Eso no sirve para nada porque si hay "entrapment" te absuelven en el juicio.
" In 2013, a British Columbia couple were found guilty of attempting to blow up the British Columbia Parliament Buildings. In 2016, the verdict was overturned because the couple were found to have been entrapped into the plot by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. "
"Federal courts recognized entrapment as a defense starting with Woo Wai v. United States, 223 F.1d 412 (9th Cir. 1915).[29] The U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider the question of entrapment in Casey v. United States,[30] since the facts in the case were too vague to definitively rule on the question; but, four years later, it did. In Sorrells v. United States,[2] the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a North Carolina factory worker who gave in to an undercover Prohibition officer's repeated entreaties to get him some liquor. It identified the controlling question as "whether the defendant is a person otherwise innocent whom the government is seeking to punish for an alleged offense which is the product of the creative activity of its own officials"
Bueno pero ahí no sabemos si el operativo fue a raíz de que las niñas o sus padres dieron la voz de alarma y a partir de ahí tomaron las riendas los policías para ver hasta donde iba a ser capaz de llegar el individuo, que parece que tuvo voluntad e intención de citarse. Tampoco sabemos, eso es cierto, si la proposición de cita fue dada por él o por la policía, en ese supuesto