Live data from Hacker News

Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

nytimes.com

351–360 of 641 posts

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you implying drugs don't hurt anyone? Drugs, like spoons, hurt people. Some other items that kill people include: Cars. Motorcycles. Trees. Water. Too much air. Too little air. People. Dogs. Sticks. Bath tubs. Guns. In the end, drugs are no more inherently harmful than any of the items listed above. What usually kills people, however, is not drugs, but things associated with drugs that exist only because we hav…

>Yeah, I remember reading news stories all the time about how Canadians overdose on maple syrup or how Egyptians overdose on water. Truly, all drugs are just as innocuous as air and puppies. Maple syrup may not have been a good example http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics

I think you meant to reply to mpyne, but that is a very amusing observation. :)

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#352

“I strongly believe that my son would be here today if Ross Ulbricht had not created Silk Road,” said the man, who was identified in court only as Richard. Such an ignorant comment it doesn't even deserve to be commented.

The court docs were taken down since Ulbricht's attorney messed up and uploaded unredacted versions, but if that's the guy I think it is;

His son had started abusing benzos but wanted to try heroin -- he bought some H on the Silk Road and then ODed after trying it once. When they found his body, the computer was literally open to the Silk Road page..

(There were 6 deaths detailed in the sentencing guidelines, so my recounting may be slightly off, but feel free to exchange this one for the 16-year old kid who bought LSD on the SR, had a terrible trip, then jumped to his death off of a balcony)

Making dangerous drugs vastly easier to purchase by those who had no previous source for them isn't harmless.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#353
post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're discussing rights given to us by the Laws of Nature, as understood by our founding fathers, not the meager rights dolled out by the federal government.

Speaking as someone who's on your side in this debate... Rights are what you get if a bunch of rational, self-interested people get together and say, "What ought we be allowed to do without interference?" There is a single, correct, rational answer to that: you ought to be allowed to do anything that doesn't initiate force against someone else. All rights are a function of that single fundamental observation. Every r…

> So that's where rights come from... they are a human construct, but there's also a single, objectively correct answer.

Ironically (since you are obviously a rational, self interested person), this statement is objectively false.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it not known as entrapment to present a false situation in order to get a conviction or indictment, even if it's to confirm on behalf of the target a tendency or willingness to participate in the activity were to be real - and illegal because of its implications for abuse and its lack of real damage?

Nope. Entrapment requires the police to have caused someone to commit a crime they wouldn't have otherwise. A good explanation of what counts as entrapment: http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-wa...

I'm not sure I really follow because the comics didn't describe anything that presumably would be entrapment.

Is anyone here a lawyer in this area of law? I don't really trust webcomics....

But let's talk about this alleged hitman situation. Didn't the police come up with the idea and create the situation where a third of a million dollars appeared to have been stolen and a volunteer appeared to defect with information and a threat to bring down the organization?

What exactly does count as coercion? If the police were to make your incentives work out a certain way - let's say they were aware that a non-call-girl was in dire straights was potentially willing to accept money for a personal night, they freeze her bank account and provide a good looking and safe opportunity with a load of cash to do it - would that count as compulsion?

Or is it just by appeal to words that counts as compulsion?

How can a court decide what you would have done otherwise?

It seems like a pretty difficult area of law - and one that the defendant could argue?

For the record I do not support trafficking of drugs and illegal materials, nor calling of hit men: but I do want to make sure that the tools to get a conviction do not further enshrine precedents that have fascistic qualities to them - e.g. parallel construction, entrapment, others.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also very unlikely to work unless you happen to be extremely talented at this and spend your life doing it. And even then, it could take decades.

Yes, radically changing everyone's idea about what rights should exist is hard. Of course, you haven't provided any argument here for your position on rights, just a bald statement that the right you would like to exist does, as if that were some kind of uncontroversial, universally-accepted thing that required no justification.

And you've made a bald statement equivocating between the morality of legality of something.

Would you like a list of examples where extremely illegal actions are clearly and controversially moral, or can you think of historical examples yourself?

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#356
post #55
post #24

It's interesting. On one hand, if a leader of a traditional drug distribution network landed a life in prison sentence, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. With Silkroad though, I'm actually convinced by the defendants argument: that it provided safer, more trustworthy drugs to users. I've had friends who've died from purchasing bad drugs at raves from people who were looking to make money and run. In one situati…

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]

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot the part where he wanted Curtis Green dead because of a theft of USD$350,000.00 in Bitcoin commited by the dirty undercover DEA agent who he then hired to murder Curtis Green.

If he thought Curtis had robbed him, I suppose it was okay to hire someone to murder him.

Really, now.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#358
post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it not known as entrapment to present a false situation in order to get a conviction or indictment, even if it's to confirm on behalf of the target a tendency or willingness to participate in the activity were to be real - and illegal because of its implications for abuse and its lack of real damage?

You can find a nice guide as to what is and is not entrapment here: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633 There are a lot of misconceptions about what is or is not entrapment. A lot of things like lying about not being a cop when under cover, putting out a bait car, or just watching you commit a crime without warning you it was a crime are not entrapment and the reason why is explained in the guide. It's only entrapment w…

So in this case wasn't a crisis situation (there being a defector with SR secrets) fabricated by the police and a third of a million dollars disappeared? Would this sort of thing count as doing something to overcome resistance? It's not likely that an anonymous person offering to 'help take care of the situation' would have enticed him - he needed a scenario that compelled him and this scenario was fabricated.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#359
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're linking to a pre-trial motion, which means nothing about what actually happened during the trial.

It's right there in the indictment. Count 1: Trafficking Conspiracy, Overt Acts, (b).

An indictment is also pre-trial. It is, in fact, about as pre-trial as documents get.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's right there on page 3 ("II. Background A. The Murder-For-Hire Evidence") and continues for quite some length. I'm not a lawyer and haven't been following the case, but if he was convicted of what the government alleges in this section it pretty much eliminates the "non-violent" argument.

No no no. You (or the one you replied to) said he was sentenced for murder. And I think we agree now that he wasn't, right?

Here is exactly what you said, kicking off this long and unproductive subthread:

There was no such thing introduced for the trial. It was in the original press release, then it was withdrawn. Maybe it was because of Mark Force's transgressions, or maybe it was just for effect. Regardless, he never got the chance to defend himself against those particular allegations.

By "no such thing", you were referring to the words > in the preceding comment.

Let's pick it apart:

1. There was no such thing introduced for the trial. Not only was it introduced for the trial, it was an explicit part of what Ulbricht was indicted for.

2. It was in the original press release, then it was withdrawn. It was never withdrawn; he was indicted based on (among other things) the explicitly asserted "overt act" of commissioning a murder. The murder-for-hire scheme wasn't innuendo, but a rebuttable fact introduced not just as evidence but as one of the legs of the case.

3. Maybe it was because of Mark Force's transgressions, or maybe it was just for effect. It may have been either of those things, but if so, it was also actually one of the predicates of the conspiracy charge he was convicted of.

4. Regardless, he never got the chance to defend himself against those particular allegations. Yes, he did; his legal team mounted multiple arguments against the allegation, and did not prevail at trial. Ulbricht's team had not only the opportunity to defend him against the allegation, but the obligation to. Conclusively refuting that allegation would have significantly harmed the prosecution's case, knocking out one of the predicates for the conspiracy charge.

From what I can tell, you made a fairly complicated series of assertions, none of which turned out to be true.

Post reply on HN