaccountable bureaucrats are wasteful with other people's money | because threatening bankruptcy gets you more money and community support | because the government sets the funding levels to force them to find efficiency savings and not every local group can | because the government wants public sector failures they can point to in support of privatisation). In practice the hospitals stay open, and patients get their drugs and operations. Reports of impending doom are just politics as usual.
      - 13y ago
- dm2 13y ago
  There is nothing wrong with a large government as long as you can ensure that it is transparent and truly working for it's citizens. As soon as governments start abusing their power to help big business and for public officials personal agendas, then you have corruption and it is detrimental to that country and society. How could you have safety, security, and social justice WITHOUT a large government? There are 300 million people in this country, a good percentage are poor, a large percentage don't have great morals, and a transparent and strong government seems like the only way to combat that. Yes, a small government MIGHT work in a country that is unified and that has near 100% national loyalty, but the US does not. The US is very diversified, has a huge population, has tons of people who were raised to be greedy, and social conflicts are almost normal. A small government (near anarchy) is not the answer, in my humble opinion.
- guelo 13y ago
  As a liberal what pisses me off about the libertarian "big government" line is how it conflates the out of control militarized police state with, for example, school lunches for poor kids. Can't you tell the difference? Can't we have one without the other?
Crito 13y ago
A mentally disabled teen at that.
jacobr 13y ago
This article is just copy/pasted snippets from http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/atf-uses-rogue-tactics-in-storefront-stings-across-the-nation-b99146765z1-234916641.html http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/atf-uses-ro...
- publicfig 13y ago
  Note to those from the future: The submission has now been changed to link to this. It used to link to http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/feds-paid-a-teen-to-get-a-neck-tattoo-of-a-giant-squid-smoking-a-joint/282279/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/feds-pai... under the title "Feds Paid a Teen to Get a Neck Tattoo of a Giant Squid Smoking a Joint"
viraptor 13y ago
So what they're doing in general goes in the direction completely opposite to what the broken windows theory would suggest... It seems really weird to me - it's one thing to try to be friendly with someone who's already planning a crime and something completely different when you're providing both incentive and funding for new crime (pawn shops).
- jonnathanson 13y ago
  I'm surprised nobody's gone after them for entrapment. IANAL, but my understanding is that the definition of entrapment is inducing someone to commit a crime that he wouldn't have been likely to commit otherwise. In the case of convincing a mentally disabled teenager to run drugs and guns, the shoe seems to fit.
  - farginay 13y ago
    We have privatized prisons with quotas for the number of prisoners. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/private-prison-quotas_n_3953483.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/private-prison-quot... What is a cry of "entrapment" next to incentive?
  - aidenn0 13y ago
    IANAL, but entrapent is an affirmative defense; in most cases it moves the burden of proof onto the defendant. That makes it hard to use. Furthermore, the inducement usually has to be pretty strong. Merely suggesting someone commit a crime is not entrapment. Even paying them to commit a crime isn't in many cases.
- MBCook 13y ago
  Sounds like broken windows to me. They break the windows they arrest people who show up to do more damage. And some people they suggested do damage. And they guy they had break the window. And someone walking by.
dinkumthinkum 13y ago
So, this article is not biased at all ... It's pretty shoddy reporting/editorializing. These zany anecdotes are pretty outlandish but why is there only one or two sentences per anecdote? Surely, in this anti-Obama rant, we could hav some details?
- Crito 13y ago
  The linked article has been changed to an article with much more information. Which details were you interested in?
logfromblammo 13y ago
