cops getting away with crime again

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, was charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction (in the form of a car bomb) during the lighting of the town xmas tree. The bomb was fake because it was provided by FBI agents. Mohamud was persuaded and encouraged to kill hundreds of people at this lighting by undercover FBI agents.

Question, why aren't the FBI agents being charged with conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, was charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction (in the form of a car bomb) during the lighting of the town xmas tree. The bomb was fake because it was provided by FBI agents. Mohamud was persuaded and encouraged to kill hundreds of people at this lighting by undercover FBI agents.

Question, why aren't the FBI agents being charged with conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction?
Click to expand...

because it would be impossible as the cops never agreed to commit a crime as they knew the bomb was fake
 
Yurt said:
because it would be impossible as the cops never agreed to commit a crime as they knew the bomb was fake
Click to expand...

so if I were to start talking to people whom i didn't know were undercover FBI and tell them I had a bomb I wanted to use to kill hundreds, but the bomb was fake and I knew it, I would not be committing a crime?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so if I were to start talking to people whom i didn't know were undercover FBI and tell them I had a bomb I wanted to use to kill hundreds, but the bomb was fake and I knew it, I would not be committing a crime?
Click to expand...

you might be committing a crime...however...

read up on the elements of conspiracy, your answer lies there
 
Yurt said:
not if it is a sting operation operating within the law
Click to expand...

look, i know you want to be the guy that supports the law, no matter what, but seriously, how does equal protection work if a law can be written that makes the sale or possession of a controlled substance illegal, but exempt law enforcement if the sale or possession is used with the intent to entrap somebody in to breaking that law?

ayn rand mean anything to you?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
look, i know you want to be the guy that supports the law, no matter what, but seriously, how does equal protection work if a law can be written that makes the sale or possession of a controlled substance illegal, but exempt law enforcement if the sale or possession is used with the intent to entrap somebody in to breaking that law?

ayn rand mean anything to you?
Click to expand...

intent is often key in law...some laws require no intent...but many do

without the ability to conduct undercover operations, it would be nearly impossible to arrest any drug dealer, all you would have is hearsay or direct testimony that person x admits buying drugs from person y

what is the harm in conducting undercover operations? you really want our cities selling crack on every street corner with little or no ability by law enforcement to stop them?
 
Yurt said:
intent is often key in law...some laws require no intent...but many do

without the ability to conduct undercover operations, it would be nearly impossible to arrest any drug dealer, all you would have is hearsay or direct testimony that person x admits buying drugs from person y

what is the harm in conducting undercover operations? you really want our cities selling crack on every street corner with little or no ability by law enforcement to stop them?
Click to expand...

the harm? you don't see any harm in exempting the government from abiding by laws simply so they can create more criminals? It's not impossible to arrest dealers or buyers without entrapping them, it's done all the time. So if it's shown that arrests can be made, why allow law enforcement to break the law to enforce a law?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the harm? you don't see any harm in exempting the government from abiding by laws simply so they can create more criminals? It's not impossible to arrest dealers or buyers without entrapping them, it's done all the time. So if it's shown that arrests can be made, why allow law enforcement to break the law to enforce a law?
Click to expand...

do the police buy the drugs and them consume them?

if people bought drugs and destroyed them....don't you think that is different than buying the drugs to consume them? you can break laws in order to save lives...think driving on the wrong side of the road in order to avoid a catastrophic collision

further, it is my understanding there are laws on the books that allow undercover operations, so they are not in fact breaking any laws
 
Yurt said:
do the police buy the drugs and them consume them?

if people bought drugs and destroyed them....don't you think that is different than buying the drugs to consume them? you can break laws in order to save lives...think driving on the wrong side of the road in order to avoid a catastrophic collision
Click to expand...
correct me if i'm wrong, but 'possession' whether you use them or destroy them is still illegal, correct?

Yurt said:
further, it is my understanding there are laws on the books that allow undercover operations, so they are not in fact breaking any laws
Click to expand...

herein lies my point and question, how is it constitutional (literally, not this new agey crap that we've had for 100 years) to exempt a whole class of people from the law simply because they work for the government? wasn't the constitution written to RESTRICT and LIMIT the government?
 
UOTE=SmarterThanYou;735590]correct me if i'm wrong, but 'possession' whether you use them or destroy them is still illegal, correct?
Click to expand...

that is incorrect....give me a break STY...do you really believe it is illegal for law enforcement to confiscate illegal drugs? how else do you expect the government to enforce drug laws or any laws? imagine if the government couldn't take back stolen property, well....because it would be illegal for them to be in possession of stolen property....

herein lies my point and question, how is it constitutional (literally, not this new agey crap that we've had for 100 years) to exempt a whole class of people from the law simply because they work for the government? wasn't the constitution written to RESTRICT and LIMIT the government?
Click to expand...

they are not exempt from the laws....they cannot consume the product, that is the whole point of drug laws, it forbids the consumption and sale of illegal drugs, it does not forbid law enforcement from confiscating those drugs...

are you telling me if a parent caught their teenager with an ounce of coke, say when the kid was out, so they take the coke and turn into authorites....using your logic, the parent is guilty of drug possession and should be sent to prison...
 
