Police entrapment: Nuttall and Korody freed

[cybercoma]

Only in the most pedantic sense of arguing semantics. Inducements are a coercion.

Coercion /koʊˈɜːrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force.^[1

"or some other form of pressure" inducements can be pressure.

[cybercoma]

The judge absolutely did not use the word coercion. Unlike you, she knows the definition of the world.

You're being a pedantic goof and you're not even right. Coerce means to pressure someone into something. Bribing them or offering inducements is a way of pressuring people into doing things whether you want to admit it or not.

[Wilber]

You're being a pedantic goof and you're not even right. Coerce means to pressure someone into something. Bribing them or offering inducements is a way of pressuring people into doing things whether you want to admit it or not.

I gave you the definition of coercion. Rewarding someone is not coercion. Find another word. Edited July 31, 2016 by Wilber

[jacee]

The question of coercion will no doubt be addressed in some disciplinary/court/inquiry process.

.

[Spiderfish]

Coercion /koʊˈɜːrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force.[1

These idiots were not forced into anything. They're both dangerous and have clearly indicated a strong desire to harm or kill people.

I'm trying to imagine all the excuses everyone will be making if and when they succeed in their mission. I mean, if they ever succeed in blowing a bunch of people up or running them over or whatever, it will kind of be on us since its not like we weren't aware of their motivations or intentions.

Of course, there will be those in such an instance who will blame the cops for improper procedure resulting in failing to protect people. Can't blame the lunitic would-be terrorists, they're the victims.

Edited July 31, 2016 by Spiderfish

[eyeball]

You can blame them just as much as the police for making the world a more terrifying place.

It takes all kinds.

[jacee]

These idiots were not forced into anything. They're both dangerous and have clearly indicated a strong desire to harm or kill people.

I'm trying to imagine all the excuses everyone will be making if and when they succeed in their mission. I mean, if they ever succeed in blowing a bunch of people up or running them over or whatever, it will kind of be on us since its not like we weren't aware of their motivations or intentions.

Of course, there will be those in such an instance who will blame the cops for improper procedure resulting in failing to protect people. Can't blame the lunitic would-be terrorists, they're the victims.

First, Amanda Karody has never expressed terrorist sympathies or desire to kill.

Second, you have used the terms "idiots" and (sp) "lunatic". Both terms are now considered derogatory slurs, but at on time were the labels for developmental challenges (mental retardation) and certain mental illnesses respectively.

So you are not far off the mark.

Third, WTF are RCMP doing grooming, intimidating, harassing, coercing, teaching, planning and providing two such incapacitated individuals with the means to commit crimes that they otherwise would not have and could not have committed?

Fourth, the officers knew at some point that Nuttall and Karody were not capable of planning and carrying out anything effectively.

That's when it should have ended.

But instead the RCMP pushed them into doing something they could not and would not have done on their own.

Fifth, the judge (blamed the cops) ruled that it was entrapment .

If the RCMP are smart, they will learn from this and move on.

.

[jacee]

Coercion /koʊˈɜːrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force.[1

"or some other form of pressure" inducements can be pressure.

Intimidation ...

The contact officer represented himself as "a businessman with jihadist ties".

That's intimidating.

When Nuttall didn't come up with a viable terrorist plan, he was told it would be seen as "a sign of disrespect".

That's a threat.

There is a lot more about police coercion that needs to be investigated.

A public inquiry? Can't lay charges.

My preference would be criminal charges against police and superiors who approved and supported this "sting".

But who's going to investigate and lay charges?

.

[Spiderfish]

First, Amanda Karody has never expressed terrorist sympathies or desire to kill.

Really? So when she says "Fight them, light or heavy, with whatever you can. If you have a stone, throw it. If you have a bomb, drop it." you figure these are merely loving words from a kind and gentle soul?

Second, you have used the terms "idiots" and (sp) "lunatic". Both terms are now considered derogatory slurs, but at on time were the labels for developmental challenges (mental retardation) and certain mental illnesses respectively.

I'm sure any term used would likely offend your delicate sensibilities. Your reference to "derogatory slurs" is a nice touch though, really drives home the point that I must be an insensitive bigot and hater. good play.

Third, WTF are RCMP doing grooming, intimidating, harassing, coercing, teaching, planning and providing two such incapacitated individuals with the means to commit crimes that they otherwise would not have and could not have committed?

There's every possibility that the police went too far, especially considering that this was the rulling determination of the judge. I'm not trying to defend the police, my point was that these two have clearly shown to be willing harm to innocent people, and no matter if it was entrapment or not, they still had free-will to make good decisions which they chose not to do.

