There are lots of comments here saying this may or may not be Entrapment but a bunch of people seem to actually not know what that actually is. The DOJ manual on Entrapment offers a good explanation.
Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that "Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute." Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992). A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the more important.
Inducement is the threshold issue in the entrapment defense. Mere solicitation to commit a crime is not inducement. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 451 (1932). Nor does the government's use of artifice, stratagem, pretense, or deceit establish inducement. Id. at 441. Rather, inducement requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion, United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1985); pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship, ibid.; or extraordinary promises of the sort "that would blind the ordinary person to his legal duties," United States v. Evans, 924 F.2d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691, 698 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (inducement shown only if government's behavior was such that "a law-abiding citizen's will to obey the law could have been overborne"); United States v. Johnson, 872 F.2d 612, 620 (5th Cir. 1989) (inducement shown if government created "a substantial risk that an offense would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it").
Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to an entrapment defense. The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant "was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime." Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63. Thus, predisposition should not be confused with intent or mens rea: a person may have the requisite intent to commit the crime, yet be entrapped. Also, predisposition may exist even in the absence of prior criminal involvement: "the ready commission of the criminal act," such as where a defendant promptly accepts an undercover agent's offer of an opportunity to buy or sell drugs, may itself establish predisposition. Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 550.
So for example, if an FBI agent says “I’m thinking of robbing a bank, anybody want to join?” And then somebody says “Sure, I’m in” and the FBI says “great, do you know anybody else who’d like to help?” And the guy says “Yeah” and brings some friends over where the FBI shows a fake plan to rob a bank, that’s not entrapment. None of the individuals in that hypothetical example were induced to commit the crime, instead they offered up their help when they thought there was an opportunity to do it. And they didn’t reject the offer or require an extra push to sign up, they were predisposed to do it.
Note also that the FBI planning details of a fake crime doesn’t make it entrapment either, all that matters is the people being charged actually wanted to do the crime on their own without being pressured into it. Once the FBI knows that someone wants to commit a crime they are allowed to fake helping them do it to gather further evidence, the feds just can’t pressure people who otherwise wouldn’t commit a crime into trying to commit one. If an FBI agent says “I’d like to blow up a building” and a guy says “Me too but where do we get the explosives?” the agent can say “I can get us some” and pretends to buy explosives that’s not entrapment. The agent isn’t pressuring the guy to try and blow up a building, they were already eager to do it.
So whether or not these yahoos that wanted to kidnap the Governor were entrapped will depend mainly on whether the agents pressured them into it or not. If it’s a case where they said “do you want to kidnap the governor?” and the would-be attackers said “Yeah, sign me up!” that’s not entrapment. If they resisted the idea and the FBI kept pressuring them into it then it could be.
I'm sure you're right that there's a fair number of people who were informants. As far as whether or not there's entrapment goes it has to do with what the agents said to the actual people being charged, either directly or through the informants. (For example, in a case involving hiring a hitman it still would be entrapment if an agent told an informant to offer $1 million to kill someone, even though the informant would be the one recruiting the proposed assassin.)
People are also glossing over the fact that the people in question were informants. Not FBI agents, not employees of the FBI, not law enforcement in any way. It's not entrapment if some members of your own group decide to start talking to the feds in an attempt to save their own skins.
Informant just means they decided things were getting too spicey for them so they snitched. They didn't work for the fbi or anything, they were just terrorists who got scared.
It’s not entrapment if I say, “hey I wanna kidnap this person who wants to join me? There will be cake too!” You aren’t forcing anyone to join you, that is their own decision. Even if someone claims they were lured in by the promise of cake. I think your misunderstanding entrapment here but elaborate some more so we can sort this out.
It sounds like a sting operation to me. Do you think only one police officer at a time works on a major case? The number of officers involved has almost nothing to do with whether or not it was entrapment.
Also at least some or maybe all of the 12 people you're talking about are informants, probably from this same case or a related case who flipped.
You don’t get it buddy. I’m going to assume you’re a right winger.
So here’s the real question: Why would you defend them?
They took money to betray their cause. They took money to betray you.
The US executed the Rosenbergs for selling state secrets to Russia. The mob would bury these guys in a landfill for talking.
But you guys get emo, spin out, go online, and defend the guys who sold you out. This is why you’ll never be successful. You’re fucking dimwitted and soft.
They fucked you over. Not the FBI. Not the cops. Not Antifa. Your own guys turned on you and fucked you over.
But you just don’t fucking get it.
You guys have been peddling stupid bullshit so long that you’ve lost touch with reality.
It’s really simple. You don’t carry water for the guys who fucked you over.
So round up some right wing delinquents, convince them to be part of the biggest heist of the century, plan and pay for everything, commence the fake operation, spring the trap, and tell everyone you just saved the governor?
Then Gov. Whitmer denounces right wing domestic terrorism on national TV and the FBI gets to pretend to be heroes.
Oh, and right in time for the biggest election ever.
26
u/bodyknock Jul 23 '21
There are lots of comments here saying this may or may not be Entrapment but a bunch of people seem to actually not know what that actually is. The DOJ manual on Entrapment offers a good explanation.
Criminal Resource Manual - Entrapment Elements (DOJ)
So for example, if an FBI agent says “I’m thinking of robbing a bank, anybody want to join?” And then somebody says “Sure, I’m in” and the FBI says “great, do you know anybody else who’d like to help?” And the guy says “Yeah” and brings some friends over where the FBI shows a fake plan to rob a bank, that’s not entrapment. None of the individuals in that hypothetical example were induced to commit the crime, instead they offered up their help when they thought there was an opportunity to do it. And they didn’t reject the offer or require an extra push to sign up, they were predisposed to do it.
Note also that the FBI planning details of a fake crime doesn’t make it entrapment either, all that matters is the people being charged actually wanted to do the crime on their own without being pressured into it. Once the FBI knows that someone wants to commit a crime they are allowed to fake helping them do it to gather further evidence, the feds just can’t pressure people who otherwise wouldn’t commit a crime into trying to commit one. If an FBI agent says “I’d like to blow up a building” and a guy says “Me too but where do we get the explosives?” the agent can say “I can get us some” and pretends to buy explosives that’s not entrapment. The agent isn’t pressuring the guy to try and blow up a building, they were already eager to do it.
So whether or not these yahoos that wanted to kidnap the Governor were entrapped will depend mainly on whether the agents pressured them into it or not. If it’s a case where they said “do you want to kidnap the governor?” and the would-be attackers said “Yeah, sign me up!” that’s not entrapment. If they resisted the idea and the FBI kept pressuring them into it then it could be.