FBI ran website sharing thousands of child porn images

[Sterben]

At the end of the day what they did was entrapment, even if it was to catch sick fucks, it's still illegal for them to use such a tacit. The courts will have a major issue on how the evidence was gathered and most likely all charges will dropped against the who were caught.

No, it's not entrapment.  Not sure why this is such a hard concept to understand.  If any charges are dropped, it'd be for an entirely different reason.  But the entrapment defense would not work here.

Entrapment requires coercsion or persuasion.  They were clearly willing and ready to commit the crime.  So a decent defense attorney wouldn't use the entrapment defense, unless they wanted a good laugh from the judge and prosecution on their lack of understanding of entrapment.

       How is it not entrapment? The way I see it is this, Jim the garbage man is cruising down-town looking for a prostitute. He see's one he likes and approaches, just for sake of argument here; the F.B.I is watching that street and see's Jim talking to her and picks her up to take for a ride. They would have to catch Jim in the act of soliciting sexual services, they can't just go on the basis that he was there and picked someone up for sex and arrest him three or four days later for the crime of soliciting sexual services right?

Full Definition of entrapment

1
a : the action or process of entrapping b : the condition of being entrapped

2
: the action of luring an individual into committing a crime in order to prosecute the person for it

By leaving the site open they have already broken the law themselves, I'm not directly attacking there actions, they were quite Nobel. It was there execution of the operation which is in question in here.

[Divinity]

You want the legal definition of entrapment:

"In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit. It is a conduct that is generally discouraged and thus, in many jurisdictions, is a possible defense against criminal liability."

Your example isn't even entrapment either. Entrapment only occurs when someone who would not ordinarily be predisposed to commit a crime is convinced to commit a crime either by a law enforcement agent or someone acting on behalf of one.

This is NOT entrapment:

John is a normal guy who is driving down the highway. A woman, let's call her Candy, offers him sexual services for $100.00. John takes her up on the offer, and goes back to the hotel with her. Candy then reveals she is an undercover cop, and arrests him. This isn't entrapment, because John was predisposed to commit the crime. He readily accepted the offer.

This IS (most likely) entrapment:

John is a normal guy who is driving down the highway. Candy offers him sexual services for $100.00. John turns her down, and continues driving. Candy catches up with him and offers him her services again. He once again turns her down. She keeps pushing him, and even tells him she's got kids to feed. So John eventually decides to try it. He goes back to a hotel room, and Candy reveals herself to be an undercover cop and arrests him. John can likely use the entrapment defense. It'd be up to the prosecution to prove that he had a predisposition to commit the crime (such as if he had been arrested for soliciting prostitutes in the past). The defense wouldn't hold up if the prosecution could prove that John had a predisposition to commit the crime.

Law Enforcement are allowed to present the opportunity to commit a crime. They aren't allowed to persuade you to commit it.

I highly recommend reading this comic:

http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post...-entrapped

[Sterben]

You want the legal definition of entrapment:

"In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit. It is a conduct that is generally discouraged and thus, in many jurisdictions, is a possible defense against criminal liability."

Your example isn't even entrapment either.  Entrapment only occurs when someone who would not ordinarily be predisposed to commit a crime is convinced to commit a crime either by a law enforcement agent or someone acting on behalf of one.

This is NOT entrapment:

John is a normal guy who is driving down the highway.  A woman, let's call her Candy, offers him sexual services for $100.00.  John takes her up on the offer, and goes back to the hotel with her.  Candy then reveals she is an undercover cop, and arrests him.  This isn't entrapment, because John was predisposed to commit the crime.  He readily accepted the offer.

This IS (most likely) entrapment:

John is a normal guy who is driving down the highway.  Candy offers him sexual services for $100.00.  John turns her down, and continues driving.  Candy catches up with him and offers him her services again.  He once again turns her down.  She keeps pushing him, and even tells him she's got kids to feed.  So John eventually decides to try it.  He goes back to a hotel room, and Candy reveals herself to be an undercover cop and arrests him.  John can likely use the entrapment defense.  It'd be up to the prosecution to prove that he had a predisposition to commit the crime (such as if he had been arrested for soliciting prostitutes in the past).  The defense wouldn't hold up if the prosecution could prove that John had a predisposition to commit the crime.

Law Enforcement are allowed to present the opportunity to commit a crime.  They aren't allowed to persuade you to commit it.

I highly recommend reading this comic:

http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post...-entrapped



         It may not be a text book version of "Entrapment" but, you do bring up a very good point there. We have no Idea of what the actual content was that provided on the site, nor should anyone try to find out. We just have to take there word on it, makes me wounder about something though. If a person was to look up the legal definition of what "Child Porn" is, would that person be put on to a watch list ?

[Mothonis]

Which is apparently a higher standard than the fucking FBI has, Evie.

#Shotsfired at FBI lol

[account_inactive]

[redacted]

[dyresand]

Well.. isn't  what they were doing... you know sorta.. illegal.. at any point...

There's bending the rules a little to get the bad guy, no doubt.  then there's:

... planted false media stories and published bogus leaflets and other publications in the name of targeted groups. They forged correspondence, sent anonymous letters, and made anonymous telephone calls. They spread misinformation about meetings and events, set up pseudo movement groups run by government agents, and manipulated or strong-armed parents, employers, landlords, school officials and others to cause trouble for activists.

Well that doesn't surprise me one bit..

[account_inactive]

There's bending the rules a little to get the bad guy, no doubt.  then there's:

Well that doesn't surprise me one bit..

Doesn't surprise me either.

[account_inactive]

Oops. Ignore this. :/

Was going through my old posts, meant to edit something not post a new reply.

[SteelCurtain]

Necro I says what?

[Thumpalumpacus]