man allegedly planning-to-blow-up-missouri-hospital-killed-in-shootout-by the fbi

MacTheKnife

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2018
Messages
5,961
Reaction score
2,000
Points
325
this case smacks of so many others wherein the fbi entraps some ole boy of not much intelligence into doing something that he otherwise could not have done on his own or would not have done on his own ---in order to get the praise and admiration of his fbi friend.

this sort of behavior by the fbi is one of the few things they are very good at...setting up some gullible, lonely ole boy who is in need of a friend. The kind of simple minded ole local boy that drinks too much at the local gathering spot and runs off at the mouth ---attracting someone's attention.

the way the fbi does it-- is to send in a personable and likeable agent who has a talent of persuasion.

He befriends his victim and over a period of time using standard psychological tools is able to dominate and control his victim....then he talks him into agreeing to get involved with some horrible crime. the fbi then sets up a scenario of helping the victim get the explosives or whatever and then swoops in whilst the local boy is in possession of such evidence indicating his intention to committ the crime.

They have a long history of doing that.

 
Last edited:

skye

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
37,298
Reaction score
17,744
Points
1,620
It's always good when Patriots avert False Flags! :clap:
 

Kilroy2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
1,970
Reaction score
291
Points
140
yet we have a court system that determines guilt, so being arrested is what they do as well as the police. But if people being arrested decided to shoot it out then they are probably insane. He decided it was best to shoot it out because he had a gun instead of getting a lawyer to defend his name.

So we don't know if he was guilty but if had blow up the hospital then people would complain that the FBI was incompetent. So damned if you do , damned if you don't. It your law enforcement you arrest people. If the decide to fire a gun at law enforcement then that is a crime.
 

skye

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
37,298
Reaction score
17,744
Points
1,620
You see.....not all inside the FBI are scum,Deep State scum , like Comey.... Thanks GOD

So many Patriots there ...thank you all!:thup:
 
OP
MacTheKnife

MacTheKnife

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2018
Messages
5,961
Reaction score
2,000
Points
325
yet we have a court system that determines guilt, so being arrested is what they do as well as the police. But if people being arrested decided to shoot it out then they are probably insane. He decided it was best to shoot it out because he had a gun instead of getting a lawyer to defend his name.

So we don't know if he was guilty but if had blow up the hospital then people would complain that the FBI was incompetent. So damned if you do , damned if you don't. It your law enforcement you arrest people. If the decide to fire a gun at law enforcement then that is a crime.
Well, you should observe that the circumstances of how he got shot was very murky. All that is known for sure...is that he had a weapon.....whether he pulled it out and attempted to shoot it is not known.

Anyhow without knowing all the facts one cannot make a good call on this case....hopefully the jury will sort it all out and not railroad a innocent man if he is in fact innocent.

All I am really saying is that the FBI has a long history of engaging in entrapment and trying to be heroes.
 

Missourian

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
21,170
Reaction score
7,410
Points
350
Location
Missouri
I think even if what you say is true...if you can be convinced to blow up a hospital during a national pandemic...I really don't mind if the FBI makes sure you're not around anymore.
 

skye

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
37,298
Reaction score
17,744
Points
1,620
..............................................
......................................................
...........................................................
All I am really saying is that the FBI has a long history of engaging in entrapment and trying to be heroes.
Sure....after 8 years of Hussein The Barack...the FBI became rotten to the core....

Thanks GOD everyday....every single day of our lives for President Trump...here and all over the world

Still many rotten apples inside the FBI.....the Swamp is being drained....have no doubt of that....

Patriots are taking over now....cleaning the FBI swamp....Bless them all ....all of them ... every single one of them ... they are true Patriots!
 
OP
MacTheKnife

MacTheKnife

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2018
Messages
5,961
Reaction score
2,000
Points
325
I think even if what you say is true...if you can be convinced to blow up a hospital during a national pandemic...I really don't mind if the FBI makes sure you're not around anymore.
Well I am sure the ole boy will not be missed by anyone but in reality he very likely was a victim....right next to 'brainwashed' or 'hypnotized' into allowing himself to be a pawn of the FBI....most likely the real perp in this case.

This fbi tactic would make great material for a expose type movie.






