Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Michigan Kidnapping case blows up in the Government's face
Comments
-
Nuance is communism potd.TurdBomber said:
And there's the vintage Dazzler weasel, right there.HHusky said:
It is the law, for the most part, today. It has not been the law for most of this country's history. It is very much a philosophical debate whether and when the defense should apply. Your suggestion to the contrary hints at your mental decline.WestlinnDuck said:
It isn't a "philosophical debate". It's called the law, and the debate occurred a long-time ago and if you want to allow the government to entrap people, let us know. You approve of entrapment, the law does not. Feel to get entrapment approved as an appropriate use of government resources. Scratch a leftist, find a fascist.HHusky said:
"Entrapment" means you did it. Whether allowing people to excuse their crimes on the basis that someone talked them into committing said crimes is a good or a bad thing is a philosophical debate.TurdBomber said:
In other words, H still believes they're guilty and it wasn't a load of shit from the get-go. Got it.HHusky said:OJ was acquitted.
It's okay for the jury to say it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even if they were guilty.
That's our system.
But your sympathies for mouth breathing militia types who play soldier and plot felonies in the woods is noted.
I have no problem with the verdict. The suggestible creatures acquitted are your base. -
That someone was the FBI. NTTAWIT in your world.HHusky said:
Someone talked them into it, Inspector.Sledog said:
So why weren't they convicted consuelo?HHusky said:
"Entrapment" means you did it. Whether allowing people to excuse their crimes on the basis that someone talked them into committing said crimes is a good or a bad thing is a philosophical debate.TurdBomber said:
In other words, H still believes they're guilty and it wasn't a load of shit from the get-go. Got it.HHusky said:OJ was acquitted.
It's okay for the jury to say it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even if they were guilty.
That's our system.
Do try to keep up. -
All we know for sure is the jury believed that was possible.TurdBomber said:
That someone was the FBI. NTTAWIT in your world.HHusky said:
Someone talked them into it, Inspector.Sledog said:
So why weren't they convicted consuelo?HHusky said:
"Entrapment" means you did it. Whether allowing people to excuse their crimes on the basis that someone talked them into committing said crimes is a good or a bad thing is a philosophical debate.TurdBomber said:
In other words, H still believes they're guilty and it wasn't a load of shit from the get-go. Got it.HHusky said:OJ was acquitted.
It's okay for the jury to say it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even if they were guilty.
That's our system.
Do try to keep up. -
This is the part Dazzler cannot understand. Ever. Statist little goober he is.WestlinnDuck said:
Unlike you, I actually went to law school and learned about these things called state statutes which under the state constitutions have been based by the legislature and signed into law by the governor. You suck at this.HHusky said:
So you endorse a defense which was rejected prior to the 20th Century.WestlinnDuck said:
Unlike the fascist blue governors and the dementia patient that aren't playing in the woods but are actively destroying American lives. Playing in the woods isnt' costing me a dime unlike your fascist base.HHusky said:
It is the law, for the most part, today. It has not been the law for most of this country's history. It is very much a philosophical debate whether and when the defense should apply. Your suggestion to the contrary hints at your mental decline.WestlinnDuck said:
It isn't a "philosophical debate". It's called the law, and the debate occurred a long-time ago and if you want to allow the government to entrap people, let us know. You approve of entrapment, the law does not. Feel to get entrapment approved as an appropriate use of government resources. Scratch a leftist, find a fascist.HHusky said:
"Entrapment" means you did it. Whether allowing people to excuse their crimes on the basis that someone talked them into committing said crimes is a good or a bad thing is a philosophical debate.TurdBomber said:
In other words, H still believes they're guilty and it wasn't a load of shit from the get-go. Got it.HHusky said:OJ was acquitted.
It's okay for the jury to say it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even if they were guilty.
That's our system.
But your sympathies for mouth breathing militia types who play soldier and plot felonies in the woods is noted.
I have no problem with the verdict. The suggestible creatures acquitted are your base.
It's like you see a living, breathing Constitution or something.
ORS 161.275
Entrapment
TEXT
(1)The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because the actor was induced to do so by a law enforcement official, or by a person acting in cooperation with a law enforcement official, for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be used against the actor in a criminal prosecution.
