Lawyers: Can you explain this to me?
By andy77e
@andy77e (5156)
United States
January 31, 2013 9:10pm CST
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21288815
Ok, let's recap this real quick:
Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 21, was given a fake bomb by undercover agents posing as Islamist militants.
He was picked on the FBI radar after contacting a real Jihad recruiter in the middle east. Since then he was under investigation.
He then attempted to setup a bombing, but was intercepted by FBI agents, who gave him the prior mentioned fake bomb, with a cell phone detonator.
He dropped the bomb off at a Christmas Tree lighting event in Portland Oregon, then drove several blocks away and attempted to set the bomb off with a cell phone call. After calling the bomb, which recorded his phone number, he was arrested.
Interviews with friends concluded he was happy to do this terrorist act, and of course he was caught in the act, and the evidence is pretty clear cut, with his cell phone number recording that he called the fake bomb, and the fake bomb recording his number.
There are many times where I hear the evidence against and individual in a case, and wonder if the real story will ever come out. This is not one of them. It fairly clear cut to me.
So then to my question.....
[b]But Mohamud's lawyers argued that law enforcement officials had entrapped their client by inventing a crime.
"We are disappointed with the verdict," public defender Stephen Wax said, adding that he intended to appeal.[/b]
Really?..... Lawyers... REALLY?!?! Can anyone explain to me how this guy can possibly say this?
By what logic is this entrapment? This guy instigated the entire deal!
We are disappointed with the verdict?
Now, I get that this guy is a public defender and that's his job. But.... really? If I were in his shoes the statement would have read....
"My client is disappointed with the verdict," public defender Andy said, adding that he intended to volunteer at the execution.
And I'm completely serious, how in the world can you with a straight face, say your disappointed with the verdict when your client dialed a number to a bomb at a Christmas Tree lighting event?!?
I mean, I get that there are scummy lawyers, even lawyers I hate, and certainly lawyers I don't like in the slightest.... but they are not dumb. Lawyers are NOT stupid.
So lawyers.... do tell... what is up with this? Really, do you have an explanation?
2 people like this
5 responses
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
1 Feb 13
Let me start by saying I am NOT a lawyer. I'm a librarian who minored in law and studied criminal law pretty closely.
Setting up a situation like this is a very careful process. If the FBI agents contacted him, out of the blue, asked him to set a bomb and kill people, then gave him said (fake) bomb and detonator and he followed through, THAT is entrapment because they initiated contact and in a way coerced him into committing the crime. Personally, I don't like it much as a defense, but it has its place.
Now if this guy was looking to blow up some people, and the undercover agents posed as terrorists and said "we heard you want to kill some infidels" and he takes the bait, telling them his plans and asking them if they can get him a bomb, then he can't claim entrapment. Typically operations like this are very carefully planned out, with lawyers advising and guiding law enforcement to avoid any entrapment situation. It still happens sometimes, but not too often.
2 people like this
@andy77e (5156)
• United States
1 Feb 13
Situation 2, That is my understanding. This guy contacted a known jihad recruiter in Pakistan.
Perhaps it's my limited imagination.... But I don't see why an individual would be calling a known jihadist recruiter, without the intentional of doing jihad, which is to kill infidels.
Even then, from what I've read, he initiated contact to something else, in an additional event, which is where the FBI intercepted the contacted and setup the sting.
So in both cases, jihadi boy initiated both contacts, not the other way around.
I could be wrong, but that's my understanding from the sources I read.
2 people like this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
1 Feb 13
In every successful conviction where entrapment is charged the law enforcement people do ask the person if they want to back out and give them the chance to walk away. If it was entrapment then the Defence Lawyer should have introduced evidence to prove it.
2 people like this
@topffer (42156)
• France
1 Feb 13
I prepared a PhD in international criminal law, and I am probably stupid and dumb. If I was not, I would not give a response to somebody hating lawyers
. My PhD was about environmental laws, and I have not studied entrapment laws in USA. I will give you a sum up of what says the European Court of Justice about entrapment : entrapment is illegal and leads to an inadmissibility of the prosecution when it is done by a police member or somebody working for the police, like a police informer. But there is no entrapment when the plan to commit an offense/crime is born without the intervention of the police or when the police has merely given the opportunity to commit an offense/crime and has been able to record that the offense/crime was committed.
