Canada lost a case against a couple of dimwitted "terrorists" that the mounties engaged in an expensive, drawn out plot to recruit them to build a bomb [1]. In that case, the conduct of police was judged to be entrapment based on a precedent in which it is written, "The state must conduct its law enforcement operations in a manner that is consonant with the community’s underlying sense of fair play and decency. It cannot manipulate suspects’ lives without limit, turning their day-to-day existence into a piece of theatre in which they are unwitting participants."

[1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/judge-...

> They show FBI radicalizes people and creates "terrorists", not catches terrorists. They act like criminals and intimidate people into compliance and then arrest them.

> But for some reason if you tried pretending to be a terrorist, you'd still be a criminal

That depends. The informant/infiltrator needs to "play along" till some extend. However, they should also not stimulate other people to commit crimes. It is a careful balance.

So for example, if Alice asks Bob to make a bomb, and Bob complies (with a fake bomb), then how exactly did Bob (who works for the FBI) create a terrorist? They didn't. They caught one by pretending being one. Apart from the ability to safely catch Alice red-handed, Bob can also testify the intend of Alice. 2 in 1.

Would you rather see it was Charlie who made the bomb, but then a real one? Of course not. Sometimes, this infiltration method is one of the few or the only viable way to catch a terrorist or criminal. It is not without risk though; it is high risk, high reward. Not the first option to be chosen; you want low risk, high reward options first.

EDIT: in hindsight it would've been better to use different names, ie. Mallory. I leave the above as-is.

By any reasonable interpretation, it is entrapment, and a fair number of lawyers out there were pretty unhappy, some vocally so, with the outcome of that whole shitshow.

It does. My understanding is that as long as the police don’t make the suggestion, then it’s not entrapment.

If the officer asks, “hey, do you wanna bomb that building?” it’s entrapment. If you ask “would you help me bomb that building?” and the officer sells you what you think is a bomb, it’s not. Of course, the officer isn’t necessarily wearing a wire or anything, and it’s possible to phrase things carefully to suggest something without literally making the suggestion, so it comes down to the officer’s testimony (“I never suggested that he commit a crime” and maybe “I did suggest that somebody ought to pay for that behavior”) versus the accused’s.