Hacker News Reader

Comment by baltcode | Hacker News Reader

If every conversation among people of all political persuasions was exploited, you'd see a very different picture. You really think conversations among Tea Partiers, Democratic party drones, and other mainstream-type groups never bring up fantasies of violence on their supposed enemies? Or do you think there are no unstable and insecure people who could be turned among these political blocs?

View on HN

In particular, it seems like it'd be pretty easy to entrap some of the gun-show types who talk about "second amendment solutions", goading them into making more specific statements. I'm not sure it makes sense to lock up everyone who has a very generalized idea of using violence, though, especially if it takes coaching to get them to articulate it with any specifics.

It's not illegal to fantasize. It is illegal to attempt to blow up a bridge. Federal law is remarkably consistent on this, whether you vote Democrat, Republican, or Ron Paul.

It is illegal to attempt to blow up the bridge. But if you do so when led by an agent of the state, having been convinced by an agent of the state to perform the act, and with the necessary materials provided by the state, then you ought not be convicted of a crime.

The more worrying part of this article is the targeting of certain groups and certain ideologies. Even if this particular case wasn't entrapment, that the FBI is specifically targeting certain groups and egging them on to commit acts of violence, is undemocratic and just plain evil.

Conspiracy to commit foo, is illegal for many foo. So, it is illegal to fantasize out loud.

Conspiracy to commit foo generally means you are planing to commit foo, not talking about the best way to commit foo.

Only if you take real action towards committing foo. Talking about it does not constitute real action.

That isn't how conspiracy to commit works. There has to have been foo (or an attempt at foo), and demonstrable knowledge of that act of foo (or highly probable knowledge), and actions to further the committing of foo (direct or indirect I believe). Just exploring stuff in the hypothetical is completely legal.

Google 'entrapment "ruby ridge"'

Reply on news.ycombinator.com