Thread: Suicide attack on U.S. Capitol foiled

Originally Posted by bethabara9

Well, since they knew he was an illegal alien, why waste all the tax dollars? Is it that hard to drive to the airport and just ship someone back to their country. No arresting, no big convoluted plans, no fake bombs (guess they learned their lesson and quite giving them live ones) and just send these people back to country of origin and let their government deal with it.

B'

Just to come back and do it again.

Reading the article, it seems that a conventional explosive is now defined in US law as a "weapon of mass destruction", is that right? That is nonsense because the term "weapon of mass destruction" was invented to distinguish chemical, biological and nuclear weapons from conventional explosives. If it is the case that is how US law defines weapons of mass destruction, the US may now claim that Saddam Hussein had enormous amounts of "weapons of mass destruction" at the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. It can also not protect itself from claims that it continually produces weapons of mass destruction. Or that it gives licences to private companies to use "weapons of mass destruction" for activities such as excavation, mining and demolition.

AD1184, you know the definition changes with the need and fear quotient required by the media.
The XXLarge label in the vest has to be considered as well.

Originally Posted by bart5050

AD1184, you know the definition changes with the need and fear quotient required by the media.

The CNN article mentioned what he was charged with, which I would assume is a literal statement of what his charge read and not the merely the reporter's interpretation or CNN's spin for the sake of sensationalism.

Even the payment might not make it entrapment. The main point is that the subject must be OFFERING their services. They must have expressed an interest in it. For example, if I approach a guy and offer him 50,000 dollars to kill my wife ... and then arrest him for accepting, that would be entrapment. If however, the guy said: "I'm willing to kill somebody if the conditions are right." and I say "I'm willing to pay 50,000." That wouldn't be entrapment. At least I don't think it would be.

Originally Posted by kirin-rex

Even the payment might not make it entrapment. The main point is that the subject must be OFFERING their services. They must have expressed an interest in it. For example, if I approach a guy and offer him 50,000 dollars to kill my wife ... and then arrest him for accepting, that would be entrapment. If however, the guy said: "I'm willing to kill somebody if the conditions are right." and I say "I'm willing to pay 50,000." That wouldn't be entrapment. At least I don't think it would be.

For enough money, you can tempt anyone.
Consider if I was am DEA agent and wanted to sell you drugs so I could bust you for buying and possesion with intent to distribuate.
If the price I quoted you was about the same as most dealers would charge, then you are pre disposed to buy it and it is not entrapment.
If the price I quoted you was so low that you had visions of making enormous profits, then maybe I tempted you into doing something you normally would not do.

No hard and fast rules for entrapment.
There is what a lawyer is able to convince a judge of with a motion for dismisal.
That you were tempted into doing something you would not normally do.
A gray area could go either way, depending on the judge and how good your mouthpiece is at presenting his argument.

Originally Posted by bart5050

For enough money, you can tempt anyone.

This be true, and I hate discussions with people who get into this groove.. All of them do for a matter of fact.

Don't care what anyone claims, we all have a price. It may not be money, but we all have a price. Maybe we're not right in what we do, but I think at least everyone needs to stop judging everyone else for their choices.

(says I as my judgements of society continue)

Originally Posted by bart5050

Entrapment requires the law to induce a person into doing something they would not consider doing otherwise.
If the law simply enabled them to do something they were already pre-disposed to do, it is not entrapment.

If they offered him $50,000 to commit a crime, thats entrapment.
Providing him real or imagined tools to carry out his crime, thats a good bust.

Inaccurate Bart. Feds gave him the stuff, that's entrapment.

Definition for entrapment:
Web definitions:
a defense that claims the defendant would not have broken the law if not tricked into doing it by law enforcement officials.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

If the feds gave a guy some illegal drugs, and the guy took said drugs, he'd be charged un fairly. Surely the suppliers should be charged, Hey wait a minute. They DO! Not the feds, just common folk. Tracking and selling of drugs is a felony.... Ummmm. So is supplying/selling people with weapons...

Originally Posted by Achillesdude

Inaccurate Bart. Feds gave him the stuff, that's entrapment.



If the feds gave a guy some illegal drugs, and the guy took said drugs, he'd be charged un fairly. Surely the suppliers should be charged, Hey wait a minute. They DO! Not the feds, just common folk. Tracking and selling of drugs is a felony.... Ummmm. So is supplying/selling people with weapons...

I would not reccomend a carear as a defense counsel.
Your arguments would get your clients convicted.