
ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation - JackFr
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/atf-uses-rogue-tactics-in-storefront-stings-across-the-nation-b99146765z1-234916641.html
======
DanielBMarkham
I don't own a gun, but let's assume I become a gun enthusiast and decide to go
buy "something cool"

I go to my local gun store, which is actually a front for the ATF. In my mind,
looks like a bunch of seedy characters, but i assume they're trustworthy
because, natch, they have a license from the ATF.

I strike up a conversation with the bearded, scraggly guy behind the counter.
What would I like? I don't know. How about a shotgun? As we talk, he talks
more and more about "cool" guns. Perhaps sawed-off barrels, or big loads. At
some point, we cross the line between talking about legal guns and illegal
guns.

Now here's the thing: beats the shit out of me where we crossed that line. I'm
trusting the guy behind the counter to be a reliable guide to what can be
bought or sold. From the ATF standpoint, however, I am fully aware of the
intricacies of firearm law and am now soliciting them to commit a crime.

A few months go by. Then the ATF comes knocking at my door with a warrant, a
hi-res video, and I go to jail. Perhaps for many years.

Now we can argue whether they would actually prosecute or not, or what any
sane prosecutor would ask for solicitation, but the fact of the matter is, in
the ATF's view, I'm a hardened gun criminal. It'll go on my record, and this
will become part of the intelligence files at ATF.

If you can't see what's wrong with this picture, you've lost your moral
compass.

~~~
jonnathanson
_" Now here's the thing: beats the shit out of me where we crossed that
line."_

And that's one of the most frightening aspects of modern-day law enforcement
tactics, especially when considered in light of the surveillance techniques
now at their disposal.

The standard presumption that everyone is fully aware of the legal boundaries
of daily activities falls to pieces when someone is in virgin territory. In
your hypothetical case, you've never bought a gun before, and you're probably
a little nervous and out of your element. You're easy prey for a sting of this
nature, and your nervousness would "read," in the context of the surveillance
video, as criminal intent.

Ironically enough, it's the law-abiding citizens who are least likely to be
aware of the intricacies of criminal law. The real criminals would cover their
bases. So by its very nature, a sting like this one produces perverse
outcomes. It over-selects for innocent bystanders and petty criminals, and
filters out the savvier criminals who are actually the locus of the problem
ostensibly being combated.

~~~
bunderbunder
> The real criminals would cover their bases. So by its very nature, a sting
> like this one produces perverse outcomes. It over-selects for innocent
> bystanders and petty criminals, and filters out the savvier criminals who
> are actually the locus of the problem ostensibly being combated.

In the Milwaukee operation that inspired this bit of investigative journalism,
it turned out even worse than that. The career criminals quickly recognized
the undercover agents for what they were and proceeded to con the !$@%$@ pants
off of them. The whole operation eventually fell apart when the agents got
looted, including having the weapons stolen from one of their cars while it
was parked at a completely different location.

There was absolutely no benefit to the community from this. The agents baited
a bunch of sometimes clueless folks who mostly weren't anything worse than
your garden variety juvenile delinquents into committing crimes serious enough
to send them to jail. So they created an acute increase in the crime rate,
which then permanently decreases the ability of members of the community to
secure gainful employment, thereby also creating a chronic increase in the
crime rate, expanding social burdens on the community, and reducing the
community's economic productivity overall. This in a city that's already
completely falling apart both socially and economically thanks to >50% of its
African-American males having prior convictions. In return for the pleasure of
getting to do this, they supplied the local street gangs with free weapons
and, briefly, a convenient source of income.

------
dm2
Moral of the story? Police and federal agents must be more transparent and
accountable for their actions and expenditures.

The whole concept of "spend money so that our budget doesn't shrink next year"
has go to be fixed also. I don't know a solution other than having more
auditors and efficiency experts (GAO, gao.gov).

