Thread: Suicide attack on U.S. Capitol foiled

Originally Posted by Achillesdude

It was a mere example.

At least I know the accurate definitions to terms.

No, you do not.
The only definition that counts is the legal definition that would stand up in front of a judge.
Entrapment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.^[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.

If the defense can show the guy would never have even remotely considered donning a suicide vest in his wildest dreams without the agency enabling him, then it is entrapment.
The prosecution will argue that if they had not sold him a fake vest, he might have found a real one and acted out his desires.
The judge will ask if you walked up to any stranger on the street and offered them a suicide vest, would the majority be likely to take it and plan a suicide attack.
The judge will deny the motion for dismisal on entrapment and the defendent will be bound for trial.

Entrapment for accepting a suicide vest would be virtually impossible to establish under any but the most extreme of circumstances.
The odds of getting a dismisal on entrapment for this would be a million to one.

If a guy says "I wanna firebomb that building!" and I give him a fake molotov and he throws it, I don't think that's entrapment. He expressed an interest. I provided the SAFE example to prove it was more than just talk.

If, however, I go up to a guy and hand him a molotov and say "That building would look much better on fire." That would be entrapment.

That's my understanding anyway.