Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cartel bosses, gang members and drug dealers have been known to have their perceived enemies killed to defend their money, territory or evade capture. Let's not pretend that 'facilitating the sale of drugs' at that scale is an necessarily nonviolent business. And besides, what does the government have to gain that's worth the risk of damaging their case if its discovered they fabricated evidence?
RIght, so it's an easy assumption to accept - and no assumptions being made. And do you really think the government level / agency that is in charge of justice would have any level of 'clearance' towards the agency that would be fabricating evidence? The NSA has been lying to congress for years, as an easy example.
Feds say Silk Road suspect’s computer shows he (thought he) plotted 6 murders
71–74 of 74 posts
Re: Feds say Silk Road suspect’s computer shows he (thought he) plotted 6 murders
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do we know it is a reasonable possibility? We have zero evidence to suggest it is the case.
Probability is based in part on logic using past occurrences as references - and not the present moment or determining conviction.
You've cited propaganda and the NSA lying to congress as as possible evidence, but I believe this to be specious, unless the premise is that the government merely lies about everything, and fabricates evidence just because it can. You might as well suggest that because soldiers kill people in Muslim countries, and postal employees are also Federal employees, that postal workers are probably killing Muslims on their routes. Just because you connect a bunch of dots doesn't mean you've actually found a pattern.
Re: Feds say Silk Road suspect’s computer shows he (thought he) plotted 6 murders
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
A screen name on the internet, possibly a sock puppet, may or may not be tied to a real world person. He didn't have the capacity to visit this person in real life. He couldn't have possibly been sure whether it was a real person or not. He never met them, he never shook their hand, he couldn't have been sure of where they lived, because they didn't exist to begin with. Another screen name claims to have the ability…
> A screen name on the internet, possibly a sock puppet, may or may not be tied to a real world person. He didn't have the capacity to visit this person in real life. He couldn't have possibly been sure whether it was a real person or not. He never met them, he never shook their hand, he couldn't have been sure of where they lived, because they didn't exist to begin with. You don't pay $500000 to kill a "sock-puppet"…
What I'm saying is this: There was no murder-for-hire skull duggery, until the sting provoked him into it. There were no murderous provocations without federal law enforcement in the picture, conflating the whole scenario with their invented personas that didn't exist.
That's the reality of what happened here.
They explicitly state that they taunted and coerced him, with fictitious sock puppetry. I'm not inventing that. That really happened.
So we're being asked (as internet jurors) to convict this guy on what he might have done if placed in a similar situation by real people. We're asked to throw him in jail because maybe he would have done something like this, eventually.
Except I'm not convinced of that. I'm not convinced that he belived he was dealing with more than one person on the internet. He may have suspected that this was all an elaborate con game, architected by a single entity, and if he did suspect that, he'd have been right. Except that the single entity in this case was the FBI.
And bitcoin? $500,000 in bitcoin? First of all, that's a drop in the bucket compared to the bitcoin wallet he allegedly had at his command. But really, any exchange rate you'd like to apply here is as turbulent, and volatile, and imaginary as whatever we pretend bitcoin is worth in general. It's a virtual currency people are still grappling with. The concept of bitcoin wealth is as absurd as internet fame. Yeah it seems to have real world effects, but how long will it last, and do we take it at face value? If he went from nothing to multi-millionairre IN BITCOIN ONLY, almost over night, is that real money? Did he try to give real money to a real internet hitman?
The federal government acknowleges bitcoin's existence, but even they don't acknowlege it as a true currency. So when you boil it down, it's more like he committed some hypothetical crime for $500,000 in semi-precious baseball cards, or bottle caps or pogs. Bitcoin is regarded as a collector's item at the moment, and little more. You could say he did it for $500,000 in ham sandwiches, and you wouldn't be far off the mark. Maybe it's 7,500 KG of ham sandwiches? Are they fresh ham sandwiches, stored in a refrigerator? Maybe they're moldy ham sandwiches, but what if they're THE VERY HAM SANDWICHES THAT CHOKED MAMA CASS TO DEATH???
Maybe it's still quid pro quo, no matter how you look at it, but when you bandy about dollar amounts, don't pretend like that's an objective value.
Re: Feds say Silk Road suspect’s computer shows he (thought he) plotted 6 murders
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
A screen name on the internet, possibly a sock puppet, may or may not be tied to a real world person. He didn't have the capacity to visit this person in real life. He couldn't have possibly been sure whether it was a real person or not. He never met them, he never shook their hand, he couldn't have been sure of where they lived, because they didn't exist to begin with. Another screen name claims to have the ability…
> A screen name on the internet, possibly a sock puppet, may or may not be tied to a real world person. Are you suggesting that there are advanced AI botherbots out there just looking for other entities, presumably flesh and blood, as prey?