|
|
Post by ironbite on Nov 3, 2011 0:58:32 GMT -5
That is true.
Ironbite-just don't wanna be accused of being stale.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 3, 2011 1:03:41 GMT -5
[I don't see what's paranoid about it. As I said, I doubt these guys could have come up with a genuine arms dealer on their own. Thats all. It is paranoid in that it seems to imply, and forgive me if I infer to much, that the FBI entrapped them. In reality, it is no different than hitmen that turn out to be undercover cops. The women (it always seems to be women in those cases) most likely would not have come up with a genuine* hitman on their own. This doesn't make the intention behind the contact any less real. *My rule of thumb is that if they are performing a highly illegal black market service (arms dealer, hitman, human trafficker, etc), you're not deeply involved or connected to organized crime, and they are meeting with you in person...they're a cop and you're a fucking idiot. interesting you should raise that point, actually, since I tend to think, in most casepeople who try to hire hitmen that turn out to be undercover cops are pretty well entrapped too. Now yes, I would agree that they probably have the intent, but since I don't think the average bored housewife has access to the sort of underworld resources to find a legitimate hitman, one has to wonder just how much intent they have, and how far it would get them, if the undercover cop hadn't been there posing as a hitman. Just my thoughts on the subject. Happy to discuss it further, but could probably use its own thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Nov 3, 2011 7:28:44 GMT -5
[interesting you should raise that point, actually, since I tend to think, in most casepeople who try to hire hitmen that turn out to be undercover cops are pretty well entrapped too. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Unless either the undercover officer/agent or a confidential informant encourages them toward criminal activity that they would have had intent to commit otherwise, it is not entrapment. As Jennifer Hearn and Timothy McVeigh (hell, or Klebold & Harris, depending on your POV) prove, you don't need a hitman to murder your husband or an arms dealer to pull off a terrorist attack. Entrapment is different between saying "What do you want to buy? A silencer? Ok, I can do that for you." and "I have a silencer I could sell you. Would you like a silencer? Come one. Silencers are great. They make the gun go 'thip', just like the movies. Promise. Buy one." |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 3, 2011 7:31:40 GMT -5
[interesting you should raise that point, actually, since I tend to think, in most casepeople who try to hire hitmen that turn out to be undercover cops are pretty well entrapped too. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Unless either the undercover officer/agent or a confidential informant encourages them toward criminal activity that they would have had intent to commit otherwise, it is not entrapment. As Jennifer Hearn and Timothy McVeigh (hell, or Klebold & Harris, depending on your POV) prove, you don't need a hitman to murder your husband or an arms dealer to pull off a terrorist attack. I apprecate that... however, I can't help but wonder, of all the people stung in such sting operations, how many of them would have actually attempted to seek out a hitman on their own, let alone successfully, had the police not helpfully supplied one. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Nov 3, 2011 8:52:59 GMT -5
tons actually. don't have actual statistics right now but there's a reason hitmen do very well in their chosen profession
|
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Nov 3, 2011 9:02:31 GMT -5
I apprecate that... however, I can't help but wonder, of all the people stung in such sting operations, how many of them would have actually attempted to seek out a hitman on their own, let alone successfully, had the police not helpfully supplied one. How do you think the police find out that the people are looking for a hitman, weapons dealer, or drug dealer? By looking at Graigslist or something? They find out because the people are asking around for such, so before an actual hitman, weapons dealer , or drug dealer shows up they pose as one to be found. Much better to catch perpetrators before their act is fully carried out than having to wait 'till after the fact. Yes, entrapment sometimes happens (especially with prostitution stings), but from the info given this is not what happened. They knew they wanted ricin before contacting anyone in an attempt to obtain what they needed, and would have attempted to find another source had the undercover agent not promised he could get it for them. Now, if you can find evidence anywhere that it was entrapment I'll change my mind, but until such can be proffered I'm just not gonna buy it. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 3, 2011 9:04:32 GMT -5
tons actually. don't have actual statistics right now but there's a reason hitmen do very well in their chosen profession I'm sure they do. But are bored housewives their prefered demographic of employer? |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 3, 2011 13:59:39 GMT -5
Oh my god.
LHM. They had intent. Which is why they went to buy ricin.
The fact that their dealer was actually an undercover cop is completely irrelevant. Because if they didn't have intent, they wouldn't have gone to him in the first place and thus been arrested.
|
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Nov 3, 2011 14:39:02 GMT -5
I apprecate that... however, I can't help but wonder, of all the people stung in such sting operations, how many of them would have actually attempted to seek out a hitman on their own, let alone successfully, had the police not helpfully supplied one. Hitman, maybe not, stupid thug willing to think he can kill someone and get away with it for a grand? Easy enough. Don't think to much about how good people are at it, as people have been caught plotting such things publicly on facebook(and the charges stuck). But they can find somebody. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 3, 2011 16:26:32 GMT -5
Oh my god. LHM. They had intent. Which is why they went to buy ricin. The fact that their dealer was actually an undercover cop is completely irrelevant. Because if they didn't have intent, they wouldn't have gone to him in the first place and thus been arrested.Last thing I'm going to say on the subject... You say they had intent... but if this undercover fed hadn't passed himself off as some sort of secret arms dealer and said "hey, I can get ya ricin"... would they have ever done anything more than sit around and talk about how the ebil gubment needs to be taken down? I suspect that a lot of people caught up in sting operations would never have acted on their intent had a police agent made them think that they had an opportunity. My opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Nov 3, 2011 17:10:00 GMT -5
So you think robbing someone unarmed and robbing someone with an unloaded firearm should be treated identically, as you can't shoot someone if you don't have any bullets.
Gotcha.
|
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Nov 3, 2011 17:33:26 GMT -5
Yes, everybody should have the freedom to plan terrorist attacks. I believe people should. Probably more appropriate for the "unpopular political views" thread, but there it is. But if you did that you would have avoided the visceral pleasure of having derailed yet another thread and turning it into yet another LHM vs FSTDT fest! |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Nov 3, 2011 17:35:02 GMT -5
tons actually. don't have actual statistics right now but there's a reason hitmen do very well in their chosen profession I'm sure they do. But are bored housewives their prefered demographic of employer? No because bitches can't keep their mouths shut and everyone involved gets caught. They prefer more discreet clientele. Yes I know I'm basing this mostly off of crime shows and the like but there's always a grain of truth in fiction that you can take away. Ironbite-so take that for what you will. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 3, 2011 21:21:25 GMT -5
You say they had intent... but if this undercover fed hadn't passed himself off as some sort of secret arms dealer and said "hey, I can get ya ricin"... The article flat-out stays that they went to meet him. And had been making many meetings with him. He did not approach them, as you stated. They approached him. Which is wrong because of a fundamental failure to observe reality. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 3, 2011 23:19:15 GMT -5
So you think robbing someone unarmed and robbing someone with an unloaded firearm should be treated identically, as you can't shoot someone if you don't have any bullets. Gotcha. Huh? Should someone who robs someone with a weapon be treated the same as someone who robs someone without a weapon? If there is a threat of physical violence, then yes. I'm really not sure I understand the question though. |
|