Cue the libertarian versus non-libertarian mudwrestling. It has become increasingly clear to me that the ills of the U.S. pogroms against some recreational drugs are due in no small part to the conversion of the criminal justice system to a for-profit industry. As long as the jobs and budgets are tied to the number of criminals processed rather than the peace and order produced, cop cadres will titrate the frequency and severity of their enforcement actions with the aim to ensure for themselves steady jobs and pensions. There is a positive feedback loop in there somewhere that must be broken before it destroys the concept of justice completely.
- jpttsn 13y ago
  That's interesting. Is your issue with the for-profit criminal justice system that it's for-profit, or is it with the laws it upholds to bring the profits? In other words, would this still be a problem if all laws upheld were, to your mind, reasonable?
  - mirkules 13y ago
    Not the OP, but I'll take a crack at it. The problem is that creating order (or, more generally speaking, rehabilitating unorderly parts of society) and making money can sometimes be adversarial processes, thus creating a conflict of interest. Since it has become profitable (for private jails/prisons) to put people in jail and keep them in jail, there is a clear incentive to punish lesser crimes more severely and to not rehabilitate jailed people fully with hopes of them becoming a repeat offender. Therefore, the problem is that privatization of the criminal justice system is at odds with what a criminal justice system should hope achieve: order, appropriate punishment, and rehabilitation of those who break the law. In fact, I would argue that it incentivizes almost the exact opposite.
  - alan_cx 13y ago
    Yes. A profit motive corrupts in favour of profit. I dont want that in a justice system which is supposed to be not corrupt.
  - logfromblammo 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
bananacurve 13y ago
This is intellectually gratifying. /s
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  > Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate > for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to > its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users see this; there > is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment > that you did. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dm2 13y ago
Moral of the story? Police and federal agents must be more transparent and accountable for their actions and expenditures. The whole concept of "spend money so that our budget doesn't shrink next year" has go to be fixed also. I don't know a solution other than having more auditors and efficiency experts (GAO, gao.gov). Would people flip out if there was a bill proposed to require all guns in the US to have a GPS tracker? Just an idea, I know it wouldn't fix all gun problems, but it might be prevent some gun thefts and murders. Of course, this data shouldn't be able to be accessed without a warrant. Stings are slightly unfair and can sometimes catch dumb people who wouldn't otherwise commit the crime. On the other hand, if you purchase a gun without a license or attempt to hire a contract killer and it turns out to be a police officer you are in contact with, then that sting just save a life, which is good. Preventing abuses of power is key. There should be adequate training at organizations on how and where to report abuses of power or potentially unethical behavior. Most of this is already in place, obviously more resources and oversight is needed constantly to ensure that the police are protecting citizens and not entrapping them or abusing their power for career advancement.
- pionar 13y ago
  > Would people flip out if there was a bill proposed to require all guns in the US to have a GPS tracker? As a gun control advocate who also owns guns, yes, I would flip the f* out. While I have no problem if the government knows I own a gun (they know I own a car), Putting a GPS tracker on it would result in two things: 1. The government would know where I am at all times (I carry my Kahr CM-9 everywhere that allows it). 2. Criminals would just remove the tracker.
  - herbig 13y ago
    You already carry a cellphone, I presume. Also, I am against most forms of gun control, being otherwise very liberal in my worldview. However, I cannot possibly understand why a developer would need to carry a gun at all times. You are inviting trouble with that, and more likely to die to your own gun than you are to protect yourself from some bad guys. If you want to carry a gun with you, I support your right to do so. But it's the objectively wrong play.
