Michigan Kidnapping case blows up in the Government's face

[SFGbob]

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.

The Governor was never kidnapped you lying speed limit IQ pedophile apologist. The FBI came up with the idea, these morons said they didn’t want to proceed, the FBI pushed the idea anyway and then arrested these schmoes for the FBI’s idea.

Keep lying.

in criminal law, the act of law enforcement officers or government agents to induce or encourage a person to commit a crime when the potential criminal expresses a desire not to go ahead. The key to entrapment is whether the idea for the commission or encouragement of the criminal act originated with the police or government agents instead of with the "criminal."[/i]

The FBI came up with the plan, provided the money, equipment, and the personnel to carry out the plan that they had hatched. The people they had entrapped were pathetic losers who liked smoking dope and running their mouths. One of the "terrorists" lived in the basement of a vacuum cleaner store and had to use the bathroom at the Mexican restaurant next door every time he needed to take a dump. The only reason the left isn't OUTRAGED over what the government did to these guys is because they're white. If they had done this to BLM members Dazzler would be screaming.

pathetic losers = Daddy's base

I still have no problem with the verdict, but I think you girls seizing on every reasonable doubt as an affirmative finding in favor of these pathetic losers, as we agree they are, takes it way too far.

And suggesting that I have some allegiance to BLM is your patented dishonesty at work.

So you have no problem with the FBI planning false flags, got it.

Pathetic out in the woods losers are a threat to democracy!

Institutional state power conducting false flags is DEFENDING DEMOCRACY!

This is why the dazzler didn't want to respond to me.

The reasonable doubt about whether the FBI was too involved is not a finding that the FBI is "planning false flags". You're getting hysterical, Madam. If the jury had so found, all defendants would have been acquitted.

Now we care about reasonable doubt? Interesting.

Tell me again how the entrapment defense works councilor.

Wasn't someone just complaining about non-responsiveness?

FBI comes up with plot to kidnap governor.

FBI tries to convince yokels to go along with plot.

Mostly fails at it.

FBI then makes arrests and a big show in the media lies there asses off to run cover.

Yeah, we should all be concerned about the yokels in this equation. Sure.gif

J Edgar Hoover fan heard from.

There's good reason to believe that the FBI was doing this in order to generate the negative headlines regarding Trump right before the election. Remember the reporting on this story when it first broke.

 

[SFGbob]

At the time the FBI announced the charges in October 2020, with the presidential campaign at a crucial point, Biden suggested that the defendants were white supremacists, and that Trump was at fault for the plot:

There is no place for hate in America. And both of us [including Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) have been talking about this for some time, about how white supremacists and these militias area a genuine threat. I want to compliment the FBI and the police agencies for what they did, and how they stepped up. But look –the words of a president matter. Whether they can — you’ve heard me say this before. They can cause a nation to have th market rise or fall, go to war or bring peace, but they can also breathe oxygen into those who are filled with hate and danger, and I just think It’s got to stop. The president has to realize the words he utters matter.

There was no evidence at the time tying Trump to the plot whatsoever, nor did any such evidence emerge during the trial.[/i]

 

[Doogles]

At the time the FBI announced the charges in October 2020, with the presidential campaign at a crucial point, Biden suggested that the defendants were white supremacists, and that Trump was at fault for the plot:

There is no place for hate in America. And both of us [including Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) have been talking about this for some time, about how white supremacists and these militias area a genuine threat. I want to compliment the FBI and the police agencies for what they did, and how they stepped up. But look –the words of a president matter. Whether they can — you’ve heard me say this before. They can cause a nation to have th market rise or fall, go to war or bring peace, but they can also breathe oxygen into those who are filled with hate and danger, and I just think It’s got to stop. The president has to realize the words he utters matter.

There was no evidence at the time tying Trump to the plot whatsoever, nor did any such evidence emerge during the trial.[/i]

The narrative remains undefeated.

I'm doubtful that changes. It's gonna get weird at some point without any accountability.

