8 ms·

For the very same reasons through the rest of the thread, you continue to argue a straw man. You sound like you're a very insistent and dogged debater. It wou

by themeek 11y ago

For the very same reasons through the rest of the thread, you continue to argue a straw man. You sound like you're a very insistent and dogged debater. It would be becoming of you to take your passion for argumentation and apply it to the arguments being made by the opposition. I'm certain that if you did this you would have more success. I would reply point by point but as they say "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results." Thanks again for the discussion. Hope to see you continue to be verbose (but perhaps more charitable) in other threads around HN.

Natsu 11y ago
A straw man is beating up a weakened version of someone's case. I went with the facts before the Court, which are the only facts relevant to making a legal determination. Neither this Court nor a court of appeals is going to look at anything else due to the rules of evidence. Moreover, unless he's already raised the issue of entrapment (and I don't think he has), it's almost certainly been waived and cannot be raised on appeal. You can personally believe that the facts presented in court are wrong, if you prefer, but they're not relevant to a legal analysis. Making a non-legal analysis of whether it's "entrapment" makes zero sense--entrapment is a legal concept and divorcing the notion of entrapment from how a court would determine something is entrapment is insensible. It doesn't answer any real-world questions and it would serve only to mislead, as courts follow rules to determine things like these. To establish entrapment, you need to locate some place in which he demonstrated some resistance to hiring a hitman, I was unable to find any such evidence in materials before the Court. If you think otherwise, quote anything you like from his log or any other evidence before the Court that shows him being averse to hiring a hitman until they talked him into it. Without that, you don't get to claim entrapment, legally. The Court would just say you were already predisposed to commit the crime and ignore your protests about how the cops fooled you, as is shown repeatedly in the law guide. Moreover, the burden of proof is on you to establish entrapment, not the other way around. So it's not enough to say that but for the theft/blackmail he wouldn't have done this, you have to show him resisting the idea. Was he set up by the cops? Undoubtedly so. Every single example in the law guide of non-entrapment shows the cops setting someone up. But there are standards for entrapment which must be met by evidence properly presented in court. If his lawyers do not make this argument, it is because they cannot. If someone suggests that "hey, you should hire this guy to kill that guy who's causing you problems," you will be in legal trouble if you go along with their suggestion instead of refusing it. So 'charitable' has nothing to do with it. The evidence before the Court isn't very charitable to him. You might argue that this is unfair, but this is how you determine something like entrapment. That's why there are long fights over the evidence (like the one I linked earlier), because that determines what they have to work with.
- themeek 11y ago
  Specifically you did not reply to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9628225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9628225 Is it (A), (B), or (C) that is incorrect? It sounds like you are saying that (C) is incorrect. However you are confusing how this is shown in court - what needs to be established - from the principle and definition of coercion. Law enforcement did not charge him for the hitman so the defense did not need to put up a case for entrapment, and as far as I can tell the legal defense dropped the ball a number of places. So it is not enough to point at the defense and backwards reason that if there were entrapment that it would have been established. There was no opportunity. There will be a separate hearing on the use of law enforcement coercion and we may see an argument and evidence presented there. Neither of us would be willing or able to establish a full defense of DPR or a full case for law enforcement - suggesting that this is my responsibility is intellectually dishonest. Take any number of resources: http://www.pdxcriminallawyers.com/articles/entrapment-and-police-coercion/ http://www.pdxcriminallawyers.com/articles/entrapment-and-po... "What Is Entrapment? When it comes to police coercion, a defendant is assumed to have the responsibility to turn down an opportunity to commit a crime when posed by a law enforcement officer. Instead, a defendant will need to prove that the law enforcement officer took additional actions to force a person into an illegal act. The following may be considered sufficient actions to force a person into committing a crime they otherwise wouldn’t: - Fraudulent claims or promises - Depending on the specifics, verbal harassment or flattery - Threats against a person, their property, or their job If a defendant wants to cite entrapment, they have a duty to present proof of entrapment. As it is what is known as an affirmative defense, the defendant has to offer evidence to clear their willing involvement in a crime." http://www.grayarea.com/entrap.htm http://www.grayarea.com/entrap.htm "So, a defendant cannot be exonerated of a crime on an entrapment claim even if he or she can prove that police had no reason whatsoever to suspect even the slightest of criminal inclinations. What they must prove is that were induced by police to commit the crime. This leads us to the second of the four questions: What constitutes inducement? An officer merely approaching a defendant and requesting that they commit a crime does not. To claim inducement, a defendant must prove he or she was unduly persuaded, threatened, coerced, harassed or offered pleas based on sympathy or friendship by police. A defendant must demonstrate that the government conduct created a situation in which an otherwise law-abiding citizen would commit an offense." Yes, what you are arguing against is a straw man. Quite simply you are not charitably interpreting the situation whereby law enforcement created a situation in which DPR had an incentive to hire a hitman as entrapment. It is the simulation of blackmail, fraud and threats to DPR's business that constitute coercion. Merely suggesting that there be a hitman is not coercion. But simulating blackmail, defrauding him and threatening his business constitute coercion. This is what we're talking about and you have repeatedly been ignoring. Because you are arguing merely in the context of "they offered a hitman and he agreed" you are arguing against a weakened form of my argument. My argument, in full, charitable form, can be seen in the second reference quoted. "An officer merely approaching a defendant and requesting that they commit a crime does not. To claim inducement, a defendant must prove he or she was unduly persuaded, threatened, coerced, harassed or offered pleas based on sympathy or friendship by police. A defendant must demonstrate that the government conduct created a situation in which an otherwise law-abiding citizen would commit an offense." An officer did not merely approach DPR and request that he commit a crime. They simulated blackmail, fraud and threat to property: that is coercive. Definitions of blackmail includes the word "coercion". Please, I don't care how long your posts are if you don't bother to address the premises of the argument. Because you are refusing to address the use of simulated blackmail and fraud to coerce DPR, you are not charitably engaging the argument. You are arguing against a straw man. You are pretending that law enforcement merely chatted with DPR online without setting up coercive pretenses. Please, for your own sake, be charitable when debating people - either in person or online.

