A few thoughts about January 6, 2021

[The Rogue Wolf]

Were they FBI engaged in entrapment?

You realize that this line is simply a load of "it's your fault 'cause you let us break the law!" garbage, don't you?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I am hearing cops actually did welcome some in. There are unindited co-conspirators. Were they FBI engaged in entrapment? Did some Congress people let some people in? This guy is being charged. Dunno if it will stick or not.

Oregon Lawmaker Who Let Protesters Into State Capitol Is Charged in Breach (Published 2021)

Surveillance footage shows State Representative Mike Nearman opening a door to let protesters into the Capitol, in Salem, last year.

www.nytimes.com

Did you even read your own source? That's talking about a different event that did not take place at the federal building in Washington DC. For fuck sake you don't even have to have read the article, it's literally in the headline that you posted:

"Oregon Lawmaker Who Let Protesters Into STATE CAPITOL is Charged in Breach."

It's about Salem Oregon you muppet.

 

[gorfias]

You realize that this line is simply a load of "it's your fault 'cause you let us break the law!" garbage, don't you?

So, entrapment isn't really a thing?

Did you even read your own source? That's talking about a different event that did not take place at the federal building in Washington DC. For fuck sake you don't even have to have read the article, it's literally in the headline that you posted:

"Oregon Lawmaker Who Let Protesters Into STATE CAPITOL is Charged in Breach."

It's about Salem Oregon you muppet.

I did not, you got me. I specifically searched on 1/6 and came up with that.
I did it again and at the top of the search, the trespassers are claiming they were let in by the capital police. I'll search to see if any footage shows camera's doing just that.

 

[Avnger]

So, entrapment isn't really a thing?

Entrapment is a thing. You're trying to apply it to situations entirely unrelated to its legal definition though.

What legal entrapment is not: "They let me break a law and arrested me afterwards."
What legal entrapment is: "They coerced/forced me into breaking a law I never would have otherwise and arrested me afterwards."

 

[gorfias]

Entrapment is a thing. You're trying to apply it to situations entirely unrelated to its legal definition though.

FBI are among the peaceful protestors. The FBI guy approaches one, who would not otherwise enter the capital and tells him "We have to get in there! Follow me!" Then the FBI guy disappears into the crowd but the mostly peaceful protester, at his prompting, commits a crime he would not otherwise have done: he trespasses into the capital.

I don't follow. How is that not the legal definition of entrapment?

 

[Avnger]

FBI are among the peaceful protestors. The FBI guy approaches one, who would not otherwise enter the capital and tells him "We have to get in there! Follow me!" Then the FBI guy disappears into the crowd but the mostly peaceful protester, at his prompting, commits a crime he would not otherwise have done: he trespasses into the capital.

Where and when did this exact scenario occur? Please provide evidence of it.

edit: Provided you do have evidence of such a situation, that still likely isn't entrapment. It would have been entrapment is the "FBI guy" offered the "peaceful protester" money to enter the Capitol or threatened them with violence to enter the Capitol. The "peaceful protester" still made the conscious and knowing decision to break the law of their own free will.

The key aspect of entrapment is this: Government agents do not entrap defendants simply by offering them an opportunity to commit a crime. Judges expect people to resist any ordinary temptation to violate the law. An entrapment defense arises when government agents resort to repugnant behavior such as the use of threats, harassment, fraud, or even flattery to induce defendants to commit crimes.

What Is Entrapment?

Entrapment happens when police officers coerce or induce someone into committing a crime. Learn more.

www.nolo.com

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

So, entrapment isn't really a thing?

Not if you aren't a fan of the exclusionary rule. After all, you did something illegal. No reason to throw out that evidence even if the cops also broke the rules

 

[gorfias]

Where and when did this exact scenario occur? Please provide evidence of it.

Irrelevant. Do we agree IF this happened, it would constitute entrapment? Because the previous post seems to state entrapment doesn't fit this scenario.

And do you doubt it would happen?

Not if you aren't a fan of the exclusionary rule. After all, you did something illegal. No reason to throw out that evidence even if the cops also broke the rules

Apples and space shuttles. Enticing someone to break a law they would otherwise not break is wrong and not their job. But an exclussionary rule does not help an innocent person whose door has been broken down, his home scoured by cops who find nothing as, guy is innocent and they shrug and there's nothing to exclude. That innocent is not helped by that court created rule.

 

[Avnger]

Irrelevant. Do we agree IF this happened, it would constitute entrapment? Because the previous post seems to state entrapment doesn't fit this scenario.