Fourth, the officers knew at some point that Nuttall and Karody were not capable of planning and carrying out anything effectively.

That's when it should have ended.

I can't disagree, obviously their tactics were flawed.

Fifth, the judge (blamed the cops) ruled that it was entrapment .

Yup.

BTW, since we're bringing up spelling and punctuation, what's with the extra periods you constantly place at the end of your posts?

Edited August 1, 2016 by Spiderfish

[Wilber]

Intimidation ...

The contact officer represented himself as "a businessman with jihadist ties".

That's intimidating.

When Nuttall didn't come up with a viable terrorist plan, he was told it would be seen as "a sign of disrespect".

That's a threat.

.

So why not go to the police and report they had been threatened by someone with jihadist ties and ask for protection?

[jacee]

Really? So when she says "Fight them, light or heavy, with whatever you can. If you have a stone, throw it. If you have a bomb, drop it." you figure these are merely loving words from a kind and gentle soul?

http://www.theprovince.com/touch/story.html?id=10874674

The Surrey couple, their faces covered, are seated on a motel bed and speaking to a video camera set up by undercover police officers.

Pffft!

It's very easy to get mentally challenged people to say anything you want to hear.

I'm beginning to think the RCMP are mentally challenged too.

I'm sure any term used would likely offend your delicate sensibilities. Your reference to "derogatory slurs" is a nice touch though, really drives home the point that I must be an insensitive bigot and hater. good play.

I was pointing out that you were right: You used out-of-date derogatory terms, but identified their mental challenges fairly accurately nonetheless.

And I am beginning to think the RCMP are "idiots" and "lunatics" too.

There's every possibility that the police went too far, especially considering that this was the rulling determination of the judge. I'm not trying to defend the police, my point was that these two have clearly shown to be willing harm to innocent people, and no matter if it was entrapment or not, they still had free-will to make good decisions which they chose not to do.

They don't have the wherewithal to withstand RCMP grooming, intimidation and coercion.

I can't disagree, obviously their tactics were flawed.

Yup.

Yup.

And the RCMP motives are extremely suspect.

Playing an ego game with CSIS?

Did CSIS do a number on the RCMP?

Political pressure to 'catch some terrorists'?

Inquiry, investigation and charges definitely in order ... all the way up the chain of command.

.

Edited August 2, 2016 by jacee

[jacee]

So why not go to the police and report they had been threatened by someone with jihadist ties and ask for protection?

Because they have the mental age of children.

Wilber ... Spiderfish ... I hope you don't think you're making the RCMP look better by trashing these mentally challenged people.

You're not.

You're making the RCMP look even stupider than they already did.

.

Edited August 2, 2016 by jacee

[Wilber]

Because they have the mental age of children.

Wilber ... Spiderfish ... I hope you don't think you're making the RCMP look better by trashing these mentally challenged people.

You're not.

You're making the RCMP look even stupider than they already did.

.

Children who were willing to blow up dozens of innocent people. I'm not trying to make the RCMP look good but if you were threatened by someone with jihadist ties and told to murder people, what would you do, go along with them? Do you think all children would go along with them and plant bombs for them or would they ask someone for help?

[msj]

Curious to know who here has read any of the recent verdict?

I'm just getting into it and it is pretty enlightening reading.

[jacee]

Children who were willing to blow up dozens of innocent people. I'm not trying to make the RCMP look good but if you were threatened by someone with jihadist ties and told to murder people, what would you do, go along with them? Do you think all children would go along with them and plant bombs for them or would they ask someone for help?

I think after the RCMP turned Nuttall and Karody into terrorists they could never be on their own ... they need supervision, supportive housing and support from a mosque possibly.

.

[Wilber]

I think after the RCMP turned Nuttall and Karody into terrorists they could never be on their own ... they need supervision, supportive housing and support from a mosque possibly.

.

I know your dislike of the police makes it difficult to question the motives and actions of others but I think they are valid questions.

I do agree that they shouldn't be left on their own.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Wilber

[jacee]

I know your dislike of the police makes it difficult to question the motives and actions of others but I think they are valid questions.

I do agree that they shouldn't be left on their own.

Again:

I don't "dislike" police.

That's immature baiting.

I demand GOOD policing for the money we pay them.

I dislike the 'blue wall of silence' that has officers compromising their own integrity and quality of performance to cover up bad performance by other officers.

Accountability for bad policing has been minimal and must improve.

And yes, Nuttall and Karody require supportive living. If they'd had that before, maybe they could not have been taken advantage of by RCMP the way they were. No social worker would have allowed clients to be mistreated the way they were.

