Still, IMO it is reasonable to bring that up as a character issue.
The prosecution brought this up at trial but he was not charged or convicted of this in the criminal trial.
Go Team 'Murica....
http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-wa...
In general, entrapment is when the police convince you to commit a crime that you wouldn't have committed otherwise. So, if you want to kill your wife, and your friend (FBI agent) happens to say one day, "Hey, I do a little killing on the side, just for gits and shiggles," and you hire him, that's not entrapment.
In contrast, if the agent is manipulating you and saying, "Hey, your wife is going to divorce you and take your stuff. Killing her is the only way to prevent ruin" and slowly convincing you to do it, then that's entrapment.
Bottom line: Already predisposed to doing the crime and probably would have gone through with it if it hadn't been the police? You're screwed. In contrast, if you're normally completely innocent and the person has to convince you to commit the crime, it's entrapment.
Basically, if the undercover cop suggests X and you say no. Then come on nobody will know, and you say no. And then they spend the next six weeks convincing you it's a good idea, then that's entrapment.
The issue is he was on a sting for over a year and that's plenty of time to cross the line.
Of note, asking several times and catching someone at a moment of weakness is not entrapment. So, if you have been clean for 10 years then you’re out of luck.
I suspect it's more likely they wanted to convict him on just the SR charges because that's better publicity, but it’s still odd.
"As explained above, the murder-for-hire evidence is probative both as evidence of the charged offenses and to prove Ulbricht’s identity as DPR—a key disputed issue in this case. In addition, the charges in this case are extremely serious: Ulbricht is charged not with participating in a run-of-the-mill drug distribution conspiracy, but with designing and operating an online criminal enterprise of enormous scope, worldwide reach, and capacity to generate tens of millions of dollars in commissions."
Even the most ardent proponent of full legalization usually acknowledges that many drugs are very harmful--they just believe the people should be free to do things even if they are harmful to themselves.
I generally support decriminalization or even legalization, but I would be reluctant to allow internet sales. I'd require sales to be through licensed dealers and in person, so that an addict cannot completely cut themselves off from human contact. Internet sales make drugs too easy.
There are a lot of misconceptions about what is or is not entrapment. A lot of things like lying about not being a cop when under cover, putting out a bait car, or just watching you commit a crime without warning you it was a crime are not entrapment and the reason why is explained in the guide.
It's only entrapment when they do something to overcome some resistance you put up to committing the crime. So unless you can show that they somehow changed your mind, the entrapment defense won't work.
Sure, the thief wouldn't have stolen the bait car if they knew it was a bait car, but the question is whether they would have stolen any car.
Even as a proponent of full legalization I know that as little as a few minutes spent in water can kill someone, and often does.
Why people are allowed to casually dive into this toxic substance is beyond me. No licenses, no regulations, practically any body of water you can find you're allowed to jump into totally unsupervised.
Most places don't even have signs warning people of the danger, and worst yet, many children practice a dangerous activity called 'swimming' in this substance often daring each other as to who can drop the highest from a rope into a potentially fatal body of water.
Also, once you start drinking it you need to find at least 4 litres of this a day to keep from going into water withdrawl, commonly known as dehydration, this can happen in as little as 3 days with out your daily fix.
In regards to the harm from drugs-- I'd add the obvious point that prohibition comes with a really high cost.
I recently did dry-january and I was really happy with the results of cutting back on my drinking. I wake up more rested, and had more energy in the evenings. I've been thinking that going totally dry might be a good thing to do in my life.
But would I make alcohol, one of the top killers in america, illegal? (ref: http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm ) Absolutely not. If you went to US high school you know why--- alcohol-dealing gangs took over. People turned to bad products (wood alcohol, that potentially included methanol) to get their alcohol fix. I imagine we needlessly jailed a lot of alcohol drinkers and pushers.
A more indepth analysis of alcohol prohibition: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html
Why does the general public consider drug prohibition to be that much different than alcohol prohibition??
