551–560 of 641 posts
Nice show trial. The US justice system is a joke. Cops regularly murder unarmed citizens - nothing. The 'evidence' used to convict Mr Ulbricht should have been inadmissable as it was obtained illegally.
Life without parole for running a fucking forum and selling some mushrooms.
There is no justice in this country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, of course. I just thought that flashbacks and other LSD complications are common knowledge. Take a look at this Wikipedia section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Adv...
You're an idiot. Flashbacks are not a real thing. Pretty much every negative effect of LSD is exaggerated or based on biased reports by the government to justify making anything that gets you high illegal. An LSD 'flashback' is more like deja vu, like "Wow this is really similar to something I've experienced before", not like you just randomly go back into a full on trip. If you're schizophrenic you probably shouldn'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have a journal proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have been written by Ross Ulbricht that includes them discussing how they paid to have a person killed? Because a jury has yet to decide whether the government has such a thing, too. My point is, we haven't seen the evidence, a jury hasn't decided about the evidence, why are we talking about this? We can't pretend that Ulbricht's sentence for drug trafficking…
> Do you have a journal proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have been written by Ross Ulbricht that includes them discussing how they paid to have a person killed? Yes. That was literally a critical piece of evidence at the trial. The defense tried to claim that it wasn't Ulbricht's and failed. Take a look at the post I'm responding to here. A lot of people in this thread are acting like the murder for hire thing is…
In the court of law where Ulbricht was tried for drug trafficking, the murder for hire thing is a crazy rumor. The murder-for-hire case is a separate case, which remains untried. The evidence in the murder-for-hire case is probably compelling, otherwise the government probably wouldn't bring the case. But that's utterly unrelated to the sentencing for drug trafficking.
If Ulbricht was sentenced to life for hiring hit-men, we wouldn't be having this discussion--I have no objection to people being sentenced to life in prison for violent crimes. But he wasn't sentenced to life in prison for violent crimes, he hasn't even been tried for violent crimes yet. He was sentenced to life in prison for drug trafficking. And that's not justice.
One of the greatest tragedies of prohibition (and there are a multitude), is that it transfers so much money and other resources into the hands of existing criminal organisations. It also creates criminals as these profits incentivise illicit trade and legislates users as criminals.
That being said, what Ulbricht was doing was clearly nefarious and the punishment should come as no surprise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plus, it happened multiple times. Even if no one was actually killed the guy still tried to have multiple people killed.
allegedly tried to have multiple people killed. The prosecution brought this up at trial but he was not charged or convicted of this in the criminal trial.
That seems way too harsh to me. I have strong opinions on the US War on Drugs and it's failure to meaningful deal with drug use/abuse in the USA. And I feel even worse about how it's spilling out into the rest of the world as we go "global" with everything. I can't say I know every detail of the case but I don't recall anyone getting killed or even hurt by Mr. Ulbricht so in my mind the punishment does not fit the cr…
He ordered the killings of 6 people. Even by the bloodiest of bleeding heart standards, contract killing isn't some victimless crime.
Oh right he wasn't. He was convicted solely for selling drugs, and sentenced for being a geek.
Make no mistake about it - the world hate us, it just tolerates us right now because we are effective and need.
That seems way too harsh to me. I have strong opinions on the US War on Drugs and it's failure to meaningful deal with drug use/abuse in the USA. And I feel even worse about how it's spilling out into the rest of the world as we go "global" with everything. I can't say I know every detail of the case but I don't recall anyone getting killed or even hurt by Mr. Ulbricht so in my mind the punishment does not fit the cr…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And more importantly, the guy tried to have people killed. This is not a good prompt for a "war on drugs is evil" rant. I sympathize with the position, but using somebody as an example of supposed injustice, when a big part of his punishment is because he hired hitmen (plural!), is not going to make your point look at all good.
"the guy tried to have people killed", allegedly. And the alleging being done by someone who is himself in quite a bit of legal trouble for stealing from Silk Road and embezzling bitcoin during the course of his official duties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Odd that laws allow for killing to prevent a robbery, but taking a life as punishment is unthinkable. I wonder: If the money had been gained legally then stolen, what steps could the victim legally take to recover it?
What law allows killing to prevent a robbery? I think you're mistaken. Some places allow using lethal force when your own life is threatened. I am not aware of any place in the US where one is justified in killing merely to prevent a robbery. And if there is, can you show me a law in the US where a citizen can go after a robber long after the robbery is over and then kill them? I think not.
Texas was the first thing to come to my mind : http://nation.time.com/2013/06/13/when-you-can-kill-in-texas...
The laws do seem to allow less after the fact, with good reason. My point was that we clearly allow for people to value money over lives.
When is a robbery over? The stuff never stops being yours, and they never stop running away with it.
A lot of things come into play here, but I'm pretty sure you could still post a reward, 'dead or alive'. I think it's legal to try to catch the robber yourself indefinitely, and defend yourself if threatened in the process.
Our wild west laws are only slightly less savage than what was alleged in this case.