Portland mosque of kid FBI set up with fake bombs gets burned

[editec]

I wonder if the bombing attempt qualifies as a hate crime?

Hate sure does appear to be the motivating factor.

Obviously it does.

 

[High_Gravity]

I hope the clown that tried to do this gets the death penalty.

 

[Ozmar]

I hope the clown that tried to do this gets the death penalty.

I think you can only get the death penalty for a select few types of crimes. I doubt this is one of them.

 

[High_Gravity]

I hope the clown that tried to do this gets the death penalty.

I think you can only get the death penalty for a select few types of crimes. I doubt this is one of them.

Oh I'm sure he won't get it I just personally think he should since the crime he was trying to commit was very heinous and cowardly.

 

[Ozmar]

I hope the clown that tried to do this gets the death penalty.

I think you can only get the death penalty for a select few types of crimes. I doubt this is one of them.

Oh I'm sure he won't get it I just personally think he should since the crime he was trying to commit was very heinous and cowardly.

What you think is irrelevant. What the law says is all that is relevant.

 

[High_Gravity]

I think you can only get the death penalty for a select few types of crimes. I doubt this is one of them.

Oh I'm sure he won't get it I just personally think he should since the crime he was trying to commit was very heinous and cowardly.

What you think is irrelevant. What the law says is all that is relevant.

Whatever.

 

[MikeK]

In the criminal law intent (mens rea) is the paramount factor in determining guilt or innocence. The question of entrapment hinges on whether the FBI enticed this kid into committing his offense or if the FBI merely facilitated his wishes for the purpose of developing evidence of intent.

I am not a lawyer but I am well acquainted with criminal law and I do not believe there was any entrapment in this case. What I consider most significant about this case is awareness that this kid is but one of a growing number of similarly motivated individuals living among us.

 

[MikeK]

I wonder if the bombing attempt qualifies as a hate crime?

Hate sure does appear to be the motivating factor.

That is an interesting question because it points to the absurdity and the real intention of the "hate crime" category of the criminal law.

 

[High_Gravity]

I am surprised at the level of compassion for this Somali.

 

[bodecea]

I am surprised at the level of compassion for this Somali.

And what level would that be?

 

[High_Gravity]

I am surprised at the level of compassion for this Somali.

And what level would that be?

From what I gathered in this post alot of people blame the FBI for entrapping this poor innocent boy.

 

[bodecea]

I am surprised at the level of compassion for this Somali.

And what level would that be?

From what I gathered in this post alot of people blame the FBI for entrapping this poor innocent boy.

No, no....entrapment is In now.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And what level would that be?

From what I gathered in this post alot of people blame the FBI for entrapping this poor innocent boy.

No, no....entrapment is In now.

Exactly how was this entrapment?

ENTRAPMENT
A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

 

[High_Gravity]

From what I gathered in this post alot of people blame the FBI for entrapping this poor innocent boy.

No, no....entrapment is In now.

Exactly how was this entrapment?

ENTRAPMENT
A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

I don't think its entrapment but a bunch of idiots on this thread do.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No, no....entrapment is In now.

Exactly how was this entrapment?

ENTRAPMENT
A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

I don't think its entrapment but a bunch of idiots on this thread do.

It's obvious they didn't know the definition of entrapment. Hopefully I cleared things up for them.

 

[High_Gravity]

Exactly how was this entrapment?

ENTRAPMENT
A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

I don't think its entrapment but a bunch of idiots on this thread do.

It's obvious they didn't know the definition of entrapment. Hopefully I cleared things up for them.

I hope so too, I want that idiot to get the death penalty anyways.

 

[jillian]

I don't think its entrapment but a bunch of idiots on this thread do.

idiots being the operative word.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

actually, i believe he was pointing out the fact that more people are defending the accused bomber than the burners

I have seen more people defending the arsonists than the terrorist. Then again, I do not confuse criticizing one person with supporting someone else.

YOU have been defending the bomber and accusing the FBI of entrapment

First, he is not a bomber, he is an attempted, or intended, bomber at best. Second, I have not defended him even once. Pointing out that the FBI has a history of manufacturing plots in order to make headlines is simply pointing out the truth. Third, I find it extremely prejudicial that the only recording the FBI failed to capture is the one that would have proved he was not being entrapped. That little detail should get everyone's attention and make them wonder just how far the FBI will go to make them feel safe, and why they feel the need to do so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am surprised at the level of compassion for this Somali.

Who has expressed compassion for him?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From what I gathered in this post alot of people blame the FBI for entrapping this poor innocent boy.

No, no....entrapment is In now.

Exactly how was this entrapment?

ENTRAPMENT
A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

And the key recording that would prove this was entirely the idea of Mohamud is the one peace of evidence that the FBI did not get due to "technical difficulties."