And do you doubt it would happen?

Likely it wouldn't. Please take a couple minutes and actually read up on legal entrapment. I provided a link in the edit to my previous post.

Why would a hypothetical scenario you've invented to support your already believed interpretation be relevant when you claim that the actual scenario occurring is irrelevant? The real, provable events that occurred on Jan 6 are all that matter. Hypothetical justifications you come up with afterwards don't, especially when you cannot or will not provide evidence to support them.

Can you link a legal resource that shows how entrapment applies to the events on Jan 6? I've provided one in support of my views.

 

[Hades]

I am hearing cops actually did welcome some in. There are unindited co-conspirators. Were they FBI engaged in entrapment? Did some Congress people let some people in? This guy is being charged. Dunno if it will stick or not.

If true then the cops are at best derelict in their duties and at worst outright treasonous. But they do not have the authority to invite insurgents into the building either.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Apples and space shuttles. Enticing someone to break a law they would otherwise not break is wrong and not their job. But an exclussionary rule does not help an innocent person whose door has been broken down, his home scoured by cops who find nothing as, guy is innocent and they shrug and there's nothing to exclude. That innocent is not helped by that court created rule.

But they broke the law. Just because they were encouraged by somebody *they didn't know was fbi* (hypothetically).

You aren't off the hook for breaking the law just because I encouraged you to, regardless of who I'm employed by.

 

[gorfias]

If true then the cops are at best derelict in their duties and at worst outright treasonous. But they do not have the authority to invite insurgents into the building either.

Can we agree that the cops have apparent authority? Cop tells me where I can and cannot go, I'm not going to tell him he has no authority to do so in most circumstances.

Likely it wouldn't. Please take a couple minutes and actually read up on legal entrapment. I provided a link in the edit to my previous post.

Why would a hypothetical scenario you've invented to support your already believed interpretation be relevant when you claim that the actual scenario occurring is irrelevant? The real, provable events that occurred on Jan 6 are all that matter. Hypothetical justifications you come up with afterwards don't, especially when you cannot or will not provide evidence to support them.

Can you link a legal resource that shows how entrapment applies to the events on Jan 6? I've provided one in support of my views.

entrapment

Definition of entrapment in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

The act of government agents or officials that induces a person to commit a crime he or she is not previously disposed to commit.

Simply offering an opportunity to commit a crime is not entrapment. But telling someone they are a phony if they don't get real and enter the capital (or kidnap Governor Whitmer?) can be considered entrapment.

Understand, there is an international globalist corporate establishment that creates certain narratives. When it fits such a narrative? I'd ask people to be skeptical. Don't just take their word for it. Question things. Look at alternatives. You won't always be correct but at least you did some digging for the truth.

But they broke the law. Just because they were encouraged by somebody *they didn't know was fbi* (hypothetically).

You aren't off the hook for breaking the law just because I encouraged you to, regardless of who I'm employed by.

I admit I don't know if entrapment is a total defense to any crime in which it is proven.

 

[Hades]

Can we agree that the cops have apparent authority? Cop tells me where I can and cannot go, I'm not going to tell him he has no authority to do so in most circumstances.

No. We cannot. Nowhere in the cop job description is it ever said or implied that they are the ones we decide whether or not democracy lives or dies. We especially can't agree that basic grunts on the ground have this authority.

 

[Avnger]

Can we agree that the cops have apparent authority? Cop tells me where I can and cannot go, I'm not going to tell him he has no authority to do so in most circumstances.

Are we talking about an on-duty Capitol Police officer wearing an identifiable part of their uniform (eg: a badge) or an off-duty municipal police officer from Podunk, North Carolina wearing normal street clothes?

Another key item: Is the police officer in question also being treated as a suspect/criminal, or was the inciting action taken as part of their official duties and therefore not illegal (outside of entrapment)?

 

[gorfias]

No. We cannot. Nowhere in the cop job description is it ever said or implied that they are the ones we decide whether or not democracy lives or dies. We especially can't agree that basic grunts on the ground have this authority.

It is enumerated that cops can allow and deny access to locations under their control.

Are we talking about an on-duty Capitol Police officer wearing an identifiable part of their uniform (eg: a badge) or an off-duty municipal police officer from Podunk, North Carolina wearing normal street clothes?

Another key item: Is the police officer in question also being treated as a suspect/criminal, or was the inciting action taken as part of their official duties and therefore not illegal (outside of entrapment)?

