Is it Possible That the U.S. Government Staged the Boston Marathon Bombing?

[gagekko]

Nope, 24 and collecting that sweet GI bill payout. I do get a check for my tinnitus though. I don't even sell weed. Man, not even close. lol

Working the system, eh? At least i was right about the welfare state ur in. Well, hopefully you'll put the gi bill and disability check to good use. Most of the time, the idiot users of the gibill just squander it - i dont hold out too much hope for you but maybe you'll supprise me, lol

 

[tokeprep]

Go cry in your retardo-flakes kid, the adults are talking.

Why don't you go review the empirical evidence about how well people are able to identify other people even in the very best conditions, kid, and maybe then you'll be enlightened and finally start to doubt your own weak human faculties.

 

[tokeprep]

You guys can't see the forrest for the trees... First off, I didn't make that video... Secondly, despite what you think of napolitano, he is correct about the gubberment and them "infiltrating" terror cells... The gubberment finds dumbasses to engage in illegal activities, only to swoop in and save the day with arrests - government sponsored terrorism. But whatever - I'll leave the both of you to bask in your greatness, lol...

They're proactively trying to identify people who would be willing to perpetrate terrorism given the right connections and supplies. I'd much rather the FBI hook someone up with fake bomb components than some nefarious actor who intends real harm.

 

[gagekko]

They're proactively trying to identify people who would be willing to perpetrate terrorism given the right connections and supplies. I'd much rather the FBI hook someone up with fake bomb components than some nefarious actor who intends real harm.

Thats called entrapment and until post 911 was illegal. But some people dont mind giving up freedoms to feel safe - suppose you are one of them

 

[tokeprep]

Thats called entrapment and until post 911 was illegal. But some people dont mind giving up freedoms to feel safe - suppose you are one of them

Entrapment has never been illegal. The legal test for entrapment is the same as it was before 9/11.

In short, good luck arguing entrapment. When you pick up a hooker, you haven't been entrapped; when you ask to buy weed from the cop, you haven't been entrapped; when you express your interest in acquiring bomb components to commit acts of terrorism, you haven't been entrapped. Now, if a police officer spent 4 hours convincing you that you should go get a hooker for the first time of your life; if he spent 4 hours telling you how great weed is and that you really need to buy some to try it; if he spent hours convincing you that violent terrorism must be waged against America, and that you need to take up arms; maybe then you've been entrapped.

 

[gagekko]

Entrapment has never been illegal. The legal test for entrapment is the same as it was before 9/11.

In short, good luck arguing entrapment. When you pick up a hooker, you haven't been entrapped; when you ask to buy weed from the cop, you haven't been entrapped; when you express your interest in acquiring bomb components to commit acts of terrorism, you haven't been entrapped. Now, if a police officer spent 4 hours convincing you that you should go get a hooker for the first time of your life; if he spent 4 hours telling you how great weed is and that you really need to buy some to try it; if he spent hours convincing you that violent terrorism must be waged against America, and that you need to take up arms; maybe then you've been entrapped.

You are full of shit and a fool - it's a waste of time to argue with fools. Have a good life

 

[gagekko]

[video=youtube;GcxmAunB4Ck]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcxmAunB4Ck#![/video]

 

[tokeprep]

You are full of shit and a fool - it's a waste of time to argue with fools. Have a good life

No, I think I accurately summarized the state of the law on entrapment. You just have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If the law was something else, you could easily correct me and identify the cases that prove me wrong. Since you didn't, you must be aware of no such evidence. And that's that.

 

[gagekko]

No, I think I accurately summarized the state of the law on entrapment. You just have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If the law was something else, you could easily correct me and identify the cases that prove me wrong. Since you didn't, you must be aware of no such evidence. And that's that.

You didn't accurately summarize shit...

You said if "Now, if a police officer spent 4 hours convincing you that you should go get a hooker for the first time of your life; if he spent 4 hours telling you how great weed is and that you really need to buy some to try it; if he spent hours convincing you that violent terrorism must be waged against America, and that you need to take up arms; maybe then you've been entrapped." That is about as wrong as two boys fucking. If a undercover police office approached me and said, "for $200 you can fuck me" - that is entrapment. Why? Because the undercover solicited prostitution, which is illegal to begin with. Obviously it doesn't take 4 hours to say that - does it?

Right there your whole argument if fucked because you are assuming that law enforcement doesn't lie and doesn't engage in illegal activities - hence you prove yourself to be a fuck-tard fool.

[video=youtube;b7t4At6S76M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7t4At6S76M[/video]

 

[tokeprep]

You didn't accurately summarize shit...

