|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 3, 2011 23:21:25 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. And how did they find out that he was a supposed "arms dealer" unless he was telling people he was one, genius? You think they just asked random people off the street in the hope they found an arms dealer before an undercover cop, and just got unlucky? |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 4, 2011 3:23:05 GMT -5
Let's see... any number of ways, actually.
1. Underworld connections, one of them hooked them up specifically with the undercover cop.
2. Guy posted his information somewhere where they could access it, they call him, and set it up.
Either way, it would be entrapment if it was, maybe, the first meeting. Multiple meetings? Nope. That's intent.
Regardless, even if the cop did come forward to them offering the ricing deal, it's still intent. You know why?
THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO AGREE TO THE DEAL.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Nov 4, 2011 10:13:49 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. Nice to see you're a hypocrite though. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Nov 4, 2011 11:47:23 GMT -5
I think LHM, along with many others through the US have a misunderstanding of what "free speech" means.
Hint; It doesn't mean running around shouting whatever you want because hey, free speech bitches
|
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Nov 4, 2011 21:25:10 GMT -5
Hey, officer-when I told him "your money or your life" I was just exercising my right to free speech-why won't you guys believe me?
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 5, 2011 6:11:29 GMT -5
Let's see... any number of ways, actually. 1. Underworld connections, one of them hooked them up specifically with the undercover cop. 2. Guy posted his information somewhere where they could access it, they call him, and set it up. Either way, it would be entrapment if it was, maybe, the first meeting. Multiple meetings? Nope. That's intent. Regardless, even if the cop did come forward to them offering the ricing deal, it's still intent. You know why? THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO AGREE TO THE DEAL.No, they didn't have to agree to the deal. My point, if you are remotely interested in trying to understand where I'm coming from, is that I often wonder, in these types of sting operation, if the people caught by them were never offered the deal in the first place, if they would have done anything with a legitimate underworld figure. Thats it. Thats my entire point. Does it make sense yet, or do you want to yell at me some more? |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 5, 2011 10:37:26 GMT -5
Let's see... any number of ways, actually. 1. Underworld connections, one of them hooked them up specifically with the undercover cop. 2. Guy posted his information somewhere where they could access it, they call him, and set it up. Either way, it would be entrapment if it was, maybe, the first meeting. Multiple meetings? Nope. That's intent. Regardless, even if the cop did come forward to them offering the ricing deal, it's still intent. You know why? THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO AGREE TO THE DEAL.No, they didn't have to agree to the deal. My point, if you are remotely interested in trying to understand where I'm coming from, is that I often wonder, in these types of sting operation, if the people caught by them were never offered the deal in the first place, if they would have done anything with a legitimate underworld figure. Thats it. Thats my entire point. Does it make sense yet, or do you want to yell at me some more? If "waiting to find out" means waiting until after they've acted, when people have been surely killed, then no, I'm not remotely interested in where you're trying to come from. |
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Nov 5, 2011 12:43:45 GMT -5
No, they didn't have to agree to the deal. My point, if you are remotely interested in trying to understand where I'm coming from, is that I often wonder, in these types of sting operation, if the people caught by them were never offered the deal in the first place, if they would have done anything with a legitimate underworld figure. Thats it. Thats my entire point. Does it make sense yet, or do you want to yell at me some more? I understand the point, it's just flawed in that it hasn't thought stuff through. How would they be able to tell the difference between a "legit" black market weapons dealer, or an undercover agent posing as a black market weapons dealer? Do you think there's special black market licenses or something? Is there some sort of easily identifying element the "legit" ones posses that undercover agents don't, and if so, why haven't they been investigated and arrested because of those traits? I mean, it's not like they exactly go street pedalling it or something. They don't go all "Ricin! Ricin! Ricin for sale! Buy now and get it half off!" or some such. They're not exactly going to make a website listing their wares either, or have an easy