91–100 of 641 posts
* I'm sorry for using the word "disruptive".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The prosecution sentencing memo rebuts this argument, pointing out that Ulbricht's attempts to procure murder for hire were explicit factual components of one of the charges he faced. Ulbricht's argument to the effect that he wasn't properly charged with the murder-for-hire scheme was addressed in detail by the court: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1391...
That court opinion describes a list of alleged chats that the Feds planned to introduce as evidence. It does not say the court accepted that evidence as true in the form of a finding of fact. (Put another way, that document does not say what you says it does, and we all know there are two sides to every story.) It seems to me that if the Feds were confident about their murder-for-hire claim, they would have charged U…
Capone went away for tax evasion, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to understand that the "murder for hire" evidence was introduced as part of the trial (at which point Ross' lawyer could have disputed it, but didn't) so it could be used as part of the sentencing decision... and that kind of takes the luster off of the "non-violent crime" argument.
Yeah, I've been seeing the other comments about that. As I said I'm not 100% up to speed on the details. I'd like to see more evidence that he actually was being convicted of that though and not just that it was a factor in determining sentencing. I don't doubt it's possible he was trying to contract a hit but the stories about the FBI stinging him, etc. make me a bit suspicious.
> Judge Forrest told Mr. Urlbricht that “what you did in connection with Silk Road was terribly destructive to our social fabric.” That's one of the most ridiculous claims I have seen in a while.
But yea, I believe it is ridiculous as well, but the court needed to voice their opinion with the sentence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is simply not true. Not only was the evidence introduced at trial, but it was tied to a specific charge, and considered at length by the court. https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1391...
You're linking to a pre-trial motion, which means nothing about what actually happened during the trial.
Can't help but counter this claim by stating that buying drugs via Silk Road is probably not very destructive in any sane analysis, especially compared to street level drug dealing.
There's no corners to hold, no rivals to fight with territory over, no deals to go bad, no real access by minors, and no real impedance to the function of any tangible physical location or bystander.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Though I agree with you about the "safer drugs" argument, Ross' site was the worst possible thing that could happen to the supporters of safe, anonymous marketplaces- The evidence that he was willing to use brutal mob-style violence to support his business has yet to be disputed by anyone in a credible way.
[deleted]
Ross was tempted by helping to increase supply. Maybe if we had a legal and regulated location where you could do any drugs but under the supervision of counselors we could help reduce demand and end the cycle.
I believe a church in the Netherlands did this in their basement. They provided discounted heroin that could only be used there and addicts reduced their consumption and had access to counselors.
I am not supporting what Ross did to give access to illegal drugs, I just believe because there is such demand trying to reduce supply is a losing battle where only law enforcement equipment supply companies win.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Though I agree with you about the "safer drugs" argument, Ross' site was the worst possible thing that could happen to the supporters of safe, anonymous marketplaces- The evidence that he was willing to use brutal mob-style violence to support his business has yet to be disputed by anyone in a credible way.
[deleted]