Would people flip out if there was a bill proposed to require all guns in the
US to have a GPS tracker? Just an idea, I know it wouldn't fix all gun
problems, but it might be prevent some gun thefts and murders. Of course, this
data shouldn't be able to be accessed without a warrant.

Stings are slightly unfair and can sometimes catch dumb people who wouldn't
otherwise commit the crime. On the other hand, if you purchase a gun without a
license or attempt to hire a contract killer and it turns out to be a police
officer you are in contact with, then that sting just save a life, which is
good.

Preventing abuses of power is key. There should be adequate training at
organizations on how and where to report abuses of power or potentially
unethical behavior. Most of this is already in place, obviously more resources
and oversight is needed constantly to ensure that the police are protecting
citizens and not entrapping them or abusing their power for career
advancement.

~~~
pionar
> Would people flip out if there was a bill proposed to require all guns in
> the US to have a GPS tracker?

As a gun control advocate who also owns guns, yes, I would flip the f __* out.
While I have no problem if the government knows I own a gun (they know I own a
car), Putting a GPS tracker on it would result in two things:

1\. The government would know where I am at all times (I carry my Kahr CM-9
everywhere that allows it). 2\. Criminals would just remove the tracker.

~~~
herbig
You already carry a cellphone, I presume.

Also, I am against most forms of gun control, being otherwise very liberal in
my worldview.

However, I cannot possibly understand why a developer would need to carry a
gun at all times. You are inviting trouble with that, and more likely to die
to your own gun than you are to protect yourself from some bad guys.

If you want to carry a gun with you, I support your right to do so. But it's
the objectively wrong play.

~~~
wylee
A question (maybe a nitpick) about the word "liberal"\--wouldn't it be more
"liberal" to be _against_ gun control since less control means more liberty?

~~~
Crito
Nearly all political terminology is heavily overloaded. The best you can do is
take the words as they are used; trying to infer meaning from them
etymologically won't work.

For example, if we were to take the term "conservative" literally we would
expect Republicans to be rabid environmentalists.

------
logfromblammo
Cue the libertarian versus non-libertarian mudwrestling.

It has become increasingly clear to me that the ills of the U.S. pogroms
against some recreational drugs are due in no small part to the conversion of
the criminal justice system to a for-profit industry. As long as the jobs and
budgets are tied to the number of criminals processed rather than the peace
and order produced, cop cadres will titrate the frequency and severity of
their enforcement actions with the aim to ensure for themselves steady jobs
and pensions.

There is a positive feedback loop in there somewhere that must be broken
before it destroys the concept of justice completely.

~~~
jpttsn
That's interesting. Is your issue with the for-profit criminal justice system
that it's for-profit, or is it with the laws it upholds to bring the profits?
In other words, would this still be a problem if all laws upheld were, to your
mind, reasonable?

~~~
mirkules
Not the OP, but I'll take a crack at it. The problem is that creating order
(or, more generally speaking, rehabilitating unorderly parts of society) and
making money can sometimes be adversarial processes, thus creating a conflict
of interest.

Since it has become profitable (for private jails/prisons) to put people in
jail and keep them in jail, there is a clear incentive to punish lesser crimes
more severely and to not rehabilitate jailed people fully with hopes of them
becoming a repeat offender.

Therefore, the problem is that privatization of the criminal justice system is
at odds with what a criminal justice system should hope achieve: order,
appropriate punishment, and rehabilitation of those who break the law. In
fact, I would argue that it incentivizes almost the exact opposite.

------
jacobr
This article is just copy/pasted snippets from
[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/atf-uses-
ro...](http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/atf-uses-rogue-
tactics-in-storefront-stings-across-the-nation-b99146765z1-234916641.html)

~~~
publicfig
Note to those from the future: The submission has now been changed to link to
this. It used to link to
[http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/feds-
pai...](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/feds-paid-a-teen-
to-get-a-neck-tattoo-of-a-giant-squid-smoking-a-joint/282279/) under the title
"Feds Paid a Teen to Get a Neck Tattoo of a Giant Squid Smoking a Joint"

------
viraptor
So what they're doing in general goes in the direction completely opposite to
what the broken windows theory would suggest... It seems really weird to me -
it's one thing to try to be friendly with someone who's already planning a
crime and something completely different when you're providing both incentive
and funding for new crime (pawn shops).

