[lXvtm0ox]

He demonstrated that he had the "will and morality" to do it. He wanted to do it, and expressed such a desire even after being told that he could be a good Muslim if he didn't.

Fine. As I said, I haven't read up on the details. I was responding the OP's assertion that merely expressing a desire to do something makes someone guilty. That's ridiculous

Suggesting that a 19 year old man doesn't know that killing people is wrong is silly... It would be, if I'd suggested that. But since I didn't, and it's just another one of your unfounded insinuations, it's irrelevant. In any case, I'll make the same point I did earlier, if the best the feds can do is recruit angry teens to make the case that their fighting terrorism, they should quit wasting their time, and our money.

[finasteride]

He was not entrapped:



Entrapment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Correct if the factual allegations are true. Here is the filed criminal complaint with attached affidavits:

http://www.portlandmercury.com/image...-affidavit.pdf

Heck, it was even his initial idea and desire to bomb the chosen site and he was actively looking for help and opportunity to do it. Lucky enough, it was the FBI that detected his intentions for the 'sting' operation.

Entrapment is all this POS's attorneys have to argue for throwing mud up against the wall in performance of their duties. It has no merit at all, though, and that's the only straw grasping, semi-colourable thing they could argue given the facts.

[rujeltaoser]

He demonstrated that he had the "will and morality" to do it. He wanted to do it, and expressed such a desire even after being told that he could be a good Muslim if he didn't.

Suggesting that a 19 year old man doesn't know that killing people is wrong is silly...

Very true but these agents need to also be charged since it is entrapment.

[#[SoftAzerZx]]

Very true but these agents need to also be charged since it is entrapment.

How was it entrapment?

[Donadoni1809]

He is accused of Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

The charge appears appropriate.

[T5qYkHWQ]

How was it entrapment?

Although Napolitano is citing entrapment in his exchange with O'Reilly, it seemed to me by his answers and arguments that he's erroneously conflating the legal defences of 'entrapment' with 'impossibility.'

Factual Impossibility

A "factual" impossibility occurs when, at the time of the attempt, the facts make the intended crime impossible to commit although the defendant is unaware of this when the attempt is made.[3] In People v. Lee Kong, 95 Cal. 666, 30 P. 800 (1892), the defendant was found guilty for attempted murder for shooting at a hole in the roof, believing his victim to be there, and indeed, where his victim had been only moments before but was not at the time of the shooting.[3] Another case involving the defense of factual impossibility is Commonwealth v. Johnson, 167 A. 344, 348 (Pa. 1933) in which a wife intended to put arsenic in her husband's coffee but by mistake added the customary sugar instead. Later she felt repentant and confessed her acts to the police. She was arrested, tried, and convicted of attempted murder.[3] In United States v. Thomas, 13 U.S.C.M.A. 278 (1962) the court held that men who believed they were raping a drunken, unconscious woman were guilty of attempted rape, even though the woman was actually dead at the time sexual intercourse took place.[1][4]

[edit]Legal Impossibility

An act that is considered legally impossible to commit is traditionally considered a valid defense for a person who was being prosecuted for a criminal attempt. An attempt is considered to be a "legal" impossibility when the defendant has completed all of his intended acts, but his acts fail to fulfill all the required in elements of a crime in common law. Mistakes of law has proved a successful defense. An example of a failed attempt of law is a person who shoots a tree stump; that person can not be prosecuted for attempted murder as there is no manifest intent to kill by shooting a stump. The underlying rationale is that attempting to do what is not a crime is not attempting to commit a crime.[5]

However, "legal" and "factual" mistakes are not mutually exclusive. A borderline case is that of a person who shot a stuffed deer, thinking it was alive as was the case in State v. Guffey, (1953) in which a person was originally convicted for attempting to kill a protected animal out of season. In a debatable reversal, an appellate judge threw out the conviction on the basis that it is no crime to shoot a stuffed deer out of season.[1][3] Impossibility defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Factual impossibility was not traditionally accepted at common law whilst legal impossibility was and remains so today but in a much more restrictive manner.

Legal impossibility is a traditional common law defense to a charge of an attempted crime. Legal impossibility arises when a person believes she is committing a crime, but the act is, in fact, lawful. For example, a person may believe she is receiving stolen goods, but the goods are in fact not stolen.

A different form of legal impossibility (Known as "hybrid legal impossibility") comes into play when an actor's goal is illegal, but commission of the crime is impossible due to a factual mistake regarding the legal status of one of the attendant circumstances of one of the elements of the crime. For example, a man attempting to bribe someone whom he mistakenly believes is a juror is not liable for attempted bribery of a juror. On the other hand, some jurisdictions may find the actor guilty of attempt. For example, under the Model Penal Code, the defendant can be guilty of the attempted crime if the facts being the way she thought they were would indeed make it a crime; however, she would not be guilty of the completed crime, because the crime was never completed.

The legal impossibility defense is a valid defense for attempt in nearly every jurisdiction.

See also impossibility defense. Legal impossibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For example, if a person decides to fish in a pond believing that fishing is prohibited there but it actually is permitted, that is full legal impossibility because the act itself is not a crime, even though the person had the bad intentions to violate such a prohibition believing it existed when he/she did it.

