jacee Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 (edited) nuttall-and-korody-to-be-freed-after-b-c-judge-issues-stay-of-proceeding-in-terror-entrapment-case- Nuttall and Korody to be freed after B.C. judge issues stay of proceeding in terror entrapment case Justice Catherine Bruce says police went too far, using trickery and subterfuge to manipulate the pair. ... Bruce described Nuttall and Korody as "frightened" and "marginalized," and said the RCMP used that to their advantage, aiding and abetting the pair, and going to "enormous effort" to get them to carry out the plan, including providing inducements like an elaborate escape plan and offers of jobs. Entrapping and bribing them to commit a crime planned by RCMP. These unfortunate people didn't have the wherewithal to plan and execute the 'terrorism' crime they were convicted of. Justice will be done when the police are convicted, along with any politicians who may have 'induced' police to conspire to entrap these people. . Edited July 29, 2016 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 These unfortunate people didn't have the wherewithal to plan and execute the 'terrorism' crime they were convicted of. They still wanted to do it, though. Unfortunate people? Execution would be the appropriate punishment. They're a waste of oxygen. Justice will be done when the police are convicted, along with any politicians who may have 'induced' police to conspire to entrap these people.. Why don't you offer to put them up at your place. Such nice people, after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 Meh, incompetent police work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 nuttall-and-korody-to-be-freed-after-b-c-judge-issues-stay-of-proceeding-in-terror-entrapment-case- Nuttall and Korody to be freed after B.C. judge issues stay of proceeding in terror entrapment case Justice Catherine Bruce says police went too far, using trickery and subterfuge to manipulate the pair. ... Bruce described Nuttall and Korody as "frightened" and "marginalized," and said the RCMP used that to their advantage, aiding and abetting the pair, and going to "enormous effort" to get them to carry out the plan, including providing inducements like an elaborate escape plan and offers of jobs. Yeah, right decision. Every time the media helpfully posted the most damning video or audio evidence, it was obvious that these two had some degree of cognitive damage. I hope they got some rehabilitation along with their jail and court time. They still wanted to do it, though. A couple of druggies mouth off about how they'd like to make a political statement by killing people - how seriously can you take that? The cops saw an easy target, and took advantage. Funny how my white 'normal' (ie: home owner, job holder, non-drug user) neighbor who bullies and harasses a bunch of people, including threatening to kill them, rates nothing more than a visit from the police and advice to his victims to "record what he says or does" because the cops can't do anything. This guy already has a bunch of guns in his house, so the police wouldn't even have to 'help' him get the weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 (edited) I agree that they were manipulated but they also planted what they thought was a bomb. If they had been manipulated by someone who actually did want to do harm, there would have been a lot of dead people that day. On edit. They planted what they thought were three bombs. Anyone who thinks these people are harmless is kidding themselves Edited July 29, 2016 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 They still wanted to do it, though. Unfortunate people? Execution would be the appropriate punishment. They're a waste of oxygen. I guess that's what the RCMP were thinking too: 'Throwaway people', waste of oxygen, nobody will miss them ... and we get the credit for taking down 'terrorists'. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/judge-says-rcmp-entrapped-bc-couple-in-terror-case-overturns-guilty-verdict/article31199892/ Defence lawyers highlighted instances where undercover officers encouraged the couple to follow a quicker timeline or to opt for a more realistic terrorist plot and abandon earlier, less feasible plans such as taking a passenger train hostage or hijacking a nuclear submarine. That's what they are capable of coming up with. IE, nothing that they could actually carry out. I am very glad that the police conspiracy was exposed. We simply cannot have police entrapping vulnerable people into potentially dangerous crimes. And if police were subject to political pressure to find some terrorists, now's the time for them to start talking. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 I agree that they were manipulated but they also planted what they thought was a bomb. If they had been manipulated by someone who actually did want to do harm, there would have been a lot of dead people that day. On edit. They planted what they thought were three bombs. Anyone who thinks these people are harmless is kidding themselves No one says they're good people or they didn't do anything wrong. However, it was entrapment. Which completely taints any case the Crown had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 (edited) No one says they're good people or they didn't do anything wrong. However, it was entrapment. Which completely taints any case the Crown had. I think the RCMP showed poor judgment but to just chalk this up to the fact they are druggies is no better. If you believe that, you also have to believe that addicts can just be taken off the street at random and manipulated into massacring dozens of innocent people. Edited July 29, 2016 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 Stupid is not a criminal act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 (edited) I think the RCMP showed poor judgment but to just chalk this up to the fact they are druggies is no better. If you believe that, you also have to believe that addicts can just be taken off the street at random and manipulated into massacring dozens of innocent people. This really isn't about what the two did... it's about police actions that caused the case to be completely tossed out. We will never know what those two would or wouldn't have done because the cops acted so improperly. I bet there's a bunch of would-be "terrorists" on the Downtown East Side that would plant some "bombs" if the cops promised them some crack too... Why not set those terrorizers up too??? ""The world has enough terrorists. We do not need the police to create more out of marginalized people," - See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/nuttall-korody-terrorism-convictions-overturned-crown-appeals-1.2311942#sthash.ttolbolb.dpuf" Harsh words from the judge... Stupid is not a criminal act. Planting bombs is stupid, but not criminal. Is that what you're saying? Edited July 29, 2016 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 I bet there's a bunch of would-be "terrorists" on the Downtown East Side