- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
You must log in or register to comment.
Should have went to definitelynotafed.gov
I feel like this story is repeated every few years.
Reality is not a mob movie. There are no cleaners for hire. Just the FBI.
There are absolutely, unequivocally, killers for hire. You just aren’t going to find them on the hitman equivalent of Amazon dot fucking com.
Or you get hilarious incidents like this:
Hitman hires hitman who hires hitman who hires hitman who hires hitman who tells police
deleted by creator
Well, a mechanic fixes their own car…
1-800-GET-GOON.
They’re none too bright, but at least you know they’re not Feds.
Be careful, you might accidentally dial 1-800-3-GOONER
Hired goons?
Clandestine meeting … at Waffle House
Happens more often than you’d think.
The trailer is amazing
Oh thank god, they’re hippa compliant
They should have their slogan be “Our cleaner fees are cheaper than Airbnb!”
deleted by creator
Per the article, the FBI doesn’t run the website. That’s not entrapment. The owner reported her when she made a serious inquiry on a parody site.
Part of me is interested to check out this parody site for curiosity.
Part of me doesn’t want to take chances ending up on some police list 😂
I did it. It’s slightly funny, but also the article describes it pretty well.
deleted by creator
Yeah, not disagreeing with you on any part except the entrapment. If I say “fuck you” to a dude on the street and he stabs me, he still can get charged for trying to kill me. That’s not entrapment.
It’s not entrapment because she wasn’t convinced, coerced or forced by law enforcement to try and hire a hitman from that site; she did so entirely willingly and without intervention from law enforcement.
To use the entrapment defence, the defendant has to prove law enforcement had a hand in getting them to do something they otherwise wouldn’t have done.
Not exactly a lawyer, but I think it’s legal because it’s a private party operating the site and making a report, not LE.
Edit: I was corrected below, I had it wrong. But I’ll leave my original post unaltered, just know to read further
You’ve got some replies already, but I (not a lawyer) feel like you don’t quite have “entrapment” right.
Entrapment is when an average person might be duped into doing something unlawful in a circumstance where it might appear lawful or at least appear moral to the average person.
I don’t trust this example to hold up entirely, but here is a go at it: hitchhiking is illegal most places in the US, but should an officer pose as a hitchhiker that appears mortally wounded beg for a ride, you pick them up to take to the hospital, then they fine you for picking up a hitchhiker, would constitute as entrapment
Points for effort, but you still have it wrong.
Entrapment is when someone is convinced by a law enforcement agent to do something they wouldn’t normally do. That’s the key. The cops open up a shop for something completely illegal, you decide to walk in and buy whatever they purport to sell, straight to jail, not entrapment.
An undercover cop says “hey, we should go do X crime” “I don’t know man, pretty sure that’s illegal, I don’t want to do it” “nah it’ll be fine, you won’t do it, no balls, I’ll give you a huge cut”, that’s entrapment.
Typing these out, “entrapment” is not the most descriptive term, because the fake storefront is certainly a trap, but it’s not legal entrapment.
You are definitely right. I’m a little tipsy but would like to convince myself that I did already know that. I’ll add an edit to my fist comment to alert readers I had it wrong
