zlacker

>>uptown+(OP)
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 crime. IMHO the death penalty should be off the table completely (go Nebraska!) and life in prison reserved for only violent offenders. You can argue that he enabled people to harm themselves but I think that's stretching it. If people want to take drugs, even take too much drugs their going to get it somewhere. If drugs were legal and treatment of abuse the focus instead of punishment Silk Road wouldn't have existed in the first place.

>>smhend+v1
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.

>>drcode+o2
Plus, it happened multiple times. Even if no one was actually killed the guy still tried to have multiple people killed.

>>Cantre+b3
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.

>>dewell+e7
The people supposedly "murdered" never existed... the names did not belong to real people, nor did the photo id's match anyone of record, etc. It's a rumor that they were Fed baiting him... and likely why the Fed never tried to charge him on the murder-for-hire counts.

>>Alupis+q8
Curtis Green is a real person, who really worked for Ross, who really was afraid Ross would have him killed, and who in fact Ross did try to have killed. See the very beginning of Joshuah Bearman's "The Rise and Fall of Silk Road" in Wired.

>>drfuch+Uc
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.

>>psykov+3e
You forgot the part where he wanted Curtis Green dead because of a theft of --- not sure why I need to read past this point.

>>tptace+Nj
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?

>>indrax+7y
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.

>>ChrisL+0L
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide#Examples_o...

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.

>>indrax+lP
> Texas was the first thing to come to my mind

From your source " the protection-of-property element of the deadly force law is “pretty unique to Texas.” ".

If this type of law is pretty unique to Texas, let's look at the Texas law, instead of necessarily simplistic summaries.

Here [1] is the actual Texas state law. The relevant section is 9.42. The law states that deadly force may only be used in the case you claim if the person meets (among other conditions) that "the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.". Section 9.42B.

So no, you're not just free to shoot people for robbery, willy nilly. There are several steps that, even in Texas, need to be met.

>When is a robbery over? The stuff never stops being yours, and they never stop running away with it.

and

>I think it's legal to try to catch the robber yourself indefinitely, and defend yourself if threatened in the process.

is just nonsense. Even Texas requires that a person be defending their property or (Section 9.41b) "if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:" with some more constraints after that. You cannot just chase them months later and do anything.

So, "laws don't allow killing for robbery," unless there are quite a bit of other circumstances, and very few places allow it for any circumstance except when there is presumed lethal threat to the defender.

And absolutely certainly the laws do not allow Ulbrecht to hire someone to kill another no matter what the circumstances.

Please cite law statute or legal cases with links. Poorly researched news stories and opinions are much less useful.

[1] http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.h...

>I think it's legal to try to catch the robber yourself indefinitely