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

Free Ross Ulbricht

freeross.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 121 posts

Re: Free Ross Ulbricht

#81

Post by boomboomsubban »

bialczabub wrote: post #80
boomboomsubban wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get this. The prosecutors decided not to press the hitman charges, so would the defense have even tried to gather evidence that it was false? Wouldn't that automatically make the preponderance of the evidence suggest his guilt, as only the evidence suggesting his guilt would have been presented?

"Preponderance of evidence" here refers to a legal standard (i.e. was it more likely than not) rather than the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "most of the evidence." The prosecutors didn't charge him with hiring hitmen because they were uncertain that they could prove it beyond a resonable doubt, but the evidence they were able to present suggests he probably did it.

If only one side is presenting evidence, isn't it likely that the preponderance of evidence will support their claim? I only browsed the linked judgment, but I didn't see the defense address the hitman claims.

Re: Free Ross Ulbricht

#82

Post by w14 »

ddalex wrote: post #77
dachri wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be noted that the killing was conspiraed by FBI Agents where some of them also stealed a bunch of bitcoin for their own interest. It's nowhere mentioned cause it would put the Feds in a bad light

Are you suggesting that FBI actually forced him to contract a hitman? My understanding is that FBI set up the bait and this guy eat it hook and all. It is not illegal or even immoral to bait somebody, there was no pressure, FBI presented the opportunity and this guy wanted to have somebody killed.

It's certainly viewed as immoral at the very least in the UK.

"In R v Looseley; Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 2000) [2002] 1 Cr. App. R. 29, the House of Lords held that although entrapment is not a substantive defence in English law, where an accused can show entrapment, the court may stay the proceedings as an abuse of the court's process or it may exclude evidence pursuant to Section 78 PACE 1984 ...

"Police conduct which brings about state-created crime is unacceptable and improper, and to prosecute in such circumstances would be an affront to the public conscience."

- https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/abuse-process

Re: Free Ross Ulbricht

#86

Post by weare138 »

yieldcrv wrote: post #68
weare138 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. While I do think his sentence was excessive that man was in no way innocent.

Whats validating about that? I don't think sentencing should be using information that wasn’t part of the charges or the conviction. I’ve seen prosecutors chose to be extremely strict about that, judges chose to be extremely about that, jurors say “we couldn't convict because we had to follow the prosecutor’s instructions”, and yet here the jury was swayed by actions unrelated to the charges in order to convict, and…

What do you mean by 'validating'? It's just the reality of the situation. Is his sentence overreaching and excessive given the circumstances? Yes. Definitively yes. Did Ross commit a crapton of crimes? Also yes. Look I fully agree that his sentence should be reduced and he be given a second chance but again the man is in no way innocent either.

Seriously if everyone concerned really wants to help this man then everyone needs to drop this misleading mythology built up around him and deal directly with the reality of what happened. For example, this statement from the site:

Ross Ulbricht is condemned to die in prison for creating an anonymous e-commerce website called Silk Road. An entrepreneur passionate about free markets and privacy, he was 26 when he made the site.

I'm sorry that is a gross misrepresentation of what he did and is in no way helping him. If people really want to help him get his sentenced reduced then they need to start by fully acknowledging the crimes Ross actually committed. Then a clear argument can be made that excessiveness of his sentence far outweighs those criminal acts. It's not a case of innocence vs. guilt and shouldn't be framed as such. It's a case of Ross being unduly punished for the crimes that he legitimately committed. Anything else is just muddying the waters and again is in no way helping him.

Re: Free Ross Ulbricht

#87

Post by vkou »

borski wrote: post #46
vkou wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> >Ross was not convicted of selling drugs or illegal items himself, but was held responsible for what others sold on the site. I'm pretty sure that running an illegal drug marketplace is also illegal.

Sure, but that alone shouldn’t net someone two life sentences. Hiring a hit man to kill 5 people might.

If you can get five to ten years for selling a few thousand pills of fentanyl, it stands to reason that you may get fifty or thereabouts for running a marketplace where hundreds of such sales took place.

I'd also say that there's a significant moral difference between a first time offender, and a 'first time caught offender'. Al Capone and Bernie Madoff were also 'first time offenders' when they went to prison.

You don't whoops one-time-bad-lapse-of-judgement stumble into running a gang, a decade-long fraud... Or the biggest drug marketplace in the world.

Re: Free Ross Ulbricht

#88

Post by xiphias2 »

aeternum wrote: post #31
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>creating an anonymous e-commerce website called Silk Road. An entrepreneur passionate about free markets and privacy, That wording really goes out of it's way to sound like this might conceivably be legal, or at least not knowingly criminal.

Was Napster knowingly criminal? By most accounts yes. How about Uber? In most cities they were by allowing airport pickups? How about Amazon? Remember when they aided and abetted customers with sales tax evasion for years?

If you look at how Napster changed the movie and music industry it just makes more sense for the government to make an example of the Napster of drugs.

Re: Free Ross Ulbricht

#89

Post by blackshaw »

jjallen wrote: post #29
blackshaw wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Wikipedia, Ulbricht allegedly tried to hire a hitman to murder at least five people, but this wasn't actually something he was formally charged with at trial. > Federal prosecutors alleged that Ulbricht had paid $730,000 in murder-for-hire deals targeting at least five people,[27] allegedly because they threatened to reveal Ulbricht's Silk Road enterprise.[36] Prosecutors believe no contracted killing ac…

"no contracted killing actually occurred" Isn't it illegal to hire people to kill people even if they aren't actually killed? Like when the police go undercover they don't wait for someone to be killed, they wait for definitive evidence that the hiring person seriously plans to follow through with it I thought.

Yep, that's what Joe Exotic is in jail for.

Re: Free Ross Ulbricht

#90

Post by pennaMan »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #61
pennaMan wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alcohol is at the top of the list of objective harm to self and others, right up there with heroin. What "most anyone would consider" is irrelevant to the actual pharmacology of the durg.

citation needed

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-...

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000774

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7649209/

I could go on and on but I think I gave you a good starting point for your own research

Post reply on HN