But, to use an classic example from the movie A Few Good Men:

Kaffee: It was oregano, Dave, it was a dime bag of oregano.
Lieutenant Dave Spradling: Yeah, well, your client thought it was marijuana.
Kaffee: My client's a moron, that's not against the law.

. . . that's no longer an accepted impossibility defence in most if not all American jurisdictions now thanks to adoptions of the Model Penal Code and other statutory or court abolitions of that application of the defence. Today a pothead who buys a dime bag of oregano believing it was pot is guilty of attempted purchase of marijuana so long as the action being sought is illegal.

The wiki explanation is even a bit inaccurate because if, for example, cops set up a 'sting' operation for stolen goods, that's really 'hybrid legal impossibility' at play and it's no longer an accepted defence to claim that the goods were in fact not really stolen. It's the same with other kinds of 'stings' like with the kind on To Catch a Predator where the actors and/or cops are posing as minors but they are really over the legal age.

Since prosecutions don't bother to charge people with attempts for things that aren't actually crimes, it's pretty much a defence that nobody sees in court anymore because you can't argue the rest anymore insofar as the oregano purchasing pothead, etc.

[chuecaloversvvp]

It seems to me that although Napolitano is citing entrapment in his exchange with O'Reilly, it seemed to me by his answers and arguments that he's erroneously conflating the legal defences of 'entrapment' with 'impossibility.'



Impossibility defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Factual impossibility was not traditionally accepted at common law whilst legal impossibility was and remains so today but in a much more restrictive manner.



Legal impossibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For example, if a person decides to fish in a pond believing that fishing is prohibited there but it actually is permitted, that is full legal impossibility because the act itself is not a crime, even though the person had the bad intentions to violate such a prohibition believing it existed when he/she did it.

But, to use an classic example from the movie A Few Good Men:

Kaffee: It was oregano, Dave, it was a dime bag of oregano.
Lieutenant Dave Spradling: Yeah, well, your client thought it was marijuana.
Kaffee: My client's a moron, that's not against the law.

. . . that's no longer an accepted impossibility defence in most if not all American jurisdictions now thanks to adoptions of the Model Penal Code and other statutory or court abolitions of that application of the defence. Today a pothead who buys a dime bag of oregano believing it was pot is guilty of attempted purchase of marijuana so long as the action being sought is illegal.

The wiki explanation is even a bit inaccurate because if, for example, cops set up a 'sting' operation for stolen goods, that's really 'hybrid legal impossibility' at play and it's no longer an accepted defence to claim that the good were in fact not really stolen. It's the same with other kinds of 'stings' like with the kind on To Catch a Predator where the actors and/or cops are posing as minors but they are really over the legal age.

Since prosecutions don't bother to charge people with attempts for things that aren't actually crimes, it's pretty much a defence that nobody sees in court anymore because you can't argue the rest anymore insofar as the oregano purchasing pothead, etc.

I had a patient once who repackaged Goodie's Powers and sold it for cocaine.

I made sure the blinds were closed when I saw him. Stray bullets, you know!~ They were after him!

This guy actually DID attempt to bomb the place. And would have succeeded if his folks had not reported his activities. I have to say that the actions of parents over the last few months have amazed me. This isn't the only instance. No doubt, just trying the best way they know to save their kids. But it HAS to be a tough choice. I can't even imagine.

[Breeriacoirl]

I had a patient once who repackaged Goodie's Powers and sold it for cocaine.

I made sure the blinds were closed when I saw him. Stray bullets, you know!~ They were after him!

This guy actually DID attempt to bomb the place. And would have succeeded if his folks had not reported his activities. I have to say that the actions of parents over the last few months have amazed me. This isn't the only instance. No doubt, just trying the best way they know to save their kids. But it HAS to be a tough choice. I can't even imagine.

He was certainly predisposed, that's for sure, not an innocent person without criminal intentions being goaded in unconscionable manners by government officials to commit a crime just so they can bust him. He was more than just predisposed, it was actually his plan and he followed through on it...he just didn't know that who he thought were assistants were actually FBI agents.

This would be an example of 'entrapment:' Mahmoud is a person who is not out looking for a hooker for some action. Sensing he's the type of person they can connive and manipulate into committing the crime of solicitation of a prostitute, law enforcement agents purposefully set out to do everything they can to get him to pay for a prostitute. It took the initiative to contact him and repeatedly solicited and encouraged him with over the top tactics to try to get to pay for a prostitute, e.g., over the top personal encouragements, a gorgeous blonde FBI agent posing as the hooker, a cheap price in a nice and secure place, etc. He finally goes and they bust him for attempted solicitation of a prostitute. That's heading into entrapment...the concept of outrageous inducements that shock the conscience of reasonable people made against a person not predisposed to commit the crime where it was really the agents who did their utmost to make an attempted crime happen just for the malicious purpose of arresting the individual. It's where it's apparent that the person under arrest is actually a victim of police misconduct where their motives and intents are entirely wrongful and malicious.