BC Judge rules RCMP entrapped couple into committing attempted terrorist act

[Samzilla]

Just heard about this today...

A couple has gone free after a judge ruled that John Nuttall and Amanada Korody were entrapped by RCMP. The sting, dubbed Project Souvenir, cost $900k in police overtime alone.

A few words from the judge:
“This was not a situation in which the police were attempting to disrupt an ongoing criminal enterprise; rather, the offences committed by the defendants were brought about by the police and would not have occurred without their involvement. By any measure, this was a clear case of police-manufactured crime.”

The vulnerable couple was benign, she added.

“There was no imminent risk of harm to the public or the need to disrupt ongoing criminal activity,” Bruce said. “The police were acutely aware that without the constant supervision and direction provided by (the undercover officer), the defendants would be incapable of completing their part in the plan.

“Moreover, the fact that the police went to such great lengths to eliminate the many obstacles the defendants placed in their own path to accomplishing a terrorist mission, as well as obstacles the police concluded the defendants could never overcome because of their vulnerabilities and their lack of resources, renders any risk perceived by the RCMP quite farcical.”

Link to full article:
http://vancouversun.com/news/local-...overturned-as-judge-rules-pair-were-entrapped

 

[theprestige]

I disagree with the judge's ruling, as described in the OP.

For one thing, there's this:

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633

For another thing, I make a distinction between someone who is already willing to commit a crime, if only they had help, and someone who is initially unwilling to commit a crime, but who is convinced to commit a crime by active intervention of the police.

The latter is entrapment. The former is just crime.

If the couple had not been found by the police, they would have found, or been found by, someone more nefarious. If the police had not removed obstacles, someone more nefarious would have, or would have guided them to criminal acts which were not blocked.

I lack the resources to carry out a successful and effective terrorist attack. If the police came to me in the guise of a terrorist mentor, giving me the resources and the instruction to carry out a terrorist attack, I would report them. If they tried to cajole me, I would decline. If they tried to compel me, I would try to sabotage them, even at the cost of my own life if necessary.

I would not welcome their beneficence and celebrate the clearing of my path by trying to make my terrorist dream a reality--for I have no terrorist dream.

But if, in a moment of weakness, I gave in to their inducements and agreed to their plan, I would rightfully plead entrapment at my trial.

That's not what the judge describes here. What the judge describes here is a naive pair of douchebags who were looking to commit heinous acts of murder, if only they got some help. Some help was offered, and they took it. They took a lot of it. And they got busted for it. The judge is wrong. These people should be locked away, and the police techniques used to find them should be practiced everywhere.

 

[psionl0]

If the couple had not been found by the police, they would have found, or been found by, someone more nefarious. If the police had not removed obstacles, someone more nefarious would have, or would have guided them to criminal acts which were not blocked.

There would be no such thing as "entrapment" if you could just say that if the police hadn't induced them to commit a crime then somebody else might have.

The question is whether the police induced them to commit a crime they otherwise would not have committed. There is no evidence that they sought assistance to commit this crime so the police probably went too far.