by themeek 11y ago

Natsu 11y ago

A straw man is beating up a weakened version of someone's case. I went with the facts before the Court, which are the only facts relevant to making a legal determination. Neither this Court nor a court of appeals is going to look at anything else due to the rules of evidence. Moreover, unless he's already raised the issue of entrapment (and I don't think he has), it's almost certainly been waived and cannot be raised on appeal. You can personally believe that the facts presented in court are wrong, if you prefer, but they're not relevant to a legal analysis. Making a non-legal analysis of whether it's "entrapment" makes zero sense--entrapment is a legal concept and divorcing the notion of entrapment from how a court would determine something is entrapment is insensible. It doesn't answer any real-world questions and it would serve only to mislead, as courts follow rules to determine things like these. To establish entrapment, you need to locate some place in which he demonstrated some resistance to hiring a hitman, I was unable to find any such evidence in materials before the Court. If you think otherwise, quote anything you like from his log or any other evidence before the Court that shows him being averse to hiring a hitman until they talked him into it. Without that, you don't get to claim entrapment, legally. The Court would just say you were already predisposed to commit the crime and ignore your protests about how the cops fooled you, as is shown repeatedly in the law guide. Moreover, the burden of proof is on you to establish entrapment, not the other way around. So it's not enough to say that but for the theft/blackmail he wouldn't have done this, you have to show him resisting the idea. Was he set up by the cops? Undoubtedly so. Every single example in the law guide of non-entrapment shows the cops setting someone up. But there are standards for entrapment which must be met by evidence properly presented in court. If his lawyers do not make this argument, it is because they cannot. If someone suggests that "hey, you should hire this guy to kill that guy who's causing you problems," you will be in legal trouble if you go along with their suggestion instead of refusing it. So 'charitable' has nothing to do with it. The evidence before the Court isn't very charitable to him. You might argue that this is unfair, but this is how you determine something like entrapment. That's why there are long fights over the evidence (like the one I linked earlier), because that determines what they have to work with.

