lemm.ee

16 points

3 months ago

The question they asked is in presumption for this to be true.

Your non-answer speaks volumes.

What is the acceptable child to terrorist death ratio?

If you don’t know, the rational answer is 0 for the same reason why we dont let suspected pedophiles adopt children as a sacrifice to catch a bigger pedo ring.

report

[ - ]

capital@lemmy.world

3 points

3 months ago

The question is kind of bullshit though. It’s meant to either get the other side to have an emotional response and say none or to be what you want perceived as a piece of shit and give a number. Let’s try it on another question.

How many child deaths are permissible before we ban bicycles? Cars? Jump rope? Pools? If it’s not 0, how dare you sir or ma’am. We’re talking about children here!

There is a reason certain buildings are off-limits unless it starts being used by the opposing force’s fighters. How would you fight a war against someone if they could just strike from an ambulance and then drive off, scott-free?

Also just want to throw out there that this type of thing is exactly what those who would use human shields want you to do. “Back off or we will put more civilians in front of us.” Then they will publicize the aftermath to help their propaganda war.

report

KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com

[ - ]

2 points

3 months ago

If you don’t know, the rational answer is 0 for the same reason why we dont let suspected pedophiles adopt children as a sacrifice to catch a bigger pedo ring.

the rational answer for “how many deaths in war are ok” is also zero, but that’s literally never happened.

War incurs casualty, and it also incurs civilian casualty, it’s simply impossible to have a 0% rate.

why we dont let suspected pedophiles adopt children as a sacrifice to catch a bigger pedo ring.

this is also stupid, how do you think they catch pedophiles? Most of the time it’s through CSAM. Physical or digital, and if it’s physical, they’re producing it, and if it’s digital, it’s being sourced somewhere. Those sources are a real easy get in exchange for a potentially lighter sentence.

report

[ - ]

2 points

3 months ago

I am also anti war so yes. I also dont judge life based on age but emotional sentiment does spread the ideal of stop killing eachother please.

The practice you described while i know this true in the US it may not be legal or moral elsewhere

I believe Europe has specifically forbidden “entrapment”

Entrapment: Law enforcement must avoid entrapment, which involves inducing someone to commit a crime they would not otherwise have committed. This is generally illegal in Europe and could lead to cases being thrown out in court.

report

KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com

[ - ]

1 point

3 months ago

but emotional sentiment does spread the ideal of stop killing eachother please.

entrapment is also illegal here in the US? It’s legal to “bait” someone here though. you can sell drugs, and then get someone to buy them from you without influencing them, then arrest them, that’s perfectly legal.

like im pretty sure it’s a legally protected thing in the constitution?

report

[ - ]

1 point

3 months ago

Governements can interpret laws however they want but i am pretty sure that some of that baiting is considered entrapment.

Feeling tempted to buy drugs is not a crime, acting on it is. If the undercover cop wasn’t selling they may not have gotten tempted at that exact point of weakness.

Realistically it probably depends more on your lawyer and the jury then the letter of law though. Thats seems The same anywhere.

report

KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com

[ - ]

1 point

3 months ago

Feeling tempted to buy drugs is not a crime, acting on it is. If the undercover cop wasn’t selling they may not have gotten tempted at that exact point of weakness.

yeah, and they’re arresting the people who buy the drugs, not the people who maybe want to buy drugs. Thats the only way you can stick a charge.

report

[ - ]

2 points

3 months ago

I was not still not convinced that did not count, so i did some research. In the example your given, not having the predisposition to buy drugs appears a valid defence.

"In the United States, two competing tests exist for determining whether entrapment has taken place, known as the “subjective” and “objective” tests.

The “subjective” test looks at the defendant’s state of mind; entrapment can be claimed if the defendant had no “predisposition” to commit the crime.

The “objective” test looks instead at the government’s conduct; entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would usually have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime."

In Germany its a lot more strict

“In German law, it is normally forbidden to induce or persuade someone to commit a crime or to attempt to do so. However, the German Federal Court of Justice has held that entrapment by undercover police agents is not a reason to stay the case per se.”

And then there’s the UK which is vague as fuck?.

“The main authority on entrapment in England and Wales, held to be equally applicable in Scotland, is the decision of the House of Lords in R. v. Loosely (2001). A stay is granted if the conduct of the state was so seriously improper that the administration of justice was brought into disrepute. In deciding whether to grant a stay, the Court will consider, as a useful guide, whether the police did more than present the defendant with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime.”

And then there is the european convention on humans rights which appears more option then law.

"Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been interpreted as forbidding prosecution of acts induced by undercover officers. In the case of Teixeira de Castro v Portugal, the European Court of Human Rights found that the prosecution of a man for drugs offences after being asked by undercover police to procure heroin was a breach of the defendant’s rights under Article 6 as the investigating officers’s actions “went beyond those of undercover agents because they instigated the offence and there is nothing to suggest that without their intervention it would have been committed.”

report