simbolit 13y ago
This seems to be a paradigm case of entrapment. This should thus be easily sorted out in the courts. Am I wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment
- venomsnake 13y ago
  Well yes. But only 4% of the cases end in court - the others are plea deals. So you need competent and capable defense, defendant that is willing to take the risk against the huge prosecutor mallet the DA is swinging and probably some luck. The targets in the article are from parts of the society that are already outcasts for various reasons. (Not a lawyer, from observations)
  - simbolit 13y ago
    yeah, i forgot about the US system for a moment. i knew the 90+% plea bargain number, but it is so utterly inconceivable that i always and again forget it. simply does not compute.
- talmand 13y ago
  Many people don't have the funds to defend themselves against the very group that entrapped them. They have nearly unlimited funds to prove they didn't entrap you, while likely you will not. That's why there are supposed to be laws and procedures to prevent this from ever starting, but there are budgets and arrest records to pad.
DanielBMarkham 13y ago
I don't own a gun, but let's assume I become a gun enthusiast and decide to go buy "something cool" I go to my local gun store, which is actually a front for the ATF. In my mind, looks like a bunch of seedy characters, but i assume they're trustworthy because, natch, they have a license from the ATF. I strike up a conversation with the bearded, scraggly guy behind the counter. What would I like? I don't know. How about a shotgun? As we talk, he talks more and more about "cool" guns. Perhaps sawed-off barrels, or big loads. At some point, we cross the line between talking about legal guns and illegal guns. Now here's the thing: beats the shit out of me where we crossed that line. I'm trusting the guy behind the counter to be a reliable guide to what can be bought or sold. From the ATF standpoint, however, I am fully aware of the intricacies of firearm law and am now soliciting them to commit a crime. A few months go by. Then the ATF comes knocking at my door with a warrant, a hi-res video, and I go to jail. Perhaps for many years. Now we can argue whether they would actually prosecute or not, or what any sane prosecutor would ask for solicitation, but the fact of the matter is, in the ATF's view, I'm a hardened gun criminal. It'll go on my record, and this will become part of the intelligence files at ATF. If you can't see what's wrong with this picture, you've lost your moral compass.
- rayiner 13y ago
  You don't even have to bring morality into the equation. There's functional problems with this sort of operation, for precisely the reason you outlined. The legal system assumes that people can figure out, based on social context, what the law is, or at least know when they need to consult a lawyer. Actively misleading people, in the guise of licensed dealers, upends this assumption. Whether it's moral or immoral, it's inconsistent with the most basic assumptions on which our legal system relies.
  - aric 13y ago
    Morality is important to bring into the equation. Although s/he didn't have to, as you say, I'm glad s/he did. One should always keep ethics as a fundamental layer in discussing law, especially about actions that result in forms of torture (e.g. prison).
saosebastiao 13y ago
I remember watching Two Guns and thinking that it was an entertaining fiction flick. When I read this story, I couldn't help but think that maybe it was a bit more realistic than I gave it credit for. On another note, how can these tactics not be construed as entrapment?
TempleOSV2 13y ago
The agents are IQ 100. I'm IQ 145. I'm as much smarter than the cops and doctors as the cops are smarter than the stupid guy. God says... daunting music joyful other praise hype ice_cream industrious Shakespeare I'm_impressed really over_the_top phasors_on_stun you_think_I'm_joking tiffanies smile how_high are_you_feeling_lucky dance I_see_nothing whazza_matter_for_you God_smack downer the_enquirer Japan Wow umm_what_now revolution smurfs wrath youre_lucky I'll_get_right_on_it later caution run_away study you_don't_say California
ChuckMcM 13y ago
My Dad has had a federal firearms license for a couple of decades but this year he's not renewing. He is so sick and tired of the ATF and their shenanigans. It is definitely a bureaucracy in need of some leadership.
Aloha 13y ago
How is this not entrapment?