Yurt said:
that is incorrect....give me a break STY...do you really believe it is illegal for law enforcement to confiscate illegal drugs? how else do you expect the government to enforce drug laws or any laws? imagine if the government couldn't take back stolen property, well....because it would be illegal for them to be in possession of stolen property....
Click to expand...
I guess I wasn't specific enough. let me retry.

first, you said "if people bought drugs and destroyed them....don't you think that is different than buying the drugs to consume them? you can break laws in order to save lives"
so when I brought up the possession part, I assumed you would know I was talking about non law enforcement. I'm with you on the part of possession for the means of confiscation and destruction by law enforcement. no issue there with me. my issue is that if I went and either stole or bought drugs from a dealer for the sole purpose of destroying them, (intent is the key you said?), but was stopped before I could complete the process of destruction, I assure you I would be arrested for possession. how is that equal protection?

Yurt said:
they are not exempt from the laws....they cannot consume the product, that is the whole point of drug laws, it forbids the consumption and sale of illegal drugs, it does not forbid law enforcement from confiscating those drugs...

are you telling me if a parent caught their teenager with an ounce of coke, say when the kid was out, so they take the coke and turn into authorites....using your logic, the parent is guilty of drug possession and should be sent to prison...
Click to expand...

I have seen that very thing happen.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
look, i know you want to be the guy that supports the law, no matter what, but seriously, how does equal protection work if a law can be written that makes the sale or possession of a controlled substance illegal, but exempt law enforcement if the sale or possession is used with the intent to entrap somebody in to breaking that law?

ayn rand mean anything to you?
Click to expand...

In criminal law, entrapment is constituted by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. 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 informant or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person (see sting operation). 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.

Government agents entrapped him if three conditions are fulfilled:

1.The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
2.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.
3.The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I guess I wasn't specific enough. let me retry.

first, you said "if people bought drugs and destroyed them....don't you think that is different than buying the drugs to consume them? you can break laws in order to save lives"
so when I brought up the possession part, I assumed you would know I was talking about non law enforcement. I'm with you on the part of possession for the means of confiscation and destruction by law enforcement. no issue there with me. my issue is that if I went and either stole or bought drugs from a dealer for the sole purpose of destroying them, (intent is the key you said?), but was stopped before I could complete the process of destruction, I assure you I would be arrested for possession. how is that equal protection?



I have seen that very thing happen.
Click to expand...

"...my issue is that if I went and either stole or bought drugs from a dealer for the sole purpose of destroying them, (intent is the key you said?), but was stopped before I could complete the process of destruction, I assure you I would be arrested for possession. how is that equal protection?..."

Officer: Sir can you explain why you have 12 lbs of Marijuana (or substitute a drug of your choice) in the trunk of your car?
Suspect: I honestly was going to destroy all 12 lbs (or substitute a drug of your choice); but you stopped me before I could follow through.

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!! :good4u:
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I guess I wasn't specific enough. let me retry.

first, you said "if people bought drugs and destroyed them....don't you think that is different than buying the drugs to consume them? you can break laws in order to save lives"
so when I brought up the possession part, I assumed you would know I was talking about non law enforcement. I'm with you on the part of possession for the means of confiscation and destruction by law enforcement. no issue there with me. my issue is that if I went and either stole or bought drugs from a dealer for the sole purpose of destroying them, (intent is the key you said?), but was stopped before I could complete the process of destruction, I assure you I would be arrested for possession. how is that equal protection?
Click to expand...

Wasn't that a Cheech and Chong skit?

"Hey, man.....oops, Your Honor....I found these drugs and was on the way to the Police Station to hand them in when I was busted for possession." :rofl:
 
OTE=SmarterThanYou;735614]I guess I wasn't specific enough. let me retry.

first, you said "if people bought drugs and destroyed them....don't you think that is different than buying the drugs to consume them? you can break laws in order to save lives"
so when I brought up the possession part, I assumed you would know I was talking about non law enforcement. I'm with you on the part of possession for the means of confiscation and destruction by law enforcement. no issue there with me. my issue is that if I went and either stole or bought drugs from a dealer for the sole purpose of destroying them, (intent is the key you said?), but was stopped before I could complete the process of destruction, I assure you I would be arrested for possession. how is that equal protection?
Click to expand...

you have equal protection under the law. if you were a law enforcement officer, duly sworn etc...you would have the same rights...if the officer was off duty and not acting in his official capacity, he would be acting as you and would not be protected by laws designed to allow confiscation of drugs.

let's take it a step a further - arrest powers - you can arrest people as well as an officer, however, an officer has to obey different rules when arresting people, they are held to a stricter standard....now....you could say that is not equal....yet it is...you don't have the training and are held to a lesser standard...for example....non lawyers are held to a far lesser standard when offering legal advice than a license lawyer....isn't this unequal treatment? no...because the training and licensing are what makes it different. keep in mind i'm not that knowledgeable on criminal law...and keep in mind teh EP clause is not about treating everyone the same, it is about similarly situated


I have seen that very thing happen.
Click to expand...

really? and the parent was charged and convicted? that would amaze me and i do trust you, but that simply is not the law in california....else teachers and parents would be jailed daily
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top