to find store front just waiting for potential customers to come by so they can pressure them into a deal. Yes, they may offer various things to their customers that their customers wouldn't have thought of otherwise, but when someone finds a weapons dealer looking for a very specific item and is then offered that item, you cannot say they were pressured into it. Seriously, if you go to a car dealership looking to by a Grand Prix, and you are able to land a deal on a Grand Prix, no-one is going to buy you saying you were pressured into buying a Grand Prix. It's really not that fucking hard of a concept. Oh, and let me pose another thing. Even if "legit" black market weapons dealers did try to pressure people into buying their wares, what do you think an undercover agent posing as a black market weapons dealer would have to do? They have to act the part so as to not draw suspicion from people who have experience with the "legit" ones, because if there's a huge difference in tactics it will draw a ton of suspicion and people will then not deal with them. So, even if that was to actually be the case (while still having to take in what I said above), would you really be able to call that entrapment or is it just them doing what's necessary to successfully play their role so they can actually find out if the person or group under suspicion actually has the intent and isn't just mouthing off? |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Nov 5, 2011 22:05:00 GMT -5
No, they didn't have to agree to the deal. My point, if you are remotely interested in trying to understand where I'm coming from, is that I often wonder, in these types of sting operation, if the people caught by them were never offered the deal in the first place, if they would have done anything with a legitimate underworld figure. Thats it. Thats my entire point. Does it make sense yet, or do you want to yell at me some more? If "waiting to find out" means waiting until after they've acted, when people have been surely killed, then no, I'm not remotely interested in where you're trying to come from. Well, see, where he's coming from is authority figures can't be trusted, EVER, because LHM has personally started four or five threads showing police corruption, thus proving all cops are bad until they show themselves to be good |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 6, 2011 5:53:05 GMT -5
No, they didn't have to agree to the deal. My point, if you are remotely interested in trying to understand where I'm coming from, is that I often wonder, in these types of sting operation, if the people caught by them were never offered the deal in the first place, if they would have done anything with a legitimate underworld figure. Thats it. Thats my entire point. Does it make sense yet, or do you want to yell at me some more? I understand the point, it's just flawed in that it hasn't thought stuff through. How would they be able to tell the difference between a "legit" black market weapons dealer, or an undercover agent posing as a black market weapons dealer? Do you think there's special black market licenses or something? Is there some sort of easily identifying element the "legit" ones posses that undercover agents don't, and if so, why haven't they been investigated and arrested because of those traits? I mean, it's not like they exactly go street pedalling it or something. They don't go all "Ricin! Ricin! Ricin for sale! Buy now and get it half off!" or some such. They're not exactly going to make a website listing their wares either, or have an easy to find store front just waiting for potential customers to come by so they can pressure them into a deal. Yes, they may offer various things to their customers that their customers wouldn't have thought of otherwise, but when someone finds a weapons dealer looking for a very specific item and is then offered that item, you cannot say they were pressured into it. Seriously, if you go to a car dealership looking to by a Grand Prix, and you are able to land a deal on a Grand Prix, no-one is going to buy you saying you were pressured into buying a Grand Prix. It's really not that fucking hard of a concept. Oh, and let me pose another thing. Even if "legit" black market weapons dealers did try to pressure people into buying their wares, what do you think an undercover agent posing as a black market weapons dealer would have to do? They have to act the part so as to not draw suspicion from people who have experience with the "legit" ones, because if there's a huge difference in tactics it will draw a ton of suspicion and people will then not deal with them. So, even if that was to actually be the case (while still having to take in what I said above), would you really be able to call that entrapment or is it just them doing what's necessary to successfully play their role so they can actually find out if the person or group under suspicion actually has the intent and isn't just mouthing off? Well, see, this is sort of my point... real black marketiers DON'T stand on the street corner spruiking, nor do hit men. And since they are so hard to come across if one doesn't know what one is doing, I wonder how many of these people would ever actually make contact with anyone legitimately able to offer them the services they are supposed to be looking for. I'm not saying I think that every sting operation is unfair or anything, like I said, I just wonder about the numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 6, 2011 5:54:28 GMT -5
