Well, at least they are finally acknowledging that the ones who were lured by law enforcement online, to make them commit a crime, are not the dangerous predators that the govt made everybody believe before that they were. The next step is to get them to admit that it was outrageous govt conduct to lure those men under false pretense to then solicit, encourage and cause them to commit the crime they were charged with and convicted of. It wasn’t those men’s job to “stop the conversation”. It was law enforcement’s job to stop harassing those men, stop demanding s** with children from them, the way the govt did to them. And it doesn’t matter that “they were told this was a minor.” It doesn’t matter because the govt’s conduct of demanding s** with children from them and encouraging them to participate in that conversation was clearly for the sole purpose of creating this type of case - to cause those men to violate the law, to charge them with this crime. That is outrageous govt conduct, and “They were told this was a minor,” does not excuse the govt’s disgusting conduct. It also does not excuse the courts ignoring this disgusting behavior from law enforcement. So, they need to stop with that BS, “They were told this was a minor,” and “They should have stopped the conversation.” If the govt had instead demanded from those men that they participate in a conversation about un-aliving someone or committing a robbery, the courts would certainly recognize that as entrapment and outrageous govt conduct. No one would be using the stupid excuse, “But they were told this was about un-aliving someone. Therefore, they are guilty of planning to do that, and the govt did nothing wrong.” 🤦🏻♀️ It’s the same darn thing!
Well, at least they are finally acknowledging that the ones who were lured by law enforcement online, to make them commit a crime, are not the dangerous predators that the govt made everybody believe before that they were.
The next step is to get them to admit that it was outrageous govt conduct to lure those men under false pretense to then solicit, encourage and cause them to commit the crime they were charged with and convicted of.
It wasn’t those men’s job to “stop the conversation”. It was law enforcement’s job to stop harassing those men, stop demanding s** with children from them, the way the govt did to them.
And it doesn’t matter that “they were told this was a minor.” It doesn’t matter because the govt’s conduct of demanding s** with children from them and encouraging them to participate in that conversation was clearly for the sole purpose of creating this type of case - to cause those men to violate the law, to charge them with this crime. That is outrageous govt conduct, and “They were told this was a minor,” does not excuse the govt’s disgusting conduct. It also does not excuse the courts ignoring this disgusting behavior from law enforcement.
So, they need to stop with that BS, “They were told this was a minor,” and “They should have stopped the conversation.” If the govt had instead demanded from those men that they participate in a conversation about un-aliving someone or committing a robbery, the courts would certainly recognize that as entrapment and outrageous govt conduct. No one would be using the stupid excuse, “But they were told this was about un-aliving someone. Therefore, they are guilty of planning to do that, and the govt did nothing wrong.” 🤦🏻♀️ It’s the same darn thing!
It is outrageous government conduct, and thank you for asserting that. Finally, perhaps, the message is getting through.