183 points by JackFr 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

This is what you get when people keep on voting in big government types all in the name of safety, security and social justice.

hyperpape 13y ago
Don't conflate things that are different. The libertarian two axis view of politics is still far too simple, but it's a start: plenty of people who rail against "big government" support the drug war, while plenty of people who like redistribution are adamantly against it.* As long as you don't get that point, you're working with a seriously limited view of politics. * If you really want to blow your mind, there are people who like redistribution, hate the drug war, and also think the government should significantly decrease its economic regulation. Edit: slightly nicer phrasing.
- w1ntermute 13y ago
  > plenty of people who rail against "big government" support the drug war, while plenty of people who like redistribution are adamantly against it.* Because no one actually cares about "big" or "small" government, they care about using the government to impose their beliefs on other people, whether those beliefs are conservative or liberal in nature. Both liberals and conservatives are actually for "big government", it's just that conservatives also lie about being for "small government". Liberals want the government to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, while conservatives want the government to wage war on drugs (read: ethnic minorities), other countries, women's rights, etc. But in the end, it's those with connections that are able to skim money off the top of all these transactions and laugh all the way to the bank. Obama allocated $607 billion for defense-related spending last Thursday - $30 billion more than was in the recent budget deal passed by Congress. So actually, the "liberals" are also supporting the military-industrial complex too.
  - hyperpape 13y ago
    You can say that, but then you have to own up to the fact that the two dimensions of "bigness" are unrelated. The drug war and medicare/social security (to take two other big programs) are good or bad for entirely separate reasons. The fact is, when you say you want the government to be small, you are conflating things that there are different. There are different ways to be big or small, and they have different advantages and disadvantages.
    - w1ntermute 13y ago
      > you have to own up to the fact that the two dimensions of "bigness" are unrelated You're mistaken - they have much in common. In order to be a successful political party, what you have to do is find issues that (a) a lot of people deeply believe in on an emotional level and (b) can be addressed in such a way that you can redirect large sums of money into the pockets of 3rd parties in the process, who will then support the election campaigns of your politicians. Whether this happens through providing obscenely overpriced healthcare to Americans or through buying/using drones to extrajudicially murder and terrorize Yemeni wedding-goers is just a detail. We could debate until the end of time how much value either of these initiatives actually provides to the American citizenry, but that's a completely separate issue (and not one that the vast majority of politicians give a rat's ass about).
drzaiusapelord 13y ago
Size is irrelevant. When you declare your mission is a 'war on drugs' you're going to end up losing, plain and simple. Meanwhile, very, very large government programs like the NHS do well and provide healthcare to millions in an affordable way with great outcomes. There's something very lazy about arguing about government size. Its just dumb simpleminded platitudes that libertarians pat each other on the back for, but don't really say anything.
- Crito 13y ago
  > Size is irrelevant. When you declare your mission is a 'war on drugs' you're going to end up losing, plain and simple. While size may not itself be damaging, size does correlate with collateral damage when a losing strategy (such as 'war on drugs') is chosen. The larger the DEA/ATF are, the more people that they can hurt.
- JHSheridan 13y ago
  > Meanwhile, very, very large government programs like the NHS do well and provide healthcare to millions in an affordable way with great outcomes. Isn't NHS facing bankruptcy?
  - michaelt 13y ago
    There's facing bankruptcy and there's facing bankruptcy. The government devolves responsibility for these things to local groups (to cut management overhead and let them respond to local needs | to transfer blame for under-funding away from elected MPs who set funding levels) and there are usually some local groups who report not having enough money (because the unaccountable bureaucrats are wasteful with other people's money | because threatening bankruptcy gets you more money and community support | because the government sets the funding levels to force them to find efficiency savings and not every local group can | because the government wants public sector failures they can point to in support of privatisation). In practice the hospitals stay open, and patients get their drugs and operations. Reports of impending doom are just politics as usual.
    - 13y ago
dm2 13y ago
There is nothing wrong with a large government as long as you can ensure that it is transparent and truly working for it's citizens. As soon as governments start abusing their power to help big business and for public officials personal agendas, then you have corruption and it is detrimental to that country and society. How could you have safety, security, and social justice WITHOUT a large government? There are 300 million people in this country, a good percentage are poor, a large percentage don't have great morals, and a transparent and strong government seems like the only way to combat that. Yes, a small government MIGHT work in a country that is unified and that has near 100% national loyalty, but the US does not. The US is very diversified, has a huge population, has tons of people who were raised to be greedy, and social conflicts are almost normal. A small government (near anarchy) is not the answer, in my humble opinion.
guelo 13y ago
As a liberal what pisses me off about the libertarian "big government" line is how it conflates the out of control militarized police state with, for example, school lunches for poor kids. Can't you tell the difference? Can't we have one without the other?

Crito 13y ago

A mentally disabled teen at that.

jacobr 13y ago

This article is just copy/pasted snippets from http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/atf-uses-rogue-tactics-in-storefront-stings-across-the-nation-b99146765z1-234916641.html http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/atf-uses-ro...

publicfig 13y ago
Note to those from the future: The submission has now been changed to link to this. It used to link to http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/feds-paid-a-teen-to-get-a-neck-tattoo-of-a-giant-squid-smoking-a-joint/282279/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/feds-pai... under the title "Feds Paid a Teen to Get a Neck Tattoo of a Giant Squid Smoking a Joint"

viraptor 13y ago

So what they're doing in general goes in the direction completely opposite to what the broken windows theory would suggest... It seems really weird to me - it's one thing to try to be friendly with someone who's already planning a crime and something completely different when you're providing both incentive and funding for new crime (pawn shops).

