The charge of entrapment is separate from the severity of the crime someone is entrapped into or whether the entrapment would be considered a sufficient motive, were it not simulated. It is merely enough that the police coerced the defendant.
The blackmail, however, was for a delayed use of force - loss of freedom/liberty - which is tantamount to loss of life, and indeed in this case Ross lost the remainder of his life. It would be uncharitable (again) to suggest that it was merely about property. But (again) all one needs to establish entrapment is threat to property.
> This makes it nearly impossible to entrap someone into hiring a hitman, without even getting into the particulars of this case.
Can you support this argument by citing the law, precedent or a summary? (This claim is not supported by your webcomics.)
> even if someone hold a gun to your head and tells you to kill someone else, it's still criminal if you do that Please stop referring to webcomics as "the" law guide.
Of course its still criminal. Do not confuse this with whether it is entrapment. (If done by the police) It is both entrapment and it is criminal.
Where are you getting the idea that if the police hold a gun to your head to make you shoot someone that isn't entrapment? Can you cite the law or precedent? Again, the webcomic does not cover this: in the webcomic, the police are not holding the gun.
> (B) is necessary, but not sufficient, to support a claim of entrapment
Right, one also needs (A).
> So he needs a quote of him saying "NO" to the idea in the chat logs (or something equivalent to this, in the admitted evidence), then police pressure, then him changing his mind.
This is not the case. If someone never says "NO" because the police never approach a defendant, but the police apply pressure and then make the approach after the pressure is applied, this still counts as entrapment.
> You can see how it played out in the law guide sample: the young lady refuses to commit the crime for money, but relents when a police agent tells her that lives are at stake. That refusal is very important!
Please stop referring to the webcomic as "the" law guide.
The refusal is sufficient, but not necessary to establish in court that there was pressure applied. All the the defense needs to do is show that there was pressure (coercion). One way to do this is to show that the defendant said no, pressure was applied, and then the defendant said yes. But it is not the only way to establish that there was coercion/pressure.
As my source correctly states to qualify the quote you cherrypicked:
"Instead, a defendant will need to prove that the law enforcement officer took additional actions to force a person into an illegal act. The following may be considered sufficient actions to force a person into committing a crime they otherwise wouldn’t:
- Fraudulent claims or promises
- Depending on the specifics, verbal harassment or flattery
- Threats against a person, their property, or their job"
That is, "the defendant has to offer evidence to clear their willing involvement in a crime." In this case, the defendant would offer the fact that they were blackmailed and defrauded.
> If you can find something in the chat log, his legal briefs, or wherever that proves he said "no" before he said "yes", please offer it. Your source correctly confirms that he has the burden of proof to show this and establish entrapment.
It is not my responsibility to establish this. It is intellectually dishonest to presume that it is my responsibility to do this. It is also intellectually dishonest to suggest that the only way to show that there was police coercion is to show a "no" and then a "yes". Coercion can be established many different ways.
> I'm sorry if I come off as harsh, I certainly don't intend that.
Wrt CCE, this is also a rounding down of the argument. DPR will be facing separate charges in a separate case for the hitman, will he not? The hitman bit was brought up as an anecdote to support the CCE charge and not something that the defense could challenge as entrapment at that time. This is why I bring it up.
By uncharitable I merely mean that you aren't willing to take the actual argument. You have not directly addressed the argument. At this point I am convinced that you are not willing to.
You don't come off as harsh. I would use the word dismissive. I've used the word 'uncharitable'. Maybe 'troll'?
Argument from exhaustion against a straw man.
----------------------------------
Let's go forward from this point.
If the police entered a mall, forced someone at gunpoint to kill another person, could that person then be arrested for murder with no possibility of arguing that they were entrapped?
Suppose that before or during being held at gunpoint, at no point did they tell anyone that "no" they wouldn't kill.