If "waiting to find out" means waiting until after they've acted, when people have been surely killed, then no, I'm not remotely interested in where you're trying to come from. Well, see, where he's coming from is authority figures can't be trusted, EVER, because LHM has personally started four or five threads showing police corruption, thus proving all cops are bad until they show themselves to be good What does strawmanning like this gain you? Seriously? I've never said anything to suggest I want to broadbrush all cops as corrupt. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Nov 6, 2011 15:22:00 GMT -5
Well, see, where he's coming from is authority figures can't be trusted, EVER, because LHM has personally started four or five threads showing police corruption, thus proving all cops are bad until they show themselves to be good What does strawmanning like this gain you? Seriously? I've never said anything to suggest I want to broadbrush all cops as corrupt. Yet aren't you the one that prances around with threads about police corruption and then goes on about not trusting them, etc etc? |
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Nov 6, 2011 15:48:31 GMT -5
What does strawmanning like this gain you? Seriously? I've never said anything to suggest I want to broadbrush all cops as corrupt. Yet aren't you the one that prances around with threads about police corruption and then goes on about not trusting them, etc etc? I don't think he's ever said that they're all untrustworthy - you're confusing him with WMDKitty. He thinks they should be held to a higher standard because they are the ones who uphold the law, and posts stuff where they do not uphold those standards. /bizarro universe Smurfette I think they do show intent, if those quotes are correct. The quotes show that they were actively looking for it and were planning to use it. It's the difference between this: Old Guy: Know what's stupid? The government. Cop: I can get you some ricin. You should use it on the government. Old Guy: Awesome, let's do it! and this: Old Guy: Know what's stupid? The government. I should get some ricin to use on the government. Cop: I can get you some ricin. Old Guy: Awesome! The quotes seem to indicate the latter more than the former. Now, if it turns out that it was indeed the former, then it would be entrapment. I'm thinking that what happened was, they did intend to use the ricin and thought of it themselves. However, they weren't part of a criminal underworld, and, being senile old farts, used some other method like Craigslist or whatever. Because they weren't already connected to a legitimate source of ricin, they fell into a sting. |
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Nov 6, 2011 16:54:20 GMT -5
Well, see, this is sort of my point... real black marketiers DON'T stand on the street corner spruiking, nor do hit men. And since they are so hard to come across if one doesn't know what one is doing, I wonder how many of these people would ever actually make contact with anyone legitimately able to offer them the services they are supposed to be looking for. I'm not saying I think that every sting operation is unfair or anything, like I said, I just wonder about the numbers. Yeah, I got your point earlier. And I've kept out of this thread for a reason. But you are missing some things which I'd like to point out to you. In the U.S., attempting to do something against the law is still illegal (see attempted murder). So it really doesn't matter that the gentlemen in question didn't get in touch with a real dealer any more than if they were trying to buy drugs from an undercover cop. "Real" black marketeers; be it suburban drug dealers, weapons dealers, organs, transfats, whatever, and also hit men, get business via word of mouth. You mention you need a bag of weed? I got a guy, I'll give him a call. A gun that can't be traced back to you? A friend of mine knows someone. Got a problem with your old lady? My friend's cousin might be able to handle it. And your last point, about the numbers. It doesn't matter. As I've said earlier, attempting is bad enough to warrant attention. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 6, 2011 17:19:57 GMT -5
What does strawmanning like this gain you? Seriously? I've never said anything to suggest I want to broadbrush all cops as corrupt. Yet aren't you the one that prances around with threads about police corruption and then goes on about not trusting them, etc etc? Never said anything about not trusting police. Yes, I post threads about police ciorrupotion, because its a problem, but I don't think ALL police are corrupt. Its not as though one can be concerned about police corruption without trusting and respecting police who are ethical and dedicated. |
|