jonnathanson 13y ago
I'm surprised nobody's gone after them for entrapment. IANAL, but my understanding is that the definition of entrapment is inducing someone to commit a crime that he wouldn't have been likely to commit otherwise. In the case of convincing a mentally disabled teenager to run drugs and guns, the shoe seems to fit.
- farginay 13y ago
  We have privatized prisons with quotas for the number of prisoners. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/private-prison-quotas_n_3953483.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/private-prison-quot... What is a cry of "entrapment" next to incentive?
- aidenn0 13y ago
  IANAL, but entrapent is an affirmative defense; in most cases it moves the burden of proof onto the defendant. That makes it hard to use. Furthermore, the inducement usually has to be pretty strong. Merely suggesting someone commit a crime is not entrapment. Even paying them to commit a crime isn't in many cases.
MBCook 13y ago
Sounds like broken windows to me. They break the windows they arrest people who show up to do more damage. And some people they suggested do damage. And they guy they had break the window. And someone walking by.

dinkumthinkum 13y ago

So, this article is not biased at all ... It's pretty shoddy reporting/editorializing. These zany anecdotes are pretty outlandish but why is there only one or two sentences per anecdote? Surely, in this anti-Obama rant, we could hav some details?

Crito 13y ago
The linked article has been changed to an article with much more information. Which details were you interested in?

logfromblammo 13y ago

Cue the libertarian versus non-libertarian mudwrestling. It has become increasingly clear to me that the ills of the U.S. pogroms against some recreational drugs are due in no small part to the conversion of the criminal justice system to a for-profit industry. As long as the jobs and budgets are tied to the number of criminals processed rather than the peace and order produced, cop cadres will titrate the frequency and severity of their enforcement actions with the aim to ensure for themselves steady jobs and pensions. There is a positive feedback loop in there somewhere that must be broken before it destroys the concept of justice completely.

jpttsn 13y ago
That's interesting. Is your issue with the for-profit criminal justice system that it's for-profit, or is it with the laws it upholds to bring the profits? In other words, would this still be a problem if all laws upheld were, to your mind, reasonable?
- mirkules 13y ago
  Not the OP, but I'll take a crack at it. The problem is that creating order (or, more generally speaking, rehabilitating unorderly parts of society) and making money can sometimes be adversarial processes, thus creating a conflict of interest. Since it has become profitable (for private jails/prisons) to put people in jail and keep them in jail, there is a clear incentive to punish lesser crimes more severely and to not rehabilitate jailed people fully with hopes of them becoming a repeat offender. Therefore, the problem is that privatization of the criminal justice system is at odds with what a criminal justice system should hope achieve: order, appropriate punishment, and rehabilitation of those who break the law. In fact, I would argue that it incentivizes almost the exact opposite.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  Yes. A profit motive corrupts in favour of profit. I dont want that in a justice system which is supposed to be not corrupt.
- logfromblammo 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

bananacurve 13y ago

This is intellectually gratifying. /s

steveklabnik 13y ago
> Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate > for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to > its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users see this; there > is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment > that you did. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dm2 13y ago

Moral of the story? Police and federal agents must be more transparent and accountable for their actions and expenditures. The whole concept of "spend money so that our budget doesn't shrink next year" has go to be fixed also. I don't know a solution other than having more auditors and efficiency experts (GAO, gao.gov). Would people flip out if there was a bill proposed to require all guns in the US to have a GPS tracker? Just an idea, I know it wouldn't fix all gun problems, but it might be prevent some gun thefts and murders. Of course, this data shouldn't be able to be accessed without a warrant. Stings are slightly unfair and can sometimes catch dumb people who wouldn't otherwise commit the crime. On the other hand, if you purchase a gun without a license or attempt to hire a contract killer and it turns out to be a police officer you are in contact with, then that sting just save a life, which is good. Preventing abuses of power is key. There should be adequate training at organizations on how and where to report abuses of power or potentially unethical behavior. Most of this is already in place, obviously more resources and oversight is needed constantly to ensure that the police are protecting citizens and not entrapping them or abusing their power for career advancement.