(2)As used in this section, “induced” means that the actor did not contemplate and would not otherwise have engaged in the proscribed conduct. Merely affording the actor an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment. [1971 c.743 §35] -
Dazzler's never heard of Common Law. What a Shark he is!HHusky said:
Legislatures can codify it, of course. However, the defense first arose in caselaw. You know, "judicial activism".WestlinnDuck said:
Unlike you, I actually went to law school and learned about these things called state statutes which under the state constitutions have been based by the legislature and signed into law by the governor. You suck at this.HHusky said:
So you endorse a defense which was rejected prior to the 20th Century.WestlinnDuck said:
Unlike the fascist blue governors and the dementia patient that aren't playing in the woods but are actively destroying American lives. Playing in the woods isnt' costing me a dime unlike your fascist base.HHusky said:
It is the law, for the most part, today. It has not been the law for most of this country's history. It is very much a philosophical debate whether and when the defense should apply. Your suggestion to the contrary hints at your mental decline.WestlinnDuck said:
It isn't a "philosophical debate". It's called the law, and the debate occurred a long-time ago and if you want to allow the government to entrap people, let us know. You approve of entrapment, the law does not. Feel to get entrapment approved as an appropriate use of government resources. Scratch a leftist, find a fascist.HHusky said:
"Entrapment" means you did it. Whether allowing people to excuse their crimes on the basis that someone talked them into committing said crimes is a good or a bad thing is a philosophical debate.TurdBomber said:
In other words, H still believes they're guilty and it wasn't a load of shit from the get-go. Got it.HHusky said:OJ was acquitted.
It's okay for the jury to say it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even if they were guilty.
That's our system.
But your sympathies for mouth breathing militia types who play soldier and plot felonies in the woods is noted.
I have no problem with the verdict. The suggestible creatures acquitted are your base.
It's like you see a living, breathing Constitution or something.
ORS 161.275
Entrapment
TEXT
(1)The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because the actor was induced to do so by a law enforcement official, or by a person acting in cooperation with a law enforcement official, for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be used against the actor in a criminal prosecution.
(2)As used in this section, “induced” means that the actor did not contemplate and would not otherwise have engaged in the proscribed conduct. Merely affording the actor an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment. [1971 c.743 §35] -
Authoritarian Momma's Boy is more like it.HHusky said:
Nuance is communism potd.TurdBomber said:
And there's the vintage Dazzler weasel, right there.HHusky said:
It is the law, for the most part, today. It has not been the law for most of this country's history. It is very much a philosophical debate whether and when the defense should apply. Your suggestion to the contrary hints at your mental decline.WestlinnDuck said:
It isn't a "philosophical debate". It's called the law, and the debate occurred a long-time ago and if you want to allow the government to entrap people, let us know. You approve of entrapment, the law does not. Feel to get entrapment approved as an appropriate use of government resources. Scratch a leftist, find a fascist.HHusky said:
"Entrapment" means you did it. Whether allowing people to excuse their crimes on the basis that someone talked them into committing said crimes is a good or a bad thing is a philosophical debate.TurdBomber said:
In other words, H still believes they're guilty and it wasn't a load of shit from the get-go. Got it.HHusky said:OJ was acquitted.
It's okay for the jury to say it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even if they were guilty.
That's our system.
But your sympathies for mouth breathing militia types who play soldier and plot felonies in the woods is noted.
I have no problem with the verdict. The suggestible creatures acquitted are your base.
No man respects you. -
The common law rejected the defense until the 20th Century. What a liberal you've become, lady.TurdBomber said:
Dazzler's never heard of Common Law. What a Shark he is!HHusky said:
Legislatures can codify it, of course. However, the defense first arose in caselaw. You know, "judicial activism".WestlinnDuck said:
Unlike you, I actually went to law school and learned about these things called state statutes which under the state constitutions have been based by the legislature and signed into law by the governor. You suck at this.HHusky said:
So you endorse a defense which was rejected prior to the 20th Century.WestlinnDuck said:
Unlike the fascist blue governors and the dementia patient that aren't playing in the woods but are actively destroying American lives. Playing in the woods isnt' costing me a dime unlike your fascist base.HHusky said:
It is the law, for the most part, today. It has not been the law for most of this country's history. It is very much a philosophical debate whether and when the defense should apply. Your suggestion to the contrary hints at your mental decline.WestlinnDuck said:
It isn't a "philosophical debate". It's called the law, and the debate occurred a long-time ago and if you want to allow the government to entrap people, let us know. You approve of entrapment, the law does not. Feel to get entrapment approved as an appropriate use of government resources. Scratch a leftist, find a fascist.HHusky said:
"Entrapment" means you did it. Whether allowing people to excuse their crimes on the basis that someone talked them into committing said crimes is a good or a bad thing is a philosophical debate.TurdBomber said:
In other words, H still believes they're guilty and it wasn't a load of shit from the get-go. Got it.HHusky said:OJ was acquitted.
