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
-
Yeah, but he was just a drunk who was credibily accused by multiple women of sexual assualt, of course he should have been treated bad. Judge Jackson is the most highly qualified nominee ever, and she is black and a woman, she shouldn't even have been questioned other than to answer just how awesome is she.RaceBannon said:
Judge Jackson wasn't accused of rape you knowSFGbob said:
Blassey Ford made "credible" accusations against Kavanaugh. All the left has is lies. They are busy telling themselves now that Judge Jackson was treated far worse than any other nominee.UW_Doog_Bot said:
You think this will prevent the echo chamber from repeating it?Pitchfork51 said:Hilarious. The Ls keep coming
When you push everything so hard all day then people eventually get mad when it doesn't come to fruition and dont trust you.
THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN
Fine people
Kyle Rittenhouse
Russian Collusion
The facts don't matter, just the narrative. -
Everyone on the jury is smarter than you Dazzler. You’re dumb. Fact.HHusky said: -
Dazzler still hates the Sandman too. Another L for Dazzler.UW_Doog_Bot said:
You think this will prevent the echo chamber from repeating it?Pitchfork51 said:Hilarious. The Ls keep coming
When you push everything so hard all day then people eventually get mad when it doesn't come to fruition and dont trust you.
THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN
Fine people
Kyle Rittenhouse
Russian Collusion
The facts don't matter, just the narrative.
Dazzler, what’s it like being wrong,
All
The
Fucking
Tim? -
DIMS attempted to destroy Kavanaugh’s character.
REPUBS focused on Jackson’s shitty rulings.
She was the one treated horribly.
Liberals are unmitigated F’n lifelong liars. Truth is nonexistent. Narratives rule. -
-
-
Calling out Hannity.PurpleThrobber said: -
And they will get tougher each and every week.RaceBannon said:Tough week for the Biden Brothers
Along as it is simply allowed to LIPO.
Attack all that is being proven as fact. Early, late and then early again.
But let’s keep the Sermons out of the picture. The ones we need see all of this that is going on. They don’t need a revival to realize it. -
Naw, just another shit sandwhich you ateHHusky said: -
Someone needs to inform Cernovich that 1/6 was an FBI planned attack on a sitting POTUS and ANYONE who dares to support him. These evil people are trying to take out innocent civilians and politicians who simple attended President Trump’s rally. INSURRECTION!PurpleThrobber said:
-
Only somebody as stupid as you would think the Government had a case worthy of prosecution.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.
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? -
-
Funny you say that…PurpleThrobber said:
Like Capitol police officers holding the door open for 'trespassers'.SFGbob said:
Pretend they're Muslim terrorists Dazzler and then you might be able to gin up your siutational rage about Government entrapment.HHusky said:
Who said it isn't a defense? You might want one of these guys to marry your sister now.WestlinnDuck said:
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.HHusky said:
fly speck superiority guyWestlinnDuck said:
What violent felony? I didn't know the governor was physically assaulted and kidnapped. Gotta link? Geezus you suck at this.HHusky said:
"I was merely entrapped into plotting a violent felony."
He will be promoted yet again for his continued corruption…
-
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. -
"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. -
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. -
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. -
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. -
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. -
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. -
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. -
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] -
Is that the Russian state narrative we’ve been waiting for? Or do you actually have something to contribute?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.
-
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] -
Dazzler is totally in favor or entrapment, but if far too ethical to ever pad his legal bills, trust him.
-
The pro-pedophile lobby weighs in. blob's a perv.SFGbob said:Dazzler is totally in favor or entrapment, but if far too ethical to ever pad his legal bills, trust him.
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 -
In other words, H believes they are guilty despite being acquitted.
You know, in contrast to the burden of evidence he desires for the Biden corruption case. -
Bump for H "hands up don't shoot".UW_Doog_Bot said:
You think this will prevent the echo chamber from repeating it?Pitchfork51 said:Hilarious. The Ls keep coming
When you push everything so hard all day then people eventually get mad when it doesn't come to fruition and dont trust you.
THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN
Fine people
Kyle Rittenhouse
Russian Collusion
The facts don't matter, just the narrative. -
You do know an entrapment defense means they admit they did what they were accused of, right?UW_Doog_Bot said:In other words, H believes they are guilty despite being acquitted.
You know, in contrast to the burden of evidence he desires for the Biden corruption case.
