One thing to keep in mind is that his pitiful circumstances actually do fit the pattern for many young men who self-radicalize. On the other hand, based on your argument and the article, I have updated my position from "No way" to "Maybe." I say "maybe" because I still see nothing to suggest they induced him. It still sounds like a sting…
One thing to keep in mind is that his pitiful circumstances actually do fit the pattern for many young men who self-radicalize. On the other hand, based on your argument and the article, I have updated my position from "No way" to "Maybe." I say "maybe" because I still see nothing to suggest they induced him. It still sounds like a sting operation to me. But to the degree that the FBI originated the idea, or aspects of the idea, then you might have an entrapment claim. Yes, perhaps he would still be getting stoned in his basement. But that's the nature of any sting operation, is it not? If a cop pretends to be a young girl online to snag pedophiles, or goes undercover as a drug dealer, the defendant can always claim they would have gone about their life without breaking the law if not for the officer. But so long as the officer does not originate the idea or induce the defendant to commit the crime, that's not a defense in this country. It does sound like the FBI may have originated at least parts of this plan, which I did not know before, but then my immediate question would be, since the defense lawyers made exactly this case, why didn't they succeed? Was it a kangaroo court or, what I think is more likely, did they simply not have sufficient evidence for the claim? The article doesn't answer this question. So I guess for now I would say, yes, based on this report, it seems like the FBI might have committed entrapment, but it also seems like the evidence to support the claim is lacking.
David, your open mind is a rare and wonderful strength in this age of reflexive tribal gotcha smackdowns. Your thoughtful respect for alternative views is like a breath of fresh air in the fever swamps of comment sections.
I think the first trial resulted in two aquittals and two non decisions prompting retrials. That’s no convictions for a very elaborate operation.
Judges can decide to exclude exculpitory evidence. Look at what’s happening to unarmed, nonviolent J6 defendants with zero criminal history.
Thank you, Kurt. To be fair, I'm not always so flexible, and I am also a former university lecturer of logic and debate. I happen to think that unless one has practice or some type of training, then it's unlikely most folks will be able to think through their reflexive reactions, which is why it's so hard to overcome views that have been deeply reinforced by confirmation bias via social media. I'm just happy that having this newsletter puts me in a position where my views can be challenged, and subsequently updated. So thanks for that.
One thing to keep in mind is that his pitiful circumstances actually do fit the pattern for many young men who self-radicalize. On the other hand, based on your argument and the article, I have updated my position from "No way" to "Maybe." I say "maybe" because I still see nothing to suggest they induced him. It still sounds like a sting operation to me. But to the degree that the FBI originated the idea, or aspects of the idea, then you might have an entrapment claim. Yes, perhaps he would still be getting stoned in his basement. But that's the nature of any sting operation, is it not? If a cop pretends to be a young girl online to snag pedophiles, or goes undercover as a drug dealer, the defendant can always claim they would have gone about their life without breaking the law if not for the officer. But so long as the officer does not originate the idea or induce the defendant to commit the crime, that's not a defense in this country. It does sound like the FBI may have originated at least parts of this plan, which I did not know before, but then my immediate question would be, since the defense lawyers made exactly this case, why didn't they succeed? Was it a kangaroo court or, what I think is more likely, did they simply not have sufficient evidence for the claim? The article doesn't answer this question. So I guess for now I would say, yes, based on this report, it seems like the FBI might have committed entrapment, but it also seems like the evidence to support the claim is lacking.
David, your open mind is a rare and wonderful strength in this age of reflexive tribal gotcha smackdowns. Your thoughtful respect for alternative views is like a breath of fresh air in the fever swamps of comment sections.
I think the first trial resulted in two aquittals and two non decisions prompting retrials. That’s no convictions for a very elaborate operation.
Judges can decide to exclude exculpitory evidence. Look at what’s happening to unarmed, nonviolent J6 defendants with zero criminal history.
Thank you, Kurt. To be fair, I'm not always so flexible, and I am also a former university lecturer of logic and debate. I happen to think that unless one has practice or some type of training, then it's unlikely most folks will be able to think through their reflexive reactions, which is why it's so hard to overcome views that have been deeply reinforced by confirmation bias via social media. I'm just happy that having this newsletter puts me in a position where my views can be challenged, and subsequently updated. So thanks for that.