That comic doesn&#x27;t explain <i>&quot;what entrapment actually is&quot;</i> but rather it explains how a few trite but common misconceptions about the law as it pertains to those circumstances are not precisely entrapment. I don&#x27;t think his reasoning is very good. ie: <i>&quot;It&#x27;s amazing that this myth has stuck around so long when tons of undercover arrests prove it wrong every day&quot;</i> I&#x27;m not sure how an arrest can prove that since an arrest is not a finding of fact. IMO lawcomic is rather biased toward a prosecutor&#x27;s definition of what s&#x2F;he thinks the law ought to be.<p>Maybe it&#x27;s my own cognitive dissonance about the difference in what the law is and what I think it ought to be, but I don&#x27;t have a favorable opinion of lawcomic. Now you&#x27;ve posted it here in defense of the prosecution of a mentally retarded man&#x2F;child for an offence which he is probably incapable of committing without a non-trivial degree of assistance, and most likely would not have committed if he&#x27;d simply been left alone. Even though this case the prosecution may prevail in court, IMO it does not serve any useful purpose for the gov&#x27;t to aggressively ferret out easily manipulable people by manipulating them until they sufficiently incriminate themselves.