It's okay for the jury to say it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even if they were guilty.
That's our system.
But your sympathies for mouth breathing militia types who play soldier and plot felonies in the woods is noted.
I have no problem with the verdict. The suggestible creatures acquitted are your base.
It's like you see a living, breathing Constitution or something.
ORS 161.275
Entrapment
TEXT
(1)The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because the actor was induced to do so by a law enforcement official, or by a person acting in cooperation with a law enforcement official, for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be used against the actor in a criminal prosecution.
(2)As used in this section, “induced” means that the actor did not contemplate and would not otherwise have engaged in the proscribed conduct. Merely affording the actor an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment. [1971 c.743 §35] -
oh noTurdBomber said:
Authoritarian Momma's Boy is more like it.HHusky said:
Nuance is communism potd.TurdBomber said:
And there's the vintage Dazzler weasel, right there.HHusky said:
It is the law, for the most part, today. It has not been the law for most of this country's history. It is very much a philosophical debate whether and when the defense should apply. Your suggestion to the contrary hints at your mental decline.WestlinnDuck said:
It isn't a "philosophical debate". It's called the law, and the debate occurred a long-time ago and if you want to allow the government to entrap people, let us know. You approve of entrapment, the law does not. Feel to get entrapment approved as an appropriate use of government resources. Scratch a leftist, find a fascist.HHusky said:
"Entrapment" means you did it. Whether allowing people to excuse their crimes on the basis that someone talked them into committing said crimes is a good or a bad thing is a philosophical debate.TurdBomber said:
In other words, H still believes they're guilty and it wasn't a load of shit from the get-go. Got it.HHusky said:OJ was acquitted.
It's okay for the jury to say it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even if they were guilty.
That's our system.
But your sympathies for mouth breathing militia types who play soldier and plot felonies in the woods is noted.
I have no problem with the verdict. The suggestible creatures acquitted are your base.
No man respects you. -
You notice that the defense is that the "actor" did the deed. Jesus you're stupid.TurdBomber said:
This is the part Dazzler cannot understand. Ever. Statist little goober he is.WestlinnDuck said:
Unlike you, I actually went to law school and learned about these things called state statutes which under the state constitutions have been based by the legislature and signed into law by the governor. You suck at this.HHusky said:
So you endorse a defense which was rejected prior to the 20th Century.WestlinnDuck said:
Unlike the fascist blue governors and the dementia patient that aren't playing in the woods but are actively destroying American lives. Playing in the woods isnt' costing me a dime unlike your fascist base.HHusky said:
It is the law, for the most part, today. It has not been the law for most of this country's history. It is very much a philosophical debate whether and when the defense should apply. Your suggestion to the contrary hints at your mental decline.WestlinnDuck said:
It isn't a "philosophical debate". It's called the law, and the debate occurred a long-time ago and if you want to allow the government to entrap people, let us know. You approve of entrapment, the law does not. Feel to get entrapment approved as an appropriate use of government resources. Scratch a leftist, find a fascist.HHusky said:
"Entrapment" means you did it. Whether allowing people to excuse their crimes on the basis that someone talked them into committing said crimes is a good or a bad thing is a philosophical debate.TurdBomber said:
In other words, H still believes they're guilty and it wasn't a load of shit from the get-go. Got it.HHusky said:OJ was acquitted.
It's okay for the jury to say it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even if they were guilty.
That's our system.
But your sympathies for mouth breathing militia types who play soldier and plot felonies in the woods is noted.
I have no problem with the verdict. The suggestible creatures acquitted are your base.
It's like you see a living, breathing Constitution or something.
ORS 161.275
Entrapment
TEXT
(1)The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because the actor was induced to do so by a law enforcement official, or by a person acting in cooperation with a law enforcement official, for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be used against the actor in a criminal prosecution.
(2)As used in this section, “induced” means that the actor did not contemplate and would not otherwise have engaged in the proscribed conduct. Merely affording the actor an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment. [1971 c.743 §35] -
What kind of a piece of shit defends entrapment?
Rhetorical