themeek 11y ago
Specifically you did not reply to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9628225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9628225 Is it (A), (B), or (C) that is incorrect? It sounds like you are saying that (C) is incorrect. However you are confusing how this is shown in court - what needs to be established - from the principle and definition of coercion. Law enforcement did not charge him for the hitman so the defense did not need to put up a case for entrapment, and as far as I can tell the legal defense dropped the ball a number of places. So it is not enough to point at the defense and backwards reason that if there were entrapment that it would have been established. There was no opportunity. There will be a separate hearing on the use of law enforcement coercion and we may see an argument and evidence presented there. Neither of us would be willing or able to establish a full defense of DPR or a full case for law enforcement - suggesting that this is my responsibility is intellectually dishonest. Take any number of resources: http://www.pdxcriminallawyers.com/articles/entrapment-and-police-coercion/ http://www.pdxcriminallawyers.com/articles/entrapment-and-po... "What Is Entrapment? When it comes to police coercion, a defendant is assumed to have the responsibility to turn down an opportunity to commit a crime when posed by a law enforcement officer. Instead, a defendant will need to prove that the law enforcement officer took additional actions to force a person into an illegal act. The following may be considered sufficient actions to force a person into committing a crime they otherwise wouldn’t: - Fraudulent claims or promises - Depending on the specifics, verbal harassment or flattery - Threats against a person, their property, or their job If a defendant wants to cite entrapment, they have a duty to present proof of entrapment. As it is what is known as an affirmative defense, the defendant has to offer evidence to clear their willing involvement in a crime." http://www.grayarea.com/entrap.htm http://www.grayarea.com/entrap.htm "So, a defendant cannot be exonerated of a crime on an entrapment claim even if he or she can prove that police had no reason whatsoever to suspect even the slightest of criminal inclinations. What they must prove is that were induced by police to commit the crime. This leads us to the second of the four questions: What constitutes inducement? An officer merely approaching a defendant and requesting that they commit a crime does not. To claim inducement, a defendant must prove he or she was unduly persuaded, threatened, coerced, harassed or offered pleas based on sympathy or friendship by police. A defendant must demonstrate that the government conduct created a situation in which an otherwise law-abiding citizen would commit an offense." Yes, what you are arguing against is a straw man. Quite simply you are not charitably interpreting the situation whereby law enforcement created a situation in which DPR had an incentive to hire a hitman as entrapment. It is the simulation of blackmail, fraud and threats to DPR's business that constitute coercion. Merely suggesting that there be a hitman is not coercion. But simulating blackmail, defrauding him and threatening his business constitute coercion. This is what we're talking about and you have repeatedly been ignoring. Because you are arguing merely in the context of "they offered a hitman and he agreed" you are arguing against a weakened form of my argument. My argument, in full, charitable form, can be seen in the second reference quoted. "An officer merely approaching a defendant and requesting that they commit a crime does not. To claim inducement, a defendant must prove he or she was unduly persuaded, threatened, coerced, harassed or offered pleas based on sympathy or friendship by police. A defendant must demonstrate that the government conduct created a situation in which an otherwise law-abiding citizen would commit an offense." An officer did not merely approach DPR and request that he commit a crime. They simulated blackmail, fraud and threat to property: that is coercive. Definitions of blackmail includes the word "coercion". Please, I don't care how long your posts are if you don't bother to address the premises of the argument. Because you are refusing to address the use of simulated blackmail and fraud to coerce DPR, you are not charitably engaging the argument. You are arguing against a straw man. You are pretending that law enforcement merely chatted with DPR online without setting up coercive pretenses. Please, for your own sake, be charitable when debating people - either in person or online.