4 ms·

No. The police did not commit crimes in exposing him.

• logfromblammo 12y ago
  They solicited him to buy a murder for hire. It's a crime when you do it. It's a crime when the cops do it. It's a crime when Richard Nixon does it. The evidence of other crimes was collected as a result. Even if he was guilty beyond doubt, that's still poisoned fruit.
  • s73v3r 12y ago
    "They solicited him to buy a murder for hire." They absolutely did not. It was his idea. You need to go learn what entrapment is. Hint: It's not simply when you do something and the cops happen to be involved.
    • logfromblammo 12y ago
      My understanding of the situation is that he contacted someone advertising contract killing services on his own darknet. The person he contacted was a confidential informant (undercover cop, or someone working with the cops). Now, don't misunderstand. That was wrong of him. And it was also stupid. But there is a very important difference between finding out about an illegal transaction and participating in one. If it were prostitution, it would be the difference between watching a john pick up a hooker and arresting them both, or posing as either a john or a hooker and arresting the other when they eventually committed to the crime. The former is acceptable. The latter is not. It wasn't a case of a contract killer ratting his client out to the police. There never was a contract killer. In my opinion, if the cops were a necessary component in the commission of the crime, it is entrapment. If they were simply able to exercise a degree of control over the situation such that they are able to immediately arrest all parties to a crime before anyone gets hurt, that's a little creepy, but still acceptable. Crime requires intent, conduct, concurrence, and causation. Entrapment elides over one or more of those elements.