Does Entrapment Really Make Good People Do Bad Things?

I'm in the middle of writing my master's thesis, which focuses on the subclass of citizens ("undesirables," dissidents, etc.) who are being targeted by domestic surveillance programs solely because of their politics. One of the limitations on my research is the occurrence rate of illegal acts (violent and nonviolent) that had undercover federal agents or informants attached to them. There are a host of questions involved when discussing entrapment in the context of undercover operations, and attempting to get to the bottom of how these things happen is a critical point.

When someone is arrested for attempting to blow up a building, for instance, or some kind of federal firearm violation, or other illegal act, generally the supporters of the accused scream "entrapment." They claim that the accused was set up, that they would NEVER have done anything like that, if the undercover agent wasn't whispering in their ear, making it possible, making it easy. On the other side, law enforcement and prosecutors assert that at the end of the day, that person made a choice to engage in something illegal. Who's right? Is federal law enforcement attempting to trick, cajole and even push normally law abiding people into illegal acts so they can be arrested? Or does the responsibility ultimately rest with the person who made the choice to 1) associate with people who are doing those kinds of things, and 2) making the choice to involve themselves in the act itself?

The answer to all questions is yes. Yes, the feds are cheating and trying to entrap you and making it all so easy. They're showing up at your events and cooking your food for you or teaching you firearms class or pretending to be a solid part of your group. And YES, you have a responsibility to use your head and say no to the stupid crap.

Let's look at the federal side of it. Due to the rules they've put into place, undercover work and entrapment are bread and butter for their investigations. You can complain about it, rail against it, point out the shady nature of it but hey, that's the game. The choices are simple: 1) play the game, 2) change the game, or 3) refuse to be part of the game. That's it. You don't get to dictate the terms, the players' actions, or the ways that the rules change after you start playing. You definitely don't get to stop the game if your opponent starts cheating---and they do cheat in every way possible. So your only options are to play with the current rules, change the game on them, or not even get involved.

If you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. That's a time-honored proverb, and one that bears repeating now. If you make your group public or openly discuss even one of your activities, you're saying "Hey guys, come make us a target." They're happy to oblige. Remember---if even one of your members runs his mouth one time, you are all under targeted attention and an investigation. If you're thinking about that one guy in your group that you have to repeatedly tell to shut up, you're already done. If you're one of the guys shrugging and saying "well I'm already on the list so who cares," then you're not only playing an unwinnable game against the undefeated opponent, you're just laying down all your pieces for them. People often allow known or suspected informants in their groups because they "aren't doing anything illegal," or because they think it's a good way to "keep an eye on them." Some are too afraid to be wrong and accuse an "innocent party." Here's a cold, hard truth. You cannot allow the fox in the henhouse and think that you'll be able to keep him from eating the chickens. That's not defeatist, it's not cowardly. It's understanding the space you're playing in. If you've got a person in your group who is actively trying to perform certain types of actions, or trying to get you to, and you aren't into all that but you don't immediately and completely cut that person off, you will lose the game. End of story.

They have the time to wait. They have the money, the manpower, the technology and the patience. Perhaps most important is, they don't care if you get killed in the process. They don't care if their little operation gets a woman holding her baby shot in the head. They don't care about barbecuing children. They simply don't care, and the sooner you understand that, the better. No matter how friendly they are if they approach you, if they could possibly nail you with anything, they would---and many of them don't mind making it up, either. If you're deemed a threat, they will do whatever they have to in order to 'win' the game. Very few people have the training or the skillset to go up against that game as is, and quite frankly, there are all kinds of current examples of people who have tried and failed. Does that mean you give up? Just be all compliant and follow all their idiotic regulations? No way. NO. And don't even claim that's what I'm saying, because it's not.

That brings me to the next option: Changing the game.

This requires a bit of skill. It requires some training. It requires you being way more than the average guy who just posts memes, camps out on social media, and talks a big game. You're going to have to learn some skills you don't have, and it will also mean not bragging once you have them. It means you finding a way to flip the script, and use the game against them by either changing the rules, or changing the game itself. It's not a small thing, and 99% of people who claim to be part of a "movement" don't have the skills to do it. I wish more people did, because if you had any idea how much churn you can cause for them by changing the game, you'd have a new hobby in no time.

What does changing the game mean? It means monkeywrenching and generally being a pain in their rear ends. It means flooding them with all kinds of meaningless information that's all encrypted and cat pics and NFL rosters and recipes for your mom's beef stew. It means sticking it to them all over the place, and maybe saying no to their crappy laws and simply going about your life. It means a hundred different things to a hundred different people. I won't get into a list of things you could do, but there are plenty of things out there. Do some research. Have some fun. You could do a huge list of things that would annoy the living piss out of them, and it would even be legal. You could, for instance, check out the #GabResist hashtag on Gab.ai. People have been posting interesting ideas in there all day today. (If you get put on the waiting list, no worries. You'll get in after a few days and you'll still be able to see all the posts because it's uncensored---unlike Twitter).

Your third option is to not play the game at all. Not playing the game means just that; you literally refuse to be a part of it.

If you're refusing to play, you're not going to rallies, not running around on FB bragging about your bravery and posting your training photos in which anyone with even moderate knowledge of how to properly leverage Google and a bit of time can find every person there and lay out the last 10 years of their lives. It means not being involved with any groups, not allowing people to involve you in their drama and their plans. It means that you don't allow yourself to be put in situations where people can even suggest stupid games to you because either 1) you're quite clear that it won't be tolerated or 2) you refuse to be around those folks to begin with. If you're in a big group, you would consider leaving it. Go small and local---and by local, I mean your own area and neighborhood, not spread out over 50 miles.

People who "aren't playing" do their own thing. They don't need the accolades, they don't need the attention, they just do what they do. And that "thing" they do may be a support role that most don't even know about.

The part of liberty that's so uncomfortable for a lot of people isn't that the feds are running around trying to put us in jail. It's not even the part where they'll cheat to do it, because that's been going on for decades and it's not going to stop. And like it or not, there are plenty of folks running around screaming "liberty!" that have no intention of, or interest in, the personal responsibility aspect. It's much easier to focus on the part where we should all get to "do what we want as long as we don't infringe" and all of that. Sure, that's an amazing concept and I support it wholeheartedly. But that part where we also have to accept the consequences of our actions---that part is a bit more difficult.

When someone comes to you and suggests that maybe it's time to start shooting, or maybe it would "send a message" to take over a building or bomb something or whatever else, you can rail about the unfairness of the game (and rightfully so). You can complain that they're trying to entrap you, and they probably are. But you always, ALWAYS have a choice about what and who you choose to be involved with. You can be offered the means and opportunity to do all kinds of things, but you don't have to say yes. Have we really gotten to the point where instead of pointing to our little friends as the source of the bad word we said or the cigarette we smoked as kids, we point to the informant or the undercover agent as the reason why we decided to take part in something bigger?

I'm not suggesting that we all be nice and compliant. There's plenty we can do, and God knows I've done my time on the Capitol steps. But if we can't accept responsibility for the decisions we choose to make, what is THAT? As the saying goes, don't play stupid games with stupid people. And if you do, don't claim the devil made you do it, because the devil is always going to be the devil. You, however, get to be something a lot better than that.

[Edited to add image]