that would plant some "bombs" if the cops promised them some crack too... Why not set those terrorizers up too??? You're saying the RCMP were supplying them with drugs? Where did you get that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 You're saying the RCMP were supplying them with drugs? Where did you get that? It was an analogy... I'm saying that they could go to the Downtown East Side today, promise some druggies crack for planting bombs and you could have a few dozen more "terrorists" arrested. In this actual case, the cops didn't promise them drugs, but they did promise them work in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 It was an analogy... I'm saying that they could go to the Downtown East Side today, promise some druggies crack for planting bombs and you could have a few dozen more "terrorists" arrested. In this actual case, the cops didn't promise them drugs, but they did promise them work in the future. Maybe if you offered them drugs. but the RCMP didn't. You can't see a difference? Work doing what, planting more bombs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 Maybe if you offered them drugs. but the RCMP didn't. You can't see a difference? Work doing what, planting more bombs? So inducing them with drugs is a no-go, but other inducements are fine? Clearly the judge saw plenty of evidence that they were coerced into doing this, which taints the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 So inducing them with drugs is a no-go, but other inducements are fine? Clearly the judge saw plenty of evidence that they were coerced into doing this, which taints the case. I'm not disagreeing with the judge and I'm not saying there weren't other inducements but they weren't offered drugs. If they weren't addicts but did it because they were offered a million dollars, how would that sit with you? Would that be coercion as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 I'm not disagreeing with the judge and I'm not saying there weren't other inducements but they weren't offered drugs. If they weren't addicts but did it because they were offered a million dollars, how would that sit with you? Would that be coercion as well? Depends on the facts of the case. The fact that they were down and out druggies and vulnerable to this type of coercion seemed to be a factor in the judge's decision. Different factors would make a different case... a wild hypothetical is hard to evaluate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 Depends on the facts of the case. The fact that they were down and out druggies and vulnerable to this type of coercion seemed to be a factor in the judge's decision. Different factors would make a different case... a wild hypothetical is hard to evaluate. They weren't coerced. I think they were manipulated to a degree but they weren't coerced. Questionable as the RCMP's tactics may have been, these two are not victims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 I'm not disagreeing with the judge and I'm not saying there weren't other inducements but they weren't offered drugs. They gave them cash; if you want to help an addict on the street, do you give them cash on the assumption that they'll spend it on what they need or what they want? If they weren't addicts but did it because they were offered a million dollars, how would that sit with you? Would that be coercion as well? If they were obviously impaired in some ways, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 They gave them cash; if you want to help an addict on the street, do you give them cash on the assumption that they'll spend it on what they need or what they want? If they were obviously impaired in some ways, yes. Or buy a Lamborghini, that's what people do with money, buy stuff with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 They weren't coerced. I think they were manipulated to a degree but they weren't coerced. Questionable as the RCMP's tactics may have been, these two are not victims. OK... call it what you will... the judge thought an offence would not have taken place had the police not provided the opportunity for the "terrorism" to take place. In Canada, entrapment was defined as follows in R v Mack: "The principal elements or characteristics of the defence (of entrapment) are that an offence must be instigated, originated or brought about by the police and the accused must be ensnared into the commission of that offence by the police conduct; the purpose of the scheme must be to gain evidence for the prosecution of the accused for the very crime which has been so instigated; and the inducement may be but is not limited to deceit, fraud, trickery or reward, and ordinarily but not necessarily will consist of calculated inveigling and persistent importuning. The character of the initiative taken by the police is unaffected by the fact that the law enforcement agency is represented by a member of a police force or an undercover or other agent, paid or unpaid, but operating under the control of the police. In the result, the scheme so perpetrated must in all the circumstances be so shocking and outrageous as to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.... "[T]he defence of entrapment be recognized in only the clearest of cases." http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/E/Entrapment.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 OK... call it what you will... the judge thought an offence would not have taken place had the police not provided the opportunity for the "terrorism" to take place. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/E/Entrapment.aspx Maybe not but these two were still willing to blow a bunch of people up and actually thought they had carried it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 It was an analogy... I'm saying that they could go to the Downtown East Side today, promise some druggies crack for planting bombs and you could have a few dozen more "terrorists" arrested. In this actual case, the cops didn't promise them drugs, but they did promise them work in the future. Interesting that what these two wanted enough to do what police told them to ... was jobs. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 Maybe not but these two were still willing to blow a bunch of people up and actually thought they had carried it out. I never said they didn't. I never said they were upstanding citizens. For an entrapment defense, that doesn't matter. The police tainted the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 They weren't coerced. I think they were manipulated to a degree but they weren't coerced. Questionable as the RCMP's tactics may have been, these two are not victims. Yes they were victimized. How can you be so certain that they weren't coerced - ie, threatened in some way? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 Yes they were victimized. How can you be so certain that they weren't coerced - ie, threatened in some way? . Now you're just making stuff up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.