I have often thought that entrapment was legally weird. And I don’t understand how entrapment cases hold up in court. It seems like it’s a bit of the rip-off used cars salesman routine, you fool somebody into buying something that they probably wouldn’t buy if they had all the information and then they’re stuck with a used car in the FBI cases they’re called with Federal sentencing.
I’m certain there are instances where entrapment might be a good thing just to get somebody off the street that is really doing a lot of legal damage and has impacted numerous victims.
But entrapment for entrapment’s sake I think could probably fall under a type of causative “victim of circumstances” - but I’m no legal scholar.
It isn’t “entrapment for entrapment sake”, it is entrapment for MORE GOVERNMENT FUNDS AND GREATER AUTHORITY!
These alphabet agencies are no longer, if they ever were, designed to HELP AMERICA/AMERICANS! They are designed to stay in existence and they do that by showing “what they can do”!!
So a little entrapment to show they took 17 “terrorists” off the streets looks good on paper, it is praised in the Halls of Congress, and our congress critters go on TV, especially during the political season (voting years), and espouse how they want to give these “heroes” more money and more authority to end this scourge known as “terrorism”!! See “war on drugs” for similar examples!