On entrapment...
First off I'd like to apologize to the Mods and the community for my drunken wank-baiting, hopefully this post will be much more coherent and substantantial.
When I woke up this morning the local talking heads were gushing over this story.
Basically a 19 year-old American/Wannabe-Mujihadan posted his desire to blow something up on an internet forum frequented by other mujihadeen. He was contacted by an FBI agent pretending to represent Al Queda, or some other big-time terrorist organization, who provided our alleged terrorist with a target and a bomb. Seeing as the bomb, the bomber, and the target were all known by the FBI this "terrorist plot" was easily thwarted.
Stories like this make me mad.
I'd like to say "Chalk one up for the good guys" but I can't. It's not that I think he wouldn't commit some form of violence given the chance, it's just that there are probably lots of people who feel the same way and yet don’t actually do anything because they lack the motivation, fear prosecution, or are otherwise morally opposed to it. So I have to wonder just how much of the plot was his idea.
In other words, did the FBI really "Thwart" anything if the plot was theirs to begin with?
Is someone who buys or sells oregeno thinking it's cannabis guilty of drug traffiking?
How much of criminality is intent as opposed to action?
Edit:
As spaz_own_joo pointed out in the comments, murder and manslaughter differ in intent but are the same in result.
The question I'm asking is essentially the reverse.
If you have two people, both of whom intending to commit a crime, but only one of whom has the means and opportunity, Is the other guy(the one with the intent but not the action) a criminal yet?
When I woke up this morning the local talking heads were gushing over this story.
Basically a 19 year-old American/Wannabe-Mujihadan posted his desire to blow something up on an internet forum frequented by other mujihadeen. He was contacted by an FBI agent pretending to represent Al Queda, or some other big-time terrorist organization, who provided our alleged terrorist with a target and a bomb. Seeing as the bomb, the bomber, and the target were all known by the FBI this "terrorist plot" was easily thwarted.
Stories like this make me mad.
I'd like to say "Chalk one up for the good guys" but I can't. It's not that I think he wouldn't commit some form of violence given the chance, it's just that there are probably lots of people who feel the same way and yet don’t actually do anything because they lack the motivation, fear prosecution, or are otherwise morally opposed to it. So I have to wonder just how much of the plot was his idea.
In other words, did the FBI really "Thwart" anything if the plot was theirs to begin with?
Is someone who buys or sells oregeno thinking it's cannabis guilty of drug traffiking?
How much of criminality is intent as opposed to action?
Edit:
As spaz_own_joo pointed out in the comments, murder and manslaughter differ in intent but are the same in result.
The question I'm asking is essentially the reverse.
If you have two people, both of whom intending to commit a crime, but only one of whom has the means and opportunity, Is the other guy(the one with the intent but not the action) a criminal yet?