The most damaging thing happening in the world right now is the 24/hr news cycle and the establishments ability to get to memory hole the past.

Wake the fuck up people.

 

[46XiJCAB]

Yeah right!
https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/capitol-police-hold-door-for-pro-trump-protesters-video-shows/

Oh and let me know who unlocked the magnetically sealed doors. Special high tech shit didn't unlock itself!

A Capitol Police officer was seen politely holding the door for the pro-President Trump protesters to walk out of[/b] the building after [/b]they caused mayhem that forced lawmakers to barricade themselves inside.[/i]

That's not entrapment, dumbshit.

Mayhem. Sounds serious and untrue. Fuck off.

 

[HoustonHusky]

The amazing part about this is that much of the evidence showing the FBI’s malfeasance wasn’t even allowed in court…the judge ruled most of the texts and transcripts of all the crazy FBI employees pushing this conspiracy couldn’t be introduced because it was “hearsay”, and that several of the FBI employees’ criminal history (one agent had been credibly accused of perjury in a previous case, the other one fired after arresting these schmoes because he beat his wife at a swinger’s party) couldn’t be heard by the jury either.

And the jury still found the FBI entrapped them. That is how egregious it was.

 

[RaceBannon]

http://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1513150614926209024?t=dL5vql1nLNmPffedMyvwPA&s=19

 

[46XiJCAB]

http://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1513150614926209024?t=dL5vql1nLNmPffedMyvwPA&s=19

Gee it’s almost like the whole thing was coordinated from jumpstreet. Naw.

 

[TurdBomber]

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. [/b]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.

So Dazzler believes there are no chargeable "Attempted..." crimes. Got it.

Dazzler continues to Dazzle.

 

[TurdBomber]

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.

Careful. Mens Rea is miles beyond the Dazzler's grasp.

 

[HHusky]

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. [/b]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.

So Dazzler believes there are no chargeable "Attempted..." crimes. Got it.

Dazzler continues to Dazzle.

Eve should have had a better lawyer.

 

[TurdBomber]

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[/b], 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.

And there's the vintage Dazzler weasel, right there.

 

[HHusky]

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[/b], 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.

And there's the vintage Dazzler weasel, right there.

Nuance is communism potd.

 

[TurdBomber]

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.

So why weren't they convicted consuelo?

Someone [/b]talked them into it, Inspector.

Do try to keep up.

That someone was the FBI. NTTAWIT in your world.

 

[HHusky]

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.

So why weren't they convicted consuelo?

Someone [/b]talked them into it, Inspector.

Do try to keep up.

That someone was the FBI. NTTAWIT in your world.

All we know for sure is the jury believed that was possible.

 

[TurdBomber]

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.[/b] Merely affording the actor an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment. [1971 c.743 §35]

This is the part Dazzler cannot understand. Ever. Statist little goober he is.

 

[TurdBomber]

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]

Legislatures can codify it, of course. However, the defense first arose in caselaw. You know, "judicial activism".[/b]

Dazzler's never heard of Common Law. What a Shark he is!

 

[TurdBomber]

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[/b], 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.

And there's the vintage Dazzler weasel, right there.

Nuance is communism potd.

Authoritarian Momma's Boy is more like it.

No man respects you.

 

[HHusky]

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]

Legislatures can codify it, of course. However, the defense first arose in caselaw. You know, "judicial activism".[/b]

Dazzler's never heard of Common Law. What a Shark he is!

The common law rejected the defense until the 20th Century. What a liberal you've become, lady.

 

[HHusky]

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[/b], 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.

And there's the vintage Dazzler weasel, right there.

Nuance is communism potd.

Authoritarian Momma's Boy is more like it.

No man respects you.

oh no

 

[HHusky]

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.[/b] Merely affording the actor an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment. [1971 c.743 §35]

This is the part Dazzler cannot understand. Ever. Statist little goober he is.

You notice that the defense is that the "actor" did the deed. Jesus you're stupid.