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 have decided they should exist:
- Drug gangs and cartels and the violence associated with them are the product of US government policy, not drugs.
- Drug overdoses are the product of US government policy, not drugs (in most cases), because especially with illegal drugs people don't know what they're getting or how much of it or how to use it.
It is primarily we that kill people. Look around you. If you see a face that supports the drug war, that person is partially guilty in all drug related deaths.
The irony of this case is that Judge Katherine Forrest is now much more responsible for the drug-related deaths she is trying to prevent.
It's not true that areas unsafe for swimming are not marked - they are; moreover, there's both infrastructure in place to increase safety (e.g. lifeguards) and a significant amount of effort put towards educating people about the dangers of things like jumping into the water in a potentially unsafe place.
But that's all beside the point. Laws and rules do not exist in vacuum, and humans are not spherical cows of uniform density. Time and again history has proven that most people can handle exposure to water safely, while they can't handle being exposed to hard drugs. You can blame this on individual stupidity, but people don't have perfectly free will, and if this stupidity predictably touches big fractions of a population, it's time to mitigate it.
Neither do most drugs, especially most illegal drugs.
Many legal drugs do (the most addictive of all being nicotine), but that also doesn't matter and is besides the point.
These are health issues, not criminal issues.
Addicts suffering from water withdrawl often drink amounts that are unsafe for their health which is why marathon runners have to be given water adulterated with mind altering metals like sodium and highly toxic chlorine to make it safe for them to drink.
It's kind of insane that water addiction would drive people to ingest water in such vast amounts that you'd have to add chlorine and sodium to make it safer.
If you think places unsafe for swimming are marked I would hazard a guess that you haven't spent much time in the outdoors.
As an aside, you conveniently neglect to mention that Curtis Green feared Ross would have him killed simply because Curtis had been arrested and Ross knew that he might spill the beans. And since Curtis knows Ross better than you or I do, and the fact that he managed to predict that Ross would try to have him killed, brings into question whether the money really made a difference.
Maple syrup may not have been a good example http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics
You should have stopped there. Unless you're trying to claim that Force somehow zombified Ulbricht and then mind-controlled him into placing the hit...
I agree that drug sales should be regulated but that doesn't in any way make sentencing someone to life in prison for running a website any less fucked up.
It's not true that products unsafe for smoking are not marked - they are; moreover, there's both infrastructure in place to increase safety (e.g. physicians and filters) and a significant amount of effort put towards educating people about the dangers of things like using tobacco in a potentially unsafe manner.
I believe that time and history has proven that prohibition solves little, where infrastructure to increase safety and effort put towards educating people results in "less harm" -- a much better outcome for all. Some people will make a harmful choice (e.g. heavy smoking, fast food diet, sedentary lifestyle, using chainsaws alone), but society as a whole should not be punished for the choices of the few.
Is anyone here a lawyer in this area of law? I don't really trust webcomics....
But let's talk about this alleged hitman situation. Didn't the police come up with the idea and create the situation where a third of a million dollars appeared to have been stolen and a volunteer appeared to defect with information and a threat to bring down the organization?
What exactly does count as coercion? If the police were to make your incentives work out a certain way - let's say they were aware that a non-call-girl was in dire straights was potentially willing to accept money for a personal night, they freeze her bank account and provide a good looking and safe opportunity with a load of cash to do it - would that count as compulsion?
Or is it just by appeal to words that counts as compulsion?
How can a court decide what you would have done otherwise?
It seems like a pretty difficult area of law - and one that the defendant could argue?
For the record I do not support trafficking of drugs and illegal materials, nor calling of hit men: but I do want to make sure that the tools to get a conviction do not further enshrine precedents that have fascistic qualities to them - e.g. parallel construction, entrapment, others.
The following applies only to the US. Since 1968 you need a license granted by the federal government to sell guns (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/who-can-obtain-federal-firea...). The law allowing you to carry a firearm was passed in 1791. Driver's licenses have been around since 1899. You can't sell a car to someone without one.
