7 ms·

So in this case wasn't a crisis situation (there being a defector with SR secrets) fabricated by the police and a third of a million dollars disappeared? Would

by themeek 11y ago

So in this case wasn't a crisis situation (there being a defector with SR secrets) fabricated by the police and a third of a million dollars disappeared? Would this sort of thing count as doing something to overcome resistance? It's not likely that an anonymous person offering to 'help take care of the situation' would have enticed him - he needed a scenario that compelled him and this scenario was fabricated.

Natsu 11y ago
It's hard to see how being blackmailed regarding the details of one's illegal activity could count as entrapment for murder. It seems to me that DPR came up with murder as the 'solution' to this problem, even if we claim that the problem itself was entirely manufactured. Entrapment defenses are only supposed to prevent innocent people from being coerced by police into committing a new crime, not to provide a get out of jail free card to criminals who were somehow fooled by the police. So the real question is not whether the police gave him a reason to hire a hitman, it's whether he ever would have hired an assassin at all.
- themeek 11y ago
  According to Wikipedia: Blackmail is an act, often a crime, ... Essentially, it is coercion involving threats of ... of criminal prosecution. Similar searches for the legal distinction between extortion and blackmail consider blackmail a form of coercion. Given (A) that blackmail is coercion (psychological pressure), and (B) coercing someone into committing a crime is entrapment. Would (A) and (B) then not imply that (C) blackmailing should count as entrapment? DPR did not come up with a hitman as a solution. Law enforcement made the suggestion. They did not use the words, just had their fake identity offer to take care of the situation.
  - Natsu 11y ago
    I think the law guide I linked it to would file this under "there is no chutzpah defense." He had legal options that did not include "hire a hitman" ("do nothing" is a valid option) and he had a big hand in creating the problem to begin with, or there would be nothing to blackmail him with in the first place. And the state didn't corrupt him, he was already leading a criminal operation when they set out to catch him. You don't get to protect yourself from a lot of things you otherwise would when the problems are caused by your own illegal activities and you'll see this again and again with the other defenses, if you read more of that guide. It refers to those scenarios as a someone trying to invoke the "chutzpah defense," following on from the old story about a child who murdered their parents requesting mercy because he is an "orphan." The overarching point here to protect people who weren't committing crimes from being dragged into them ("corrupted") and the rules are set up to avoid protecting criminals who were merely fooled by the police into exposing their criminal nature. Nobody made him hire a hitman. They gave him a reason to, but they didn't make him do it. If he needed protection from a blackmailer, he could have turned himself in as well as the blackmailer.
    - omegaham 11y ago
      > "there is no chutzpah defense." This. If he hadn't created a multi-million dollar drug empire, there would've been no blackmail. Therefore, the fact that he had to resort to murder to stop the blackmail is no defense at all.
      - Natsu 11y ago
        Not to quibble, but it's also not the case that 'hire a hitman' is the only solution to being blackmailed. That's not exactly the first idea a law abiding citizen would come up with as the solution now, is it? It's his own fault he couldn't go to the police for help with the blackmail, so the court cannot reasonably excuse him for not doing so.
        xnull2guest 11y ago
        He didn't come up with it. Law enforcement did. "It's his own fault he couldn't go to the police for help with the blackmail, so the court cannot reasonably excuse him for not doing so." That's not how blackmail works within the legal system.
        Natsu 11y ago
        It doesn't matter what the police offer, if he chooses to hire a hitman (even a fake one) with their help, he's guilty, because an innocent person would say "no". You don't get to kill other people to cover up your own crimes, period. Self-defense is the only possible justification, and that requires an imminent threat to his life (or at least grievous bodily injury). Threats to incriminate you don't count for anything. Please refer to the guide, it explains all of these myths. If you think things work some other way, cite law to the contrary.
        xnull2guest 11y ago
        Please refer to what guide? The webcomic? Can you be specific about which webcomic had law enforcement blackmailing someone? I didn't see one that covers our case there. > 'because an innocent person would say "no".' Doesn't that imply that all entrapment is legal? And is it even true? People can be blackmailed for things they haven't done and even easily give false confessions of guilt... Thanks for the conversation Natsu. I don't think you're the legal expert I was hoping would be in this thread. Again thank you for sharing your opinion.

