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.
Only somebody as stupid as you would think the Government had a case worthy of prosecution.
When there are more FBI agents and informants than “bad guys” and the lead FBI agent is fired incident to a domestic violence incident with his spouse, blame it on the jury . . . What law school did you go to again, dumbkopf?
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.
Damn, the entrapment didn't work.
"I got entrapped into committing a violent felony" is quite the defense. Vindicated!
What violent felony? I didn't know the governor was physically assaulted and kidnapped. Gotta link? Geezus you suck at this.
fly speck superiority guy
"I was merely entrapped into plotting a violent felony."
There you go. There was no violent felony. And if you had gone to law school you would have learned that entrapment is an actual defense. I pity your mythical clients.
Who said it isn't a defense? You might want one of these guys to marry your sister now.
Pretend they're Muslim terrorists Dazzler and then you might be able to gin up your siutational rage about Government entrapment.
Like Capitol police officers holding the door open for 'trespassers'.
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.
In other words, H still believes they're guilty and it wasn't a load of shit from the get-go. Got it.
"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.
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.
In other words, H still believes they're guilty and it wasn't a load of shit from the get-go. Got it.
"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.
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.
In other words, H still believes they're guilty and it wasn't a load of shit from the get-go. Got it.
"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.
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.
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.
In other words, H still believes they're guilty and it wasn't a load of shit from the get-go. Got it.
"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.
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.
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.
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 okay for the jury to say it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even if they were guilty.
That's our system.
In other words, H still believes they're guilty and it wasn't a load of shit from the get-go. Got it.
"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.
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.
In other words, H still believes they're guilty and it wasn't a load of shit from the get-go. Got it.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In other words, H still believes they're guilty and it wasn't a load of shit from the get-go. Got it.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So you endorse a defense which was rejected prior to the 20th Century.
It's like you see a living, breathing Constitution or something.
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.
In other words, H still believes they're guilty and it wasn't a load of shit from the get-go. Got it.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So you endorse a defense which was rejected prior to the 20th Century.
It's like you see a living, breathing Constitution or something.
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.
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]
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.
In other words, H still believes they're guilty and it wasn't a load of shit from the get-go. Got it.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So you endorse a defense which was rejected prior to the 20th Century.
It's like you see a living, breathing Constitution or something.
Is that the Russian state narrative we’ve been waiting for? Or do you actually have something to contribute?
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.
In other words, H still believes they're guilty and it wasn't a load of shit from the get-go. Got it.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So you endorse a defense which was rejected prior to the 20th Century.
It's like you see a living, breathing Constitution or something.
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.
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]
Legislatures can codify it, of course. However, the defense first arose in caselaw. You know, "judicial activism".
Comments
When there are more FBI agents and informants than “bad guys” and the lead FBI agent is fired incident to a domestic violence incident with his spouse, blame it on the jury . . . What law school did you go to again, dumbkopf?
Big news splash when arrests went down.
Where was the news coverage afterwards?
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kenbensinger/michigan-kidnapping-gretchen-whitmer-fbi-informant.
He will be promoted yet again for his continued corruption…
Then he poasts again.
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.
Do try to keep up.
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]
https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-israel/police-encouragement-and-the-defense-of-entrapment/jacobson-v-united-states-2/?msclkid=3cd45c45b84611eca337ddc9e7ea7f50
You know, in contrast to the burden of evidence he desires for the Biden corruption case.