And the RCMP have no credibility to perform any supervisory duty of them. It's obvious from comments here that the RCMP now have a vendetta against them and will try to smear and entrap them again.

The judge has ruled that it was entrapment. Have we heard any response from the RCMP yet? Any acceptance of responsibility? Any apology?

No. Just a smear job.

.

Edited August 2, 2016 by jacee

[ReeferMadness]

Children who were willing to blow up dozens of innocent people.

Go back and read the judge's ruling. She found that it wasn't credible that these people would do anything on their own. They lacked the financial resources, the focus to create and stick to a plan and the capacity even to figure out a credible plan. I'll bet their are thousands more just like them on the streets of Canada's cities and millions more around the world. Would you like to lock all of them up?

I'm not trying to make the RCMP look good but ...

Really? Then just what exactly IS your point?

For years, there have been stories that the FBI has run operations to lead vulnerable people into terrorist plots so they could arrest them. It''s good for policing budgets and PR for federal security agencies to boast that they stopped some vile terrorist plot. Now, unsurprisingly, we find that those same tactics have leaked across the border under the Harper neoconservative regime. It turns out that it's easier to entrap harmless people with mental and emotional problems than it is to find and catch people who are really dangerous.

What is surprising is the lack of outrage on the part of seemingly otherwise intelligent people that our national police force is wasting time, wasting money and entrapping people who aren't dangerous.

[jacee]

Entrapment decision a pyrrhic victory if Bill C-51 not amended:

Bill C-51 goes beyond reasonable suspicion by allowing people to be targeted for their views and associations

Setting up the mentally ill or hapless to commit crimes they could never carry out on their own and spending tax dollars to save us from these plots is at best ludicrous. Our agencies should be dealing with actual threats, not creating them.

The B.C. court ruling highlights the need for major amendments to Bill C-51. Rather than appealing it, Ottawa must curtail the carte blanche given [C-51] to national security agencies.

Police have always targeted people for their views and associations.

With Bill C-51, Harper's ammendment to the Anti-terror Act now in effect, people can be 'searched and seized', incarcerated and interrogated using all techniques except physical and sexual abuse ... for nothing more that their 'views and associations'.

Indigenous activists, political activists, environment activists, NeoNazis, anyone they choose to target can be hauled off to secret locations until they can threaten and torture them into 'confessing', ratting out others, or entrap them into criminal activity.

CSIS on steroids, and the RCMP on an ego trip to 'one up' CSIS.

No crime, no actions, no evidence necessary, not even 'reasonable suspicion':

Just views and associations.

So why would freedom of expression and freedom of association still be in the Constitution?

Might as well just remove them, because

Bill C-51 already did!

It was the police who were the leaders of the plot.

Waaaaaaaay too much power.

Canada ... the police state.

.

Edited August 10, 2016 by jacee

[eyeball]

A Keystone police state....at best.

[eyeball]

I see little reason to believe the security/police/intelligence institutions that governments sicced on countries decades ago functioned any better than the institutions now charged with trying to clean up the mess.

And things just keep getting better.

[Wilber]

Go back and read the judge's ruling. She found that it wasn't credible that these people would do anything on their own. They lacked the financial resources, the focus to create and stick to a plan and the capacity even to figure out a credible plan. I'll bet their are thousands more just like them on the streets of Canada's cities and millions more around the world. Would you like to lock all of them up?

I have already said more than once that I don't disagree with the judge's decision. in fact, I think what the RCMP did in this case was unethical.

Nuttall and Korody expressed a real desire to kill people and carried out all the steps necessary to do so. If that RCMP officer had been a real jihadist manipulating them, there would have been dead and maimed people all over the Legislature lawn that morning, so as far as there being "thousands more just like them" on Canada's streets, we all better pray that there aren't.

There a lot of damaged people on our streets but unlike Nuttall and Korody only a tiny number of them would have any inclination toward committing murder, let alone mass murder.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Wilber

[square]

Kind of off topic. If the police dress an undercover cop as a sex trade worker as part of a prostitution sting does that constitute entrapment?

[Wilber]

Kind of off topic. If the police dress an undercover cop as a sex trade worker as part of a prostitution sting does that constitute entrapment?

It would depend on what they did. Undercover work is not supposed to be about entrapment, it is gathering evidence. The RCMP stepped over the line with the amount of help they gave Nuttall and Korody planning and committing the crime.

[TimG]

Kind of off topic. If the police dress an undercover cop as a sex trade worker as part of a prostitution sting does that constitute entrapment?

I thought the rule was a cop cannot encourage someone to commit a crime.

If they just make themselves available as an accomplice if asked then it is not entrapment.