by themeek 11y ago

Natsu 11y ago

It's hard to see how being blackmailed regarding the details of one's illegal activity could count as entrapment for murder. It seems to me that DPR came up with murder as the 'solution' to this problem, even if we claim that the problem itself was entirely manufactured. Entrapment defenses are only supposed to prevent innocent people from being coerced by police into committing a new crime, not to provide a get out of jail free card to criminals who were somehow fooled by the police. So the real question is not whether the police gave him a reason to hire a hitman, it's whether he ever would have hired an assassin at all.

themeek 11y ago
According to Wikipedia: Blackmail is an act, often a crime, ... Essentially, it is coercion involving threats of ... of criminal prosecution. Similar searches for the legal distinction between extortion and blackmail consider blackmail a form of coercion. Given (A) that blackmail is coercion (psychological pressure), and (B) coercing someone into committing a crime is entrapment. Would (A) and (B) then not imply that (C) blackmailing should count as entrapment? DPR did not come up with a hitman as a solution. Law enforcement made the suggestion. They did not use the words, just had their fake identity offer to take care of the situation.
- Natsu 11y ago
  I think the law guide I linked it to would file this under "there is no chutzpah defense." He had legal options that did not include "hire a hitman" ("do nothing" is a valid option) and he had a big hand in creating the problem to begin with, or there would be nothing to blackmail him with in the first place. And the state didn't corrupt him, he was already leading a criminal operation when they set out to catch him. You don't get to protect yourself from a lot of things you otherwise would when the problems are caused by your own illegal activities and you'll see this again and again with the other defenses, if you read more of that guide. It refers to those scenarios as a someone trying to invoke the "chutzpah defense," following on from the old story about a child who murdered their parents requesting mercy because he is an "orphan." The overarching point here to protect people who weren't committing crimes from being dragged into them ("corrupted") and the rules are set up to avoid protecting criminals who were merely fooled by the police into exposing their criminal nature. Nobody made him hire a hitman. They gave him a reason to, but they didn't make him do it. If he needed protection from a blackmailer, he could have turned himself in as well as the blackmailer.
  - omegaham 11y ago
    > "there is no chutzpah defense." This. If he hadn't created a multi-million dollar drug empire, there would've been no blackmail. Therefore, the fact that he had to resort to murder to stop the blackmail is no defense at all.
    - Natsu 11y ago
      Not to quibble, but it's also not the case that 'hire a hitman' is the only solution to being blackmailed. That's not exactly the first idea a law abiding citizen would come up with as the solution now, is it? It's his own fault he couldn't go to the police for help with the blackmail, so the court cannot reasonably excuse him for not doing so.
      - xnull2guest 11y ago
        He didn't come up with it. Law enforcement did. "It's his own fault he couldn't go to the police for help with the blackmail, so the court cannot reasonably excuse him for not doing so." That's not how blackmail works within the legal system.
        Natsu 11y ago
        It doesn't matter what the police offer, if he chooses to hire a hitman (even a fake one) with their help, he's guilty, because an innocent person would say "no". You don't get to kill other people to cover up your own crimes, period. Self-defense is the only possible justification, and that requires an imminent threat to his life (or at least grievous bodily injury). Threats to incriminate you don't count for anything. Please refer to the guide, it explains all of these myths. If you think things work some other way, cite law to the contrary.
        xnull2guest 11y ago
        Please refer to what guide? The webcomic? Can you be specific about which webcomic had law enforcement blackmailing someone? I didn't see one that covers our case there. > 'because an innocent person would say "no".' Doesn't that imply that all entrapment is legal? And is it even true? People can be blackmailed for things they haven't done and even easily give false confessions of guilt... Thanks for the conversation Natsu. I don't think you're the legal expert I was hoping would be in this thread. Again thank you for sharing your opinion.