1585367742986.png
 
Last edited:

Street Juice

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
707
Reaction score
145
Points
80
Location
Baltimore
yet we have a court system that determines guilt, so being arrested is what they do as well as the police. But if people being arrested decided to shoot it out then they are probably insane. He decided it was best to shoot it out because he had a gun instead of getting a lawyer to defend his name.

So we don't know if he was guilty but if had blow up the hospital then people would complain that the FBI was incompetent. So damned if you do , damned if you don't. It your law enforcement you arrest people. If the decide to fire a gun at law enforcement then that is a crime.
Juries are the triers of facts. The FBI can't just decide someone is a domestic terrorist and then go out and execute them. This isn't Brazil. Yet.
 

Street Juice

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
707
Reaction score
145
Points
80
Location
Baltimore
I think even if what you say is true...if you can be convinced to blow up a hospital during a national pandemic...I really don't mind if the FBI makes sure you're not around anymore.
How do you know he had been convinced to blow up a hospital? The TV said so? James Comey's FBI said so? Perhaps he had been running a reverse sting on the FBI and had uncovered corruption. Maybe he was a whistle blower and so they killed him. He's dead (en route to the hospital) so he never had his day in court.

On local news, a neighbor said the police weren't letting anyone get close enough to see what was happening.

They also noted Mr Wilson was guilty of crime think. He had racist views. Are you ok with the FBI making sure racists aren't around anymore, too?
 

LuckyDuck

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
3,569
Reaction score
721
Points
195
this case smacks of so many others wherein the fbi entraps some ole boy of not much intelligence into doing something that he otherwise could not have done on his own or would not have done on his own ---in order to get the praise and admiration of his fbi friend.

this sort of behavior by the fbi is one of the few things they are very good at...setting up some gullible, lonely ole boy who is in need of a friend. The kind of simple minded ole local boy that drinks too much at the local gathering spot and runs off at the mouth ---attracting someone's attention.

the way the fbi does it-- is to send in a personable and likeable agent who has a talent of persuasion.

He befriends his victim and over a period of time using standard psychological tools is able to dominate and control his victim....then he talks him into agreeing to get involved with some horrible crime. the fbi then sets up a scenario of helping the victim get the explosives or whatever and then swoops in whilst the local boy is in possession of such evidence indicating his intention to committ the crime.

They have a long history of doing that.

Despite your assertions, the guy would have most likely killed someone due to his religious fervor and anti-government stance.
 
OP
MacTheKnife

MacTheKnife

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2018
Messages
5,961
Reaction score
2,000
Points
325
this case smacks of so many others wherein the fbi entraps some ole boy of not much intelligence into doing something that he otherwise could not have done on his own or would not have done on his own ---in order to get the praise and admiration of his fbi friend.

this sort of behavior by the fbi is one of the few things they are very good at...setting up some gullible, lonely ole boy who is in need of a friend. The kind of simple minded ole local boy that drinks too much at the local gathering spot and runs off at the mouth ---attracting someone's attention.

the way the fbi does it-- is to send in a personable and likeable agent who has a talent of persuasion.

He befriends his victim and over a period of time using standard psychological tools is able to dominate and control his victim....then he talks him into agreeing to get involved with some horrible crime. the fbi then sets up a scenario of helping the victim get the explosives or whatever and then swoops in whilst the local boy is in possession of such evidence indicating his intention to committ the crime.

They have a long history of doing that.

Despite your assertions, the guy would have most likely killed someone due to his religious fervor and anti-government stance.
Lots of people are very,very religious and never harm anyone.......also....as far as I know we only have the fbi's assertion that he was religious and anti-government.....also many folks are against our government and never harm anyone....so all you have is conjecture.
 

Street Juice

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
707
Reaction score
145
Points
80
Location
Baltimore
this case smacks of so many others wherein the fbi entraps some ole boy of not much intelligence into doing something that he otherwise could not have done on his own or would not have done on his own ---in order to get the praise and admiration of his fbi friend.

this sort of behavior by the fbi is one of the few things they are very good at...setting up some gullible, lonely ole boy who is in need of a friend. The kind of simple minded ole local boy that drinks too much at the local gathering spot and runs off at the mouth ---attracting someone's attention.

the way the fbi does it-- is to send in a personable and likeable agent who has a talent of persuasion.

