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.
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]
