Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 641 posts

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#611

Post by javert »

titaniumdecoy wrote: post #353
javert wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would appreciate an explanation for why you say that.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#612

Post by chinpokomon »

tptacek wrote: post #394
worklogin wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the articles I've read, this was not part of the sentencing.

It very much was a part of the sentencing.

He was never charged with that. I think the JD held those charges back so they had something else to their at him if this first trial didn't go their way. As such, the sentencing should only be about what he is charged and found guilty of committing.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#613

Post by path411 »

rtpg wrote: post #526
itistoday2 wrote: post #317

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…

Do you seriously think people wouldn't OD on drugs if there were legal sources? People ruin their lives pretty well currently with highly addictive drugs, and I don't see how increasing supply would stop that from happening. You can be clever that sticks kill people all you want, but that's completely sidestepping why people are worried about drug legalization: many drugs have extremely well documented negative effec…

It's pretty obvious that drugs being illegal isn't stopping people from OD'ing, so I don't understand how this can be used as an argument against legalizing drugs.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#614

Post by tptacek »

gwern wrote: post #609
tptacek wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The indictment to which we are referring was filed on February 4, 2014. It does not appear to have been superseded, and is the indictment the prosecution makes direct references to. Is there a newer indictment you can point us to? One in which the murder-for-hire scheme is not ventured as part of the case?

I don't know what you want besides the explicit quotes from prosecution during the trial itself clarifying what they were and were not claiming. Whatever your interpretation is, it seems to be either wrong or irrelevant. Which interpretation should be trusted more, a crypto guy on HN trying to interpret indictments or the prosecutors during the trial?

You, just one comment prior, suggested that the indictment had been changed in a manner relevant to this thread. I cited the most recent indictment --- and took the time to try to verify that it was the most recent indictment. Now the indictment doesn't matter?

No. It very much mattered. The indictment formally documents the charges Ulbricht faced. His lawyer, a relatively well-known defense attorney, was fully aware of his obligation to rebut the allegations in the indictment. Ulbricht is, of course, innocent of charges until proven guilty. The prosecution produced what appears to be very compelling evidence. The defense produced something much less compelling.

A variety of things that aren't findings of fact at criminal trials can, unfortunately, be material to the sentencing phase of a trial. The murder-for-hire scheme isn't one of those things: it was an explicit component of a criminal charge that Ulbricht was convicted of, supported by evidence, provided to the Ulbricht defense during the earliest phases of the trial.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#615

Post by path411 »

armadafoot wrote: post #413
jjcm wrote: 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…

An important thing to remember is that SR did NOT just sell drugs. They also sold hacking tools, identity theft kits, credit card fraud kits, and weapons. It was not a harm-free marketplace. It was basically 'whichever criminal shit made him money' marketplace and drugs happened to top the list. LOL @ getting down voted by Libertarians for a COMPLETELY TRUE statement that they wish wasn't true because it fucks up the…

Did SR actively promote these specific categories of goods you are talking about or just freely allow sellers to sell whatever they wanted?

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#616

Post by tptacek »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #531
roel_v wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under a nonsense 'definition' that nobody uses. Sure I can make any point if I get to redefine words any way I want.

FWIW "addicted to cars" has results with headline in major news outlets - it's a common trope. In human geography terms it simply means that giving up cars is a supremely difficult thing for society to do - particularly in some Western areas that are designed around the idea that all people have cars available [cheaply]. This has enough similarity to addiction that people use "addicted" commonly like this - "I'm addi…

Coffee addiction and heroin addiction are, all rhetorical games aside, not actually comparable.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#617

Post by Natsu »

xnull2guest wrote: post #608
Natsu wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was found guilty of a wide-ranging criminal enterprise. I've already quoted the judge's own words regarding what DPR was charged (and later convicted) of, but HN seems to think it's a lot different than what the court documents reflect. Further, offering you hitman services is NOT entrapment. This would never ensnare an innocent person: they'd say no! To the best of my knowledge, DPR's lawyers have not even allege…

> Further, offering you hitman services is NOT entrapment. Nope, but creating a false circumstance of blackmail is. That's what we're talking about. But we've gone in circles. I think we both need to talk to other (knowledgeable) people. Thanks for the chat.

