| >That informant is always talking about drinking and telling you how you should drink Without laboring the analogy too far (which was only a throwaway intended to show that you don't need to cause harm to commit crime), what would any reasonable person do in this situation, if we replace "drinking" with "blowing shit up"? The reasonable response here is "Get away from me, you psycho moron." If you collude with that? Willingly? To the point of setting up a "bomb" and blowing it up? The informant didn't shove the detonator in the suspect's hands and press the button. The informant didn't set up the bomb. >Oh, and they likely selected you based on your skin color and/or religious affiliation. Huge citeplz here. >While this is true, some of the cases to date the FBI has prosecuted are really likely to have never occurred if informants weren't being paid to intentionally push someone towards an illegal act. Yours and my definition of "intentionally push" must be worlds apart. But then again, if your mindset is such that you can be convinced verbally to blow up a building that you and the person "pushing" you agree is full of innocent people that would "die".. well, let's say I don't have a lot of sympathy for that person. Perhaps they should be involuntarily committed to a mental health institution instead of imprisoned, but this person is a danger to themselves and others. >it is incredibly unethical for a policing organization to pay people to mislead people into breaking the law. There's no misleading here. The people convicted so far were not "misled". |