tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6576246045591350665.post7182744090850639532..comments2024-03-29T04:59:07.741-07:00Comments on Gangsters Out Blog: The Legal Definition of EntrapmentDennis Watsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06736981069304416233noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6576246045591350665.post-54085940390768682652015-02-26T15:45:10.888-08:002015-02-26T15:45:10.888-08:00Exactly. To my understanding the entrapment defens...Exactly. To my understanding the entrapment defense is only used when the suspect is found guilty. If the entrapment is proven, the guilty verdict is then set aside.<br /><br />Dennis Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06736981069304416233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6576246045591350665.post-37054840993209486122015-02-26T15:39:08.381-08:002015-02-26T15:39:08.381-08:00I sat through a trial where the entrapment defence...I sat through a trial where the entrapment defence was used successfully. Where it got raised was in a drug trial and when the guilty plea came down from the judge the defence lawyer asked that the conviction be ruled as entrapment. Judgement was reserved but the accused was successful. The ruling was that the defendant acted on behalf of the buyer and not the seller hence the police initiated the crime that otherwise would have never taken place. What the public sees is a carefully crafted release of videos painting these two as lustful killers. I wonder if the piece we are not seeing is the accused using money from the undercover to buy drugs so they go along with the plan to string along their "sugar daddy" thinking to themselves whose playing who :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09957750445020071346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6576246045591350665.post-89288298527825833392015-02-22T07:16:26.721-08:002015-02-22T07:16:26.721-08:00(The judge) "She also (said) their job was no...(The judge) "She also (said) their job was not to interpret the law. Interpreting the law was her job and she would do it for them."<br /><br />This is BS too, another example of judicial treason against democracy. It is PRECISELY the jury's job to interpret the law, and to nullify any unjust law or interpretation thereof. That's why it's called JURY NULLIFICATION. <br /><br />Unless the defendant(s) choose trial by judge alone, all that judge is there to do is preside over the trial and pass sentence if found guilty. But power always seeks to expand itself, and so we have judges who have the gall to steal the authority from "We, the people" in "their" courtroom.<br /><br />It IS the jury's job to bring their 12 independently functioning BS detectors into the equation and to ensure that an attempted miscarriage of justice such as this one seems to be never draws it's first breath. Judges such as this usurp others liberty and power for their own. As I said, power always seeks to expand itself. Where it finds weakness, it advances, where it finds resistance, and light is shone upon it's attempts, it retreats.<br /><br />If you are ever called upon to decide the guilt or innocence of a fellow citizen, do your best to be selected as a juror. Then, when it comes time to vote if the case stinks as this one does, or if the police are lying in court (they do this all the time, trust me on that) DO NOT VOTE TO CONVICT. No matter how much pressure is brought to bear by your fellow jurors or what instructions you are given by a judge, vote NO. In this fashion is liberty preserved, and power kept for the people from those who would attempt to steal it.trailrunner78https://www.blogger.com/profile/06694102447472594355noreply@blogger.com