Well, I gave links to a lawyer's explanation. I everything you're saying is entrapment is listed under the 'entrapment myths' so I don't know what to say here.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#618

Post by wglb »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #531
roel_v wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under a nonsense 'definition' that nobody uses. Sure I can make any point if I get to redefine words any way I want.

FWIW "addicted to cars" has results with headline in major news outlets - it's a common trope. In human geography terms it simply means that giving up cars is a supremely difficult thing for society to do - particularly in some Western areas that are designed around the idea that all people have cars available [cheaply]. This has enough similarity to addiction that people use "addicted" commonly like this - "I'm addi…

Would you say that you are addicted to shoes? I would find it harder to give up shoes as compared to cars.

Disagree with your definition of addicted

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#619

Post by Natsu »

xnull2guest wrote: post #607
Natsu wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter what the police offer, if he chooses to hire a hitman (even a fake one) with their help, he's guilty, because an innocent person would say "no". You don't get to kill other people to cover up your own crimes, period. Self-defense is the only possible justification, and that requires an imminent threat to his life (or at least grievous bodily injury). Threats to incriminate you don't count for anythi…

Please refer to what guide? The webcomic? Can you be specific about which webcomic had law enforcement blackmailing someone? I didn't see one that covers our case there. > 'because an innocent person would say "no".' Doesn't that imply that all entrapment is legal? And is it even true? People can be blackmailed for things they haven't done and even easily give false confessions of guilt... Thanks for the conversation…

Let's break down a few of these myths. The whole guide is worth a read. The author says it's roughly the equivalent of what 1Ls go through.

=====

Can the police give you the idea to do something bad?

YES - http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=646

You're supposed to refuse.

=====

Can the police commit crimes along with you?

YES - http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=649

There are limits, though, to what sort of crimes, explained in the guide. Assuming they haven't overstepped those bounds, they're not in trouble, and you are. Not only that, but YOU can even get charged for the crimes they did if you were both members of the same criminal conspiracy.

=====

If you're under duress, is it okay to kill someone to save your own life?

NO - http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=813

It would be good to go back to review the necessity section, as well - http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=722

EDIT: Fixed a mistake.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

#620

Post by xnull2guest »

Natsu wrote: post #619
xnull2guest wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please refer to what guide? The webcomic? Can you be specific about which webcomic had law enforcement blackmailing someone? I didn't see one that covers our case there. > 'because an innocent person would say "no".' Doesn't that imply that all entrapment is legal? And is it even true? People can be blackmailed for things they haven't done and even easily give false confessions of guilt... Thanks for the conversation…

Let's break down a few of these myths. The whole guide is worth a read. The author says it's roughly the equivalent of what 1Ls go through. ===== Can the police give you the idea to do something bad? YES - http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=646 You're supposed to refuse. ===== Can the police commit crimes along with you? YES - http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=649 There are limits, though, to what sort of crimes, explained in t…

They should make a web comic university. I wonder if someone could pass the Bar Exam...

None of these cover the scenario. They do not have to do with whether using coercion (let's say the leverage in the third example) counts as entrapment if done by the police.

The answer is yes.

You are continuing to try to use web comics to argue a strawman.

They are interesting web comics, for sure.

Whether it is okay or not to kill someone if you are under duress is tangential to whether it counts as entrapment.

Both can be true. It can not be okay - illegal - AND be entrapment on the part of the police.

The argument is that it was entrapment.

The argument was not about whether hiring a hitman would be okay or not.

Please, if you feel like getting the last word in, for the sake of readers who stumble onto this, cover the issue and not another straw man.

Post reply on HN