~~~
jonnathanson
I'm surprised nobody's gone after them for entrapment. IANAL, but my
understanding is that the definition of entrapment is inducing someone to
commit a crime that he wouldn't have been likely to commit otherwise. In the
case of convincing a mentally disabled teenager to run drugs and guns, the
shoe seems to fit.

~~~
farginay
We have privatized prisons with quotas for the number of prisoners.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/private-prison-
quot...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/private-prison-
quotas_n_3953483.html)

What is a cry of "entrapment" next to incentive?

------
simbolit
This seems to be a paradigm case of entrapment. This should thus be easily
sorted out in the courts. Am I wrong?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment)

~~~
venomsnake
Well yes. But only 4% of the cases end in court - the others are plea deals.
So you need competent and capable defense, defendant that is willing to take
the risk against the huge prosecutor mallet the DA is swinging and probably
some luck.

The targets in the article are from parts of the society that are already
outcasts for various reasons.

(Not a lawyer, from observations)

~~~
simbolit
yeah, i forgot about the US system for a moment. i knew the 90+% plea bargain
number, but it is so utterly inconceivable that i always and again forget it.
simply does not compute.

------
saosebastiao
I remember watching Two Guns and thinking that it was an entertaining fiction
flick. When I read this story, I couldn't help but think that maybe it was a
bit more realistic than I gave it credit for.

On another note, how can these tactics not be construed as entrapment?

------
Crito
A mentally disabled teen at that.

------
ChuckMcM
My Dad has had a federal firearms license for a couple of decades but this
year he's not renewing. He is so sick and tired of the ATF and their
shenanigans. It is definitely a bureaucracy in need of some leadership.

------
Aloha
How is this not entrapment?

------
dinkumthinkum
So, this article is not biased at all ... It's pretty shoddy
reporting/editorializing. These zany anecdotes are pretty outlandish but why
is there only one or two sentences per anecdote? Surely, in this anti-Obama
rant, we could hav some details?

~~~
Crito
The linked article has been changed to an article with much more information.
Which details were you interested in?

------
mortyseinfeld
This is what you get when people keep on voting in big government types all in
the name of safety, security and social justice.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Size is irrelevant. When you declare your mission is a 'war on drugs' you're
going to end up losing, plain and simple. Meanwhile, very, very large
government programs like the NHS do well and provide healthcare to millions in
an affordable way with great outcomes.

There's something very lazy about arguing about government size. Its just dumb
simpleminded platitudes that libertarians pat each other on the back for, but
don't really say anything.

~~~
JHSheridan
> _Meanwhile, very, very large government programs like the NHS do well and
> provide healthcare to millions in an affordable way with great outcomes._

Isn't NHS facing bankruptcy?

~~~
grey-area
No, it is not. How does a government funded org ever face bankruptcy, unless
the government wants it to for political reasons? The NHS provides healthcare
to the entire nation for about 7% of GDP. If there's any question of
bankruptcy there are plenty of other areas to look at first.

~~~
dragonwriter
> How does a government funded org ever face bankruptcy, unless the government
> wants it to for political reasons?

It depends on the bankruptcy laws, and its possible that a "government funded"
org still would be covered by them.

OTOH, in this particular case, its probably the common confusion of
"bankruptcy" with "insolvency" playing a major role. Insolvency is usually the
reason an entity enters (voluntarily or not) bankruptcy, but the two states
are not equivalent.

~~~
JHSheridan
You're right. Insolvency is a more accurate term to use in this case.

------
bananacurve
This is intellectually gratifying. /s

~~~
steveklabnik

      > Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate
      > for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to
      > its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users see this; there
      > is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment
      > that you did.
    

[http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