He befriends his victim and over a period of time using standard psychological tools is able to dominate and control his victim....then he talks him into agreeing to get involved with some horrible crime. the fbi then sets up a scenario of helping the victim get the explosives or whatever and then swoops in whilst the local boy is in possession of such evidence indicating his intention to committ the crime.

They have a long history of doing that.

Despite your assertions, the guy would have most likely killed someone due to his religious fervor and anti-government stance.
Or maybe his anti-government stance was a result of his belief the government would most likely kill him.

I have a relative with religious fervor. I do not believe he is going to kill anyone, and I certainly don't think you or the FBI has the right to decide he will "most likely" kill someone and then execute him behind some storage units.
 

LuckyDuck

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
3,569
Reaction score
721
Points
195
this case smacks of so many others wherein the fbi entraps some ole boy of not much intelligence into doing something that he otherwise could not have done on his own or would not have done on his own ---in order to get the praise and admiration of his fbi friend.

this sort of behavior by the fbi is one of the few things they are very good at...setting up some gullible, lonely ole boy who is in need of a friend. The kind of simple minded ole local boy that drinks too much at the local gathering spot and runs off at the mouth ---attracting someone's attention.

the way the fbi does it-- is to send in a personable and likeable agent who has a talent of persuasion.

He befriends his victim and over a period of time using standard psychological tools is able to dominate and control his victim....then he talks him into agreeing to get involved with some horrible crime. the fbi then sets up a scenario of helping the victim get the explosives or whatever and then swoops in whilst the local boy is in possession of such evidence indicating his intention to committ the crime.

They have a long history of doing that.

Despite your assertions, the guy would have most likely killed someone due to his religious fervor and anti-government stance.
Lots of people are very,very religious and never harm anyone.......also....as far as I know we only have the fbi's assertion that he was religious and anti-government.....also many folks are against our government and never harm anyone....so all you have is conjecture.
As do you.
 
OP
MacTheKnife

MacTheKnife

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2018
Messages
5,961
Reaction score
2,000
Points
325
this case smacks of so many others wherein the fbi entraps some ole boy of not much intelligence into doing something that he otherwise could not have done on his own or would not have done on his own ---in order to get the praise and admiration of his fbi friend.

this sort of behavior by the fbi is one of the few things they are very good at...setting up some gullible, lonely ole boy who is in need of a friend. The kind of simple minded ole local boy that drinks too much at the local gathering spot and runs off at the mouth ---attracting someone's attention.

the way the fbi does it-- is to send in a personable and likeable agent who has a talent of persuasion.

He befriends his victim and over a period of time using standard psychological tools is able to dominate and control his victim....then he talks him into agreeing to get involved with some horrible crime. the fbi then sets up a scenario of helping the victim get the explosives or whatever and then swoops in whilst the local boy is in possession of such evidence indicating his intention to committ the crime.

They have a long history of doing that.

Despite your assertions, the guy would have most likely killed someone due to his religious fervor and anti-government stance.
Lots of people are very,very religious and never harm anyone.......also....as far as I know we only have the fbi's assertion that he was religious and anti-government.....also many folks are against our government and never harm anyone....so all you have is conjecture.
As do you.
about this particular case.......yes.............but I do have more.....the history of the FBI engaging in entrapment and worse.
 

LuckyDuck

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
3,569
Reaction score
721
Points
195
this case smacks of so many others wherein the fbi entraps some ole boy of not much intelligence into doing something that he otherwise could not have done on his own or would not have done on his own ---in order to get the praise and admiration of his fbi friend.

this sort of behavior by the fbi is one of the few things they are very good at...setting up some gullible, lonely ole boy who is in need of a friend. The kind of simple minded ole local boy that drinks too much at the local gathering spot and runs off at the mouth ---attracting someone's attention.

the way the fbi does it-- is to send in a personable and likeable agent who has a talent of persuasion.

He befriends his victim and over a period of time using standard psychological tools is able to dominate and control his victim....then he talks him into agreeing to get involved with some horrible crime. the fbi then sets up a scenario of helping the victim get the explosives or whatever and then swoops in whilst the local boy is in possession of such evidence indicating his intention to committ the crime.

They have a long history of doing that.