You said if "Now, if a police officer spent 4 hours convincing you that you should go get a hooker for the first time of your life; if he spent 4 hours telling you how great weed is and that you really need to buy some to try it; if he spent hours convincing you that violent terrorism must be waged against America, and that you need to take up arms; maybe then you've been entrapped." That is about as wrong as two boys fucking. If a undercover police office approached me and said, "for $200 you can fuck me" - that is entrapment. Why? Because the undercover solicited prostitution, which is illegal to begin with. Obviously it doesn't take 4 hours to say that - does it?

Right there your whole argument if fucked because you are assuming that law enforcement doesn't lie and doesn't engage in illegal activities - hence you prove yourself to be a fuck-tard fool.

[video=youtube;b7t4At6S76M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7t4At6S76M[/video]

You're repeating something that's just a myth, which is that police officers cannot invite you to commit crimes without it being entrapment. They can and they do it all the time, all over the country, without any lying or other nefarious activity. The video you posted has nothing to do with entrapment, it's police officers framing a drunk person for an accident that was the officer's fault.

To prove that you were entrapped, you have to show that you wouldn't have committed the crime if the police officer hadn't invited you to do it. This doesn't mean you only have to prove that the specific event wouldn't have occurred without the police officer asking, which is perhaps what you're trying to suggest. My examples contrast a person perfectly willing to commit the crime--by picking up the hooker, by buying the drugs, by trying to obtain bomb components--with a person who basically has to be talked into it by the police officer.

Do you know how many stupid people wind up in jail all the time because they thought stings automatically constituted entrapment and they thought police officers have to tell you they're police officers if you ask?

 

[gagekko]

Do you know how many stupid people wind up in jail all the time because they thought stings automatically constituted entrapment and they thought police officers have to tell you they're police officers if you ask?

Again, you are showing what a fuck-tard you are. Reread about law enforcement lying. In most cases, they will not admit to lying if the case actually goes to court. Watch the video if you have a hard time seeing how some cops may operate.

There is a fine line cops have to walk. If someone approaches a cop and asks them if they are a cop before soliciting illegal behavior, that is just stupid - of course they can say no.

Now you are saying they have to PROVE they were entrapped after it goes to court... In other words, "prove that this fine officer is lying"... You sound like an idiot. You first stated that entrapping someone is next to impossible short of arguing for four hours. Now your argument changes the more you come to realize you don't know what you are talking about. Why do you think you know shit? You are either one crappy lawyer or you are a paralegal wanna-be, know-nothing that watches too much tv.

 

[tokeprep]

Again, you are showing what a fuck-tard you are. Reread about law enforcement lying. In most cases, they will not admit to lying if the case actually goes to court. Watch the video if you have a hard time seeing how some cops may operate.

There is a fine line cops have to walk. If someone approaches a cop and asks them if they are a cop before soliciting illegal behavior, that is just stupid - of course they can say no.

Now you are saying they have to PROVE they were entrapped after it goes to court... In other words, "prove that this fine officer is lying"... You sound like an idiot. You first stated that entrapping someone is next to impossible short of arguing for four hours. Now your argument changes the more you come to realize you don't know what you are talking about. Why do you think you know shit? You are either one crappy lawyer or you are a paralegal wanna-be, know-nothing that watches too much tv.

Law enforcement can and does lie all the time. For example, if you ask an undercover police officer if he's a police officer, he can lie and say no. Perfectly fine. Police officers can also lie to you when they're interrogating you, telling you they have video of you committing the crime they're accusing you of even if they don't. Perfectly fine. That's a different kind of lie than the one your video illustrated, which--as I already said--involves police officers framing a drunk person for an accident that wasn't her fault. That's not comparable to a prostitution or terrorism sting, which involve inviting people who are perfectly willing to commit crimes to try and commit them.

A person who wants to claim entrapment must prove that they they wouldn't have committed the crime except for the invitation of law enforcement. You cannot maintain this burden when you offer to pay money for sex, ask to buy drugs, and agree to buy bomb components from someone offering them. The fact that it was a police officer is totally irrelevant because your actions demonstrated your willingness to commit the crimes. My four hour example was only meant to illustrate that police officers had to do something extraordinary to actually constitute entrapment--they had to get you to do something you otherwise wouldn't have done. When you got in the car and asked "How much?" how easy do you think that is to do? Likewise, if someone says they can get bomb components and you inquire about purchasing them for terrorist purposes, how easy do you think it is to prove entrapment?

Whatever the answer is, it hasn't changed a lick because of 9/11. Entrapment is just as it always was, enjoying its mythical existence with the foolish.

Edit: All you need to do is look at the Supreme Court cases. One of the high profile ones that involved someone winning on entrapment had postal inspectors sending brochures from fictional organizations promoting child pornography and arguing that its purchase was a civil liberty under attack by a vicious government. This is not nearly the same as an undercover police officer saying, "Yeah, it's $100 for the blowjob."