pionar 13y ago
> Would people flip out if there was a bill proposed to require all guns in the US to have a GPS tracker? As a gun control advocate who also owns guns, yes, I would flip the f* out. While I have no problem if the government knows I own a gun (they know I own a car), Putting a GPS tracker on it would result in two things: 1. The government would know where I am at all times (I carry my Kahr CM-9 everywhere that allows it). 2. Criminals would just remove the tracker.
- herbig 13y ago
  You already carry a cellphone, I presume. Also, I am against most forms of gun control, being otherwise very liberal in my worldview. However, I cannot possibly understand why a developer would need to carry a gun at all times. You are inviting trouble with that, and more likely to die to your own gun than you are to protect yourself from some bad guys. If you want to carry a gun with you, I support your right to do so. But it's the objectively wrong play.

simbolit 13y ago

This seems to be a paradigm case of entrapment. This should thus be easily sorted out in the courts. Am I wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

venomsnake 13y ago
Well yes. But only 4% of the cases end in court - the others are plea deals. So you need competent and capable defense, defendant that is willing to take the risk against the huge prosecutor mallet the DA is swinging and probably some luck. The targets in the article are from parts of the society that are already outcasts for various reasons. (Not a lawyer, from observations)
- simbolit 13y ago
  yeah, i forgot about the US system for a moment. i knew the 90+% plea bargain number, but it is so utterly inconceivable that i always and again forget it. simply does not compute.
talmand 13y ago
Many people don't have the funds to defend themselves against the very group that entrapped them. They have nearly unlimited funds to prove they didn't entrap you, while likely you will not. That's why there are supposed to be laws and procedures to prevent this from ever starting, but there are budgets and arrest records to pad.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

I don't own a gun, but let's assume I become a gun enthusiast and decide to go buy "something cool" I go to my local gun store, which is actually a front for the ATF. In my mind, looks like a bunch of seedy characters, but i assume they're trustworthy because, natch, they have a license from the ATF. I strike up a conversation with the bearded, scraggly guy behind the counter. What would I like? I don't know. How about a shotgun? As we talk, he talks more and more about "cool" guns. Perhaps sawed-off barrels, or big loads. At some point, we cross the line between talking about legal guns and illegal guns. Now here's the thing: beats the shit out of me where we crossed that line. I'm trusting the guy behind the counter to be a reliable guide to what can be bought or sold. From the ATF standpoint, however, I am fully aware of the intricacies of firearm law and am now soliciting them to commit a crime. A few months go by. Then the ATF comes knocking at my door with a warrant, a hi-res video, and I go to jail. Perhaps for many years. Now we can argue whether they would actually prosecute or not, or what any sane prosecutor would ask for solicitation, but the fact of the matter is, in the ATF's view, I'm a hardened gun criminal. It'll go on my record, and this will become part of the intelligence files at ATF. If you can't see what's wrong with this picture, you've lost your moral compass.

rayiner 13y ago
You don't even have to bring morality into the equation. There's functional problems with this sort of operation, for precisely the reason you outlined. The legal system assumes that people can figure out, based on social context, what the law is, or at least know when they need to consult a lawyer. Actively misleading people, in the guise of licensed dealers, upends this assumption. Whether it's moral or immoral, it's inconsistent with the most basic assumptions on which our legal system relies.
- aric 13y ago
  Morality is important to bring into the equation. Although s/he didn't have to, as you say, I'm glad s/he did. One should always keep ethics as a fundamental layer in discussing law, especially about actions that result in forms of torture (e.g. prison).

saosebastiao 13y ago

I remember watching Two Guns and thinking that it was an entertaining fiction flick. When I read this story, I couldn't help but think that maybe it was a bit more realistic than I gave it credit for. On another note, how can these tactics not be construed as entrapment?

TempleOSV2 13y ago

The agents are IQ 100. I'm IQ 145. I'm as much smarter than the cops and doctors as the cops are smarter than the stupid guy. God says... daunting music joyful other praise hype ice_cream industrious Shakespeare I'm_impressed really over_the_top phasors_on_stun you_think_I'm_joking tiffanies smile how_high are_you_feeling_lucky dance I_see_nothing whazza_matter_for_you God_smack downer the_enquirer Japan Wow umm_what_now revolution smurfs wrath youre_lucky I'll_get_right_on_it later caution run_away study you_don't_say California

ChuckMcM 13y ago

My Dad has had a federal firearms license for a couple of decades but this year he's not renewing. He is so sick and tired of the ATF and their shenanigans. It is definitely a bureaucracy in need of some leadership.

Aloha 13y ago

How is this not entrapment?