So here the question is : would this person would have committed a crime without the help of the police ? If yes, there is no entrapment, if no it is an entrapment. As he already attempted to setup a bomb before, I think that there is no entrapment and that the verdict is correct. Take this the way you want. Anyway, as I am stupid and dumb, this consultation is free.
. My PhD was about environmental laws, and I have not studied entrapment laws in USA. I will give you a sum up of what says the European Court of Justice about entrapment : entrapment is illegal and leads to an inadmissibility of the prosecution when it is done by a police member or somebody working for the police, like a police informer. But there is no entrapment when the plan to commit an offense/crime is born without the intervention of the police or when the police has merely given the opportunity to commit an offense/crime and has been able to record that the offense/crime was committed.
So here the question is : would this person would have committed a crime without the help of the police ? If yes, there is no entrapment, if no it is an entrapment. As he already attempted to setup a bomb before, I think that there is no entrapment and that the verdict is correct. Take this the way you want. Anyway, as I am stupid and dumb, this consultation is free.1 person likes this
@andy77e (5156)
• United States
1 Feb 13
I prepared a PhD in international criminal law, and I am probably stupid and dumb. If I was not, I would not give a response to somebody hating lawyers.
Actually I said there are some lawyers I hate, implying that I do not hate all of them. And I also specifically said Lawyers are not stupid. You simply can't be stupid and pass the bar exam. It's just not possible.
Anyway, as I am stupid and dumb, this consultation is free.
I demand a refund anyway.
2 people like this
.
@LovingMyBabies (85127)
• Valdosta, Georgia
1 Feb 13
There are lawyers in MyLot? 
If there are I have a few questions for them too! Lol.
Okay on a more serious note this is why I could never ever be a laeyer. I could not be on either side actually. I would not want to send people I believed to be innocent to prison just because "Its my job" and I would not want to defend someone I believe is guilty...
That is why I never wanted that job because it sucks and you probably don't get a choice if you want to keep your job...
If there are I have a few questions for them too! Lol.
Okay on a more serious note this is why I could never ever be a laeyer. I could not be on either side actually. I would not want to send people I believed to be innocent to prison just because "Its my job" and I would not want to defend someone I believe is guilty...
That is why I never wanted that job because it sucks and you probably don't get a choice if you want to keep your job...1 person likes this
@andy77e (5156)
• United States
1 Feb 13
Yeah, I don't know how that works either. I can choose to try and defend someone, but obviously no matter how professional I am, if I believe the guy did it, I certainly won't be putting in maxium effort, and when he loses I'll be happy.
I'd never say "I am disappointed... er... never mind I fully support the verdict even though I lost"
I just can't imagine being able to talk to this guy and say "oh yeah you are innocent, this was a setup. we need to appeal".
So I don't know if lawyers have the ability to recuse themselves from a job they simply don't want, or if they have no choice.
Or worse, if lawyers actually stuff their own sense of right and wrong, and willfully choose to support criminal action.
That's the one that pisses me off the most. If this lawyer knows full well his client is guilty, and yet will do everything in his power to clear him... then we need to shoot lawyers with their clients or something, because he's literally supporting mass murder.
2 people like this
@AidaLily (1450)
• United States
1 Feb 13
I am not a lawyer, but I do know that this has been done before on smaller scales of course and people have called it entrapment.
Entrapment: the luring by a law-enforcement agent of person into committing a crime.
I think because of the basic information you have given is why the lawyer said it was entrapment. There is no question that this person would have committed a crime, but the fact was the law enforcement did give him the fake bomb in which to commit the "crime".
Since they supplied the fake bomb and the cell phone detonator in a sense they did entrap the guy because they gave him the tools in which he could've committed the crime.
They could have kept him under investigation and this guy could have just kept talking and the moment he went to pick up a real bomb or something of the sort, then they could have nabbed him then and charged him.
They didn't tell him to outright commit the act but they did give him the stuff too.
It isn't a clear cut case at all.
I am happy that they arrested the guy, but I would hate for him to be able to get out on that technicality in appeals.
The lawyer wasn't stupid, but... I do hope he doesn't try to get this guy out on appeals.
1 person likes this
