
FBI Turns 18-Year-Old with an IQ of 51 into a Terrorist - DiabloD3
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151229/14333133193/fbi-turns-18-year-old-with-iq-51-into-terrorist-dumps-case-into-laps-local-prosecutors.shtml
======
Someone1234
Maybe we should just toss "terrorists" into the nearest river, if they float
they're a terrorist and get hanged, if they sink, then they die but are
innocent...

Wait, no, that's the Salem witch trials, for some reason I always mix up
terrorism accusations in 2015, and the Salem witch trials from 1692...

A lot of these cases seem to come up. They seem to fall into two "camps,"
legitimately dangerous individuals collecting resources for a future event
(guns, bombs, etc) and fishing expeditions where they try to borderline entrap
the gullible or stupid.

The question is: Do the agents not ever question what they're doing morally?
If you need to talk someone into committing a crime are you really serving
justice? And if you aren't serving justice then what is the point in any of
it?

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>Do the agents not ever question what they're doing morally?

Somewhat perhaps, but the victims are morally inferior to the agents, so the
ends (career advancement for the morally superior agents) justify the means
(unjust oppression of the inferior). It's a lot like when Islamist terrorists
justify the killing of kafirs; but it's okay in this case because the
injustice is committed by educated people wearing nice clothes, and for a good
reason (justice!, or the children, maybe? or something else which I can't
recall at the moment but I'm sure it's good for America).

------
DanBC
Compare this to the case where someone with a learning difficulties[1] was
groomed for terrorism purposes; they are clearly seen as the victim of a crime
and the person doing the grooming is convicted of a crime.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32521780](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32521780)

> Commander Richard Walton, head of the Metropolitan Police's Counter
> Terrorism Command, said: "We continue to appeal to anyone who may have
> knowledge of people with similar intentions. The earliest we can intervene
> to prevent terrorism the better.

> "We also remind the public that there is currently a need to protect
> vulnerable or impressionable adults or children from this brand of Islamic
> extremism."

There's lots of really terrible[2] things about the way the UK treats people
with learning disability, but we try not to imprison them for stuff other
people manipulated them into.

[1] UK usage, this is taking over from "learning disability" because that
community strongly rejects the disabled label. It used to be defined by low
IQ.

[2] Winterborn view, Mazars, etc etc. There's a long list of terrible care
homes providing abusive horrible care.

------
breitling
Can someone with more insight into this please explain if this can be
considered entrapment? The suspect probably would have done or said nothing if
it weren't for the "investigators".

~~~
afarrell
Here is a webcomic drawn by an attourney which explains what entrapment
actually is:
[http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633](http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633)

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
That comic doesn't explain _" what entrapment actually is"_ but rather it
explains how a few trite but common misconceptions about the law as it
pertains to those circumstances are not precisely entrapment. I don't think
his reasoning is very good. ie: _" It's amazing that this myth has stuck
around so long when tons of undercover arrests prove it wrong every day"_ I'm
not sure how an arrest can prove that since an arrest is not a finding of
fact. IMO lawcomic is rather biased toward a prosecutor's definition of what
s/he thinks the law ought to be.

Maybe it's my own cognitive dissonance about the difference in what the law is
and what I think it ought to be, but I don't have a favorable opinion of
lawcomic. Now you've posted it here in defense of the prosecution of a
mentally retarded man/child for an offence which he is probably incapable of
committing without a non-trivial degree of assistance, and most likely would
not have committed if he'd simply been left alone. Even though this case the
prosecution may prevail in court, IMO it does not serve any useful purpose for
the gov't to aggressively ferret out easily manipulable people by manipulating
them until they sufficiently incriminate themselves.

~~~
afarrell
> in defense of the prosecution

I should clarify that I do not condone the actions of law enforcement here. I
just think that I think lawcomic is an interesting introductory resource.

------
nitwit005
My retarded uncle is really into military subjects and nazis. He has run up
other people's phone bills calling 900 number white supremacist phone numbers.
I didn't even know that was a thing until it happened. I gather white
supremacist groups attract certain types of mental illness.

I'm sure the Muslim version of him would be into jihad. Going to arrest a lot
of people if you start locking them up...