Whatever gives the officer apparent authority. In this case, wearing the uniform. Also, if you were to see others following the directions of such an officer, that would contribute.
Dunno where the cops stand on charges. I've heard there were "unindicted co-conspirators". Are they FBI that entrapped? "Oath Keepers" who actually should be charged but people do not want to do so? I don't know but the latter would NOT be an example of entrapment.

 

[Baffle]

I don't know what's going on in here, but my pizza is due to arrive in the next ten minutes and I hope all this is settled by the time I've finished. If not, not, I guess.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

The act of government agents or officials that induces a person to commit a crime he or she is not previously disposed to commit.

Simply offering an opportunity to commit a crime is not entrapment. But telling someone they are a phony if they don't get real and enter the capital (or kidnap Governor Whitmer?) can be considered entrapment.

No, it can't.

Entrapment would be something like an undercover cop acting like a drug dealer telling someone "sell these drugs or I'll kill your family" and then that person getting arrested for selling drugs.

Entrapment is not a cop telling someone "hey you're a huge loser if you don't sell these drugs for me" and then that person agreeing to sell drugs and getting arrested for it.

Calling someone a "phony" or making fun or someone or calling them names would not induce a reasonable person to commit a crime. Telling someone "hey you should commit a crime" would not induce a reasonable person to commit a crime. These things are not entrapment.

 

[gorfias]

No, it can't.

Entrapment would be something like an undercover cop acting like a drug dealer telling someone "sell these drugs or I'll kill your family" and then that person getting arrested for selling drugs.

Entrapment is not a cop telling someone "hey you're a huge loser if you don't sell these drugs for me" and then that person agreeing to sell drugs and getting arrested for it.

Calling someone a "phony" or making fun or someone or calling them names would not induce a reasonable person to commit a crime. Telling someone "hey you should commit a crime" would not induce a reasonable person to commit a crime. These things are not entrapment.

I think that would be for a finder of fact (typically juror but can be the judge) to determine (when has a line been crossed and a person moved to commit a crime they would not otherwise commit. And it is subjective. What if the person in question is highly suggestible?

 

[Avnger]

I think that would be for a finder of fact (typically juror but can be the judge) to determine (when has a line been crossed and a person moved to commit a crime they would not otherwise commit. And it is subjective. What if the person in question is highly suggestible?

Mary-Anne Berry is charged with selling illegal drugs to an undercover police officer. Berry testifies that the drugs were for her personal use and that the reason she sold some to the officer is that at a party, the officer falsely said that she wanted some drugs for her mom, who was in a lot of pain. According to Berry, the officer even assured Berry that she wasn't a cop and wasn't setting Berry up. The police officer's actions do not amount to entrapment. Police officers are allowed to tell lies. The officer gave Berry an opportunity to break the law, but the officer did not engage in extreme or overbearing behavior.

An entrapment defense arises when government agents resort to repugnant behavior such as the use of threats, harassment, fraud, or even flattery to induce defendants to commit crimes.

States employ either an objective or a subjective standard to determine whether entrapment occurred.

• Objective standard. Under an objective standard, when defendants offer entrapment evidence jurors decide whether a police officer's actions would have induced a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime.
• Subjective standard. Entrapment defenses are less likely to succeed under a subjective standard. The reason is that under a subjective standard, when a defendant offers entrapment evidence, jurors decide whether the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime makes the defendant responsible for his or her actions, regardless of any government agent's inducements.

Entrapment is an affirmative defense. Thus, defendants have the burden of convincing jurors "by a preponderance of the evidence" that government agents' actions rose to the level of entrapment. In a state that employs an objective test of entrapment, a conclusion that entrapment took place results in a not guilty verdict. In a state that employs a subjective test of entrapment, a conclusion that entrapment took place results in the burden of proof shifting back to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty because the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime -- not the government agent's actions -- prompted the defendant to commit the crime.

Bolded emphases are mine.

What Is Entrapment?

Entrapment happens when police officers coerce or induce someone into committing a crime. Learn more.

www.nolo.com

In summary, entrapment (at a minimum) requires the suspect/criminal to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the government agent, as part of their official duties, took repugnant actions that would have induced a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.

 

[Bartholomew]

In summary, entrapment (at a minimum) requires the suspect/criminal to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the police officer, as part of their official duties, took repugnant actions that would have induced a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.

Lying about your sick mother seems pretty repugnant to me, as it appeals to morality and alleviating human suffering.

This is just my opinion, so no need to jump down my throat about it.