 

[gagekko]

Law enforcement can and does lie all the time. For example, if you ask an undercover police officer if he's a police officer, he can lie and say no. Perfectly fine. Police officers can also lie to you when they're interrogating you, telling you they have video of you committing the crime they're accusing you of even if they don't. Perfectly fine. That's a different kind of lie than the one your video illustrated, which--as I already said--involves police officers framing a drunk person for an accident that wasn't her fault. That's not comparable to a prostitution or terrorism sting, which involve inviting people who are perfectly willing to commit crimes to try and commit them.

A person who wants to claim entrapment must prove that they they wouldn't have committed the crime except for the invitation of law enforcement. You cannot maintain this burden when you offer to pay money for sex, ask to buy drugs, and agree to buy bomb components from someone offering them. The fact that it was a police officer is totally irrelevant because your actions demonstrated your willingness to commit the crimes. My four hour example was only meant to illustrate that police officers had to do something extraordinary to actually constitute entrapment--they had to get you to do something you otherwise wouldn't have done. When you got in the car and asked "How much?" how easy do you think that is to do? Likewise, if someone says they can get bomb components and you inquire about purchasing them for terrorist purposes, how easy do you think it is to prove entrapment?

Whatever the answer is, it hasn't changed a lick because of 9/11. Entrapment is just as it always was, enjoying its mythical existence with the foolish.

Edit: All you need to do is look at the Supreme Court cases. One of the high profile ones that involved someone winning on entrapment had postal inspectors sending brochures from fictional organizations promoting child pornography and arguing that its purchase was a civil liberty under attack by a vicious government. This is not nearly the same as an undercover police officer saying, "Yeah, it's $100 for the blowjob."

We are going around in circles and it is exhausting for me. 1) I disagree with you on entrapment - courts are affording law enforcement much more leeway post 911 2) I have video links that I feel may open at least one or two peoples eyes - if I do that, then all this internet arguing is worth it 3) internet bickering is lame and I apologize to you for my foul mouth and sophomoric behavior - I still believe what I believe but I shouldn't go off on you because of it... My bad.

 

[tokeprep]

We are going around in circles and it is exhausting for me. 1) I disagree with you on entrapment - courts are affording law enforcement much more leeway post 911 2) I have video links that I feel may open at least one or two peoples eyes - if I do that, then all this internet arguing is worth it 3) internet bickering is lame and I apologize to you for my foul mouth and sophomoric behavior - I still believe what I believe but I shouldn't go off on you because of it... My bad.

Give me one single example of entrapment being expanded post-9/11 over the pre-9/11 standard. You will not be able to succeed because your claim is absolutely false. Out of the thousands of cases where entrapment was invoked, give me one.

Your links are meaningless because your thesis is false. You've demonstrated that you don't understand entrapment at all, let alone would you be able to comprehend changes to the legal regime governing entrapment between 9/11 and the present. You tried to say that police officers can't solicit sex from people in stings because that would be a crime! That's patently false and exposed everything you said about entrapment as totally baseless.

 

[gagekko]

Give me one single example of entrapment being expanded post-9/11 over the pre-9/11 standard. You will not be able to succeed because your claim is absolutely false. Out of the thousands of cases where entrapment was invoked, give me one.

Your links are meaningless because your thesis is false. You've demonstrated that you don't understand entrapment at all, let alone would you be able to comprehend changes to the legal regime governing entrapment between 9/11 and the present. You tried to say that police officers can't solicit sex from people in stings because that would be a crime! That's patently false and exposed everything you said about entrapment as totally baseless.

And nor will you get anymore from me... Like i said, internet arguments are lame and this one is over.

 

[Walter9999]

Gagekko = PATSIE FOOL...what unadulterated rubbish

 

[gagekko]

Gagekko = PATSIE FOOL...what unadulterated rubbish

Patsie fool? OMG, my feelings are hurt :'(

 

[tokeprep]

And nor will you get anymore from me... Like i said, internet arguments are lame and this one is over.

That's because there is no such case. Since you already know the evidence supporting your assertion doesn't exist, you resigned the argument.

 

[Doer]

That's because there is no such case. Since you already know the evidence supporting your assertion doesn't exist, you resigned the argument.

I agree, gag can't even mount an argument, much less a discussion among men. Facts are discussed. Opinions are argued.

 

[Doer]

Haha... This coming from some douche that is milking the system for disability? What's wrong? Couldn't hack the military for the full ride - decided to play disabled? Haha - what a welfare recipient like you thinks of me hardly hurts my feelings

Huh, wrong guy, moron. I'm the 6 figure earning, Sr engineering manager, for the last 30 years. Any dole you collect will be from my pocket.