Despite your assertions, the guy would have most likely killed someone due to his religious fervor and anti-government stance.
Lots of people are very,very religious and never harm anyone.......also....as far as I know we only have the fbi's assertion that he was religious and anti-government.....also many folks are against our government and never harm anyone....so all you have is conjecture.
As do you.
about this particular case.......yes.............but I do have more.....the history of the FBI engaging in entrapment and worse.
Let's enlighten you about something. The FBI doesn't send out agents in cars to select people on the street at random to "entrap" them into committing crimes. They get word about individuals or groups that are vehemently anti-government and calling for action against it. No government would ignore this and all governments would send out agents to investigate whether such an individual or group might actually be dangerous and if determined to be "potentially" dangerous if he/she or a group were considered such, then they need to be arrested and incarcerated to reduce any dangerous action such individuals might actually pursue, given the chance. All nations governments would do the same and in many of the nations, such individuals would be hung, shot, or beheaded. To just ignore them as kooks, and then have lives lost due to inaction, would be not only the fault of the government, but also the fault of those who pushed the government to ignore the kooks.
Those like yourself.
 
OP
MacTheKnife

MacTheKnife

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2018
Messages
5,961
Reaction score
2,000
Points
325
this case smacks of so many others wherein the fbi entraps some ole boy of not much intelligence into doing something that he otherwise could not have done on his own or would not have done on his own ---in order to get the praise and admiration of his fbi friend.

this sort of behavior by the fbi is one of the few things they are very good at...setting up some gullible, lonely ole boy who is in need of a friend. The kind of simple minded ole local boy that drinks too much at the local gathering spot and runs off at the mouth ---attracting someone's attention.

the way the fbi does it-- is to send in a personable and likeable agent who has a talent of persuasion.

He befriends his victim and over a period of time using standard psychological tools is able to dominate and control his victim....then he talks him into agreeing to get involved with some horrible crime. the fbi then sets up a scenario of helping the victim get the explosives or whatever and then swoops in whilst the local boy is in possession of such evidence indicating his intention to committ the crime.

They have a long history of doing that.

Despite your assertions, the guy would have most likely killed someone due to his religious fervor and anti-government stance.
Lots of people are very,very religious and never harm anyone.......also....as far as I know we only have the fbi's assertion that he was religious and anti-government.....also many folks are against our government and never harm anyone....so all you have is conjecture.
As do you.
about this particular case.......yes.............but I do have more.....the history of the FBI engaging in entrapment and worse.
Let's enlighten you about something. The FBI doesn't send out agents in cars to select people on the street at random to "entrap" them into committing crimes. They get word about individuals or groups that are vehemently anti-government and calling for action against it. No government would ignore this and all governments would send out agents to investigate whether such an individual or group might actually be dangerous and if determined to be "potentially" dangerous if he/she or a group were considered such, then they need to be arrested and incarcerated to reduce any dangerous action such individuals might actually pursue, given the chance. All nations governments would do the same and in many of the nations, such individuals would be hung, shot, or beheaded. To just ignore them as kooks, and then have lives lost due to inaction, would be not only the fault of the government, but also the fault of those who pushed the government to ignore the kooks.
Those like yourself.
hehheh You would be quite happy in any totalitarian state.

True Americans backed up by the costitution believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion....we do not need a federal police organization persecuting, arresting or plotting against anyone or attempting to entrap anyone that is not guilty of any crime. even though they may be eccentric or engage in uncommon thougts or politically incorrect speech.



Also....we have not forgotten about Ruby Ridge.....http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/weaver/weaveraccount.html



Take a hike boyo....you have a foul odor about you.

If it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it stinks like a duck......probably just some libtarded fool. hehheh
 
Last edited:

Missourian

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
21,170
Reaction score
7,410
Points
350
Location
Missouri
I think even if what you say is true...if you can be convinced to blow up a hospital during a national pandemic...I really don't mind if the FBI makes sure you're not around anymore.
How do you know he had been convinced to blow up a hospital? The TV said so? James Comey's FBI said so? Perhaps he had been running a reverse sting on the FBI and had uncovered corruption. Maybe he was a whistle blower and so they killed him. He's dead (en route to the hospital) so he never had his day in court.

On local news, a neighbor said the police weren't letting anyone get close enough to see what was happening.

They also noted Mr Wilson was guilty of crime think. He had racist views. Are you ok with the FBI making sure racists aren't around anymore, too?
Those hoofbeats you're hearing? They are horses...not zebras.

