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 -
So "not guilty" means they did the deed. Only in your stupid world.HHusky said:
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]
So, Shut Up, Stupid. -
The kind that pads their legal bills.RaceBannon said:What kind of a piece of shit defends entrapment?
Rhetorical -
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 quoted the statute. That's precisely what it says.TurdBomber said:
So "not guilty" means they did the deed. Only in your stupid world.HHusky said:
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]
So, Shut Up, Stupid.
Please stop embarrassing the other dumbshits. -
I think we should revisit rittenhouse imo
Has a single one of these drummed up leftist narratives ever ended with a win in the past like 5 years?
No wonder libs are so angry. If I was told for years straight and believed deep in my heart that all this shit was true and then it always ended in failure I'd be mad too. Evil system and all.
Or you could consider it's all bullshit and it makes more sense -
You would think that being constantly lied to and have been wrong on every major issue for years if not decades would lead to some intellectual introspection. But being a leftard does appear to be a mental disease and thus no introspection or intellectual curiosity. True for any CNN host or the dazzler.Pitchfork51 said:I think we should revisit rittenhouse imo
Has a single one of these drummed up leftist narratives ever ended with a win in the past like 5 years?
No wonder libs are so angry. If I was told for years straight and believed deep in my heart that all this shit was true and then it always ended in failure I'd be mad too. Evil system and all.
Or you could consider it's all bullshit and it makes more sense -
Bump
-
What? No lectures on playing the “both sides” card?
-
Meltdown
Is Spaz saying the FBI has informants in the Trump assassination attempt, like they did in this phony plot set up by the Biden DOJ? Weren’t the majority of the people in this hoax actually connected to the DOJ either undercover or paid informant?
-
Violent extremists of all kinds are retards. Hth
-
Correct PGOS. We should be united in denouncing this BS. We’re not. Look at the examples.
-
Spaz, you blamed Trump supporters in part for some extremist coming an inch from assassinating him. Own it.
-
Chris, youre being a pussy about the whole thing. R-E-L-A-X.
I didnt blame Trump supporters, I blamed you guys on this board who I’ve witnessed having a hand in escalating these tensions with your dumb posts.
-
Spaz is really on one this time.
-
Chris, you have to understand. I realize you’re so dumb you dont get the bigger picture and the impact of your idiotic posts. Just take my word your stupidity hurts America.
-