It's Occam's Razor. What is more likely...that this guy who died in a shootout with the FBI was a terrorist wannabe who was prepared to blow up a hospital during a national pandemic...or...the FBI chose some random guy, shot him for shits and grins, then fabricated a story sensational enough to make the national news as a cover story.

Using your critical thinking skills...which of those stories sounds more believable?
 

LuckyDuck

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
3,569
Reaction score
721
Points
195
this case smacks of so many others wherein the fbi entraps some ole boy of not much intelligence into doing something that he otherwise could not have done on his own or would not have done on his own ---in order to get the praise and admiration of his fbi friend.

this sort of behavior by the fbi is one of the few things they are very good at...setting up some gullible, lonely ole boy who is in need of a friend. The kind of simple minded ole local boy that drinks too much at the local gathering spot and runs off at the mouth ---attracting someone's attention.

the way the fbi does it-- is to send in a personable and likeable agent who has a talent of persuasion.

He befriends his victim and over a period of time using standard psychological tools is able to dominate and control his victim....then he talks him into agreeing to get involved with some horrible crime. the fbi then sets up a scenario of helping the victim get the explosives or whatever and then swoops in whilst the local boy is in possession of such evidence indicating his intention to committ the crime.

They have a long history of doing that.

Despite your assertions, the guy would have most likely killed someone due to his religious fervor and anti-government stance.
Lots of people are very,very religious and never harm anyone.......also....as far as I know we only have the fbi's assertion that he was religious and anti-government.....also many folks are against our government and never harm anyone....so all you have is conjecture.
As do you.
about this particular case.......yes.............but I do have more.....the history of the FBI engaging in entrapment and worse.
Let's enlighten you about something. The FBI doesn't send out agents in cars to select people on the street at random to "entrap" them into committing crimes. They get word about individuals or groups that are vehemently anti-government and calling for action against it. No government would ignore this and all governments would send out agents to investigate whether such an individual or group might actually be dangerous and if determined to be "potentially" dangerous if he/she or a group were considered such, then they need to be arrested and incarcerated to reduce any dangerous action such individuals might actually pursue, given the chance. All nations governments would do the same and in many of the nations, such individuals would be hung, shot, or beheaded. To just ignore them as kooks, and then have lives lost due to inaction, would be not only the fault of the government, but also the fault of those who pushed the government to ignore the kooks.
Those like yourself.
hehheh You would be quite happy in any totalitarian state.

True Americans backed up by the costitution believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion....we do not need a federal police organization persecuting, arresting or plotting against anyone or attempting to entrap anyone that is not guilty of any crime. even though they may be eccentric or engage in uncommon thougts or politically incorrect speech.



Also....we have not forgotten about Ruby Ridge.....http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/weaver/weaveraccount.html



Take a hike boyo....you have a foul odor about you.

If it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it stinks like a duck......probably just some libtarded fool. hehheh
Ahh, insults. The last refuge of someone losing an argument.
 
OP
MacTheKnife

MacTheKnife

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2018
Messages
5,961
Reaction score
2,000
Points
325
The bottom line the FBI should not be judge, jury and executioner.......as appears might have been the case in this alleged plot in Missouri.


'Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that "Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute." Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992). A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the more important.

Inducement is the threshold issue in the entrapment defense. Mere solicitation to commit a crime is not inducement. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 451 (1932). Nor does the government's use of artifice, stratagem, pretense, or deceit establish inducement. Id. at 441. Rather, inducement requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion, United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1985); pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship, ibid.; or extraordinary promises of the sort "that would blind the ordinary person to his legal duties," United States v. Evans, 924 F.2d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691, 698 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (inducement shown only if government's behavior was such that "a law-abiding citizen's will to obey the law could have been overborne"); United States v. Johnson, 872 F.2d 612, 620 (5th Cir. 1989) (inducement shown if government created "a substantial risk that an offense would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it").

Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to an entrapment defense. The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant "was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime." Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63. Thus, predisposition should not be confused with intent or mens rea: a person may have the requisite intent to commit the crime, yet be entrapped. Also, predisposition may exist even in the absence of prior criminal involvement: "the ready commission of the criminal act," such as where a defendant promptly accepts an undercover agent's offer of an opportunity to buy or sell drugs, may itself establish predisposition. Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 550.'

 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top