When thinking about this issue, I've found the following thought experiments useful:
(1) Should someone who ran a multi-million dollar illegal gun operation get life in prison, even though unlike drugs, the right to own firearms is explicitly protected by the Constitution?
(2) Should someone who ran a multi-million dollar website selling only weed in legal venues (Colorado, etc) be convicted of any crime, never-mind sentenced to life in prison, even though it is against federal law?
Personally I answer (1) as YES and (2) as NO, and place Ulbricht's conduct significantly closer to (1) than to (2).
> Is anyone here a lawyer in this area of law? I don't really trust webcomics....
" Yes. I went to Georgetown Law, where I was an editor of the American Criminal Law Review. I started out defending juveniles in D.C., then was a prosecutor with the Manhattan D.A.’s office for about 9.5 years, first in the Special Narcotics office and then in the Rackets bureau. I’ve been doing mostly criminal defense since then, both white-collar and street crime, federal and state. "
Unfortunately I can't ask webcomics questions. Looking for answers to questions above.
It seems to me that DPR came up with murder as the 'solution' to this problem, even if we claim that the problem itself was entirely manufactured.
Entrapment defenses are only supposed to prevent innocent people from being coerced by police into committing a new crime, not to provide a get out of jail free card to criminals who were somehow fooled by the police.
So the real question is not whether the police gave him a reason to hire a hitman, it's whether he ever would have hired an assassin at all.
Here is an in-kind rebuttal to your link: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-like-turtles
Similar searches for the legal distinction between extortion and blackmail consider blackmail a form of coercion.
Given (A) that blackmail is coercion (psychological pressure), and (B) coercing someone into committing a crime is entrapment. Would (A) and (B) then not imply that (C) blackmailing should count as entrapment?
DPR did not come up with a hitman as a solution. Law enforcement made the suggestion. They did not use the words, just had their fake identity offer to take care of the situation.
The poster above me implied that Ulbricht's actions did not hurt anyone. Hence, harm from drugs is relevant, because Ulbricht was selling drugs.
Ulbricht was not selling water, so whether or not water is harmful is completely irrelevant to my point, which is that Ulbricht is not going to jail for "running a website".
When car or gun buying addiction becomes more then a negligible problem, you'll have a terrific point.
So, online beer would probably turn out to be OK, as would online marijuana.
Cigarettes are an interesting case. Nicotine is pretty high up on the addicting list, but experimentally even heavy smokers don't seem to consumer so much that they ruin their lives the way, say, a heroin addict might. Probably because cigarettes don't really impair your functionality. So probably they should be allowed online.
The overarching point here to protect people who weren't committing crimes from being dragged into them ("corrupted") and the rules are set up to avoid protecting criminals who were merely fooled by the police into exposing their criminal nature.
Nobody made him hire a hitman. They gave him a reason to, but they didn't make him do it. If he needed protection from a blackmailer, he could have turned himself in as well as the blackmailer.
That's not to say that, strictly speaking, this isn't a miscarriage of justice - it is. No one should be in prison merely for selling drugs or facilitating the sale of drugs. But, Ross Ulbricht is likely a danger to society.
Honestly, I can't tell if this block is because I'm conflating the context of the greater discussion (the Ulbricht trial) with the more nuanced points of timsally's comment.
Thanks!
The police are allowed to give you the idea (you are required to refuse), they're allowed to give you the means (they can sell you the gun/drugs/etc.), they're allowed to create opportunities (bait cars), they're even allowed to become a part of the conspiracy with you and to lie to you about it (undercover agents).
What they're not allowed to do is to force your hand or corrupt someone who wasn't committing crimes to start.
So it's not going to count if the only reason they would have otherwise refused to commit the crime was because they were dealing with the cops and it's not going to count if the reasons they decided to commit the crime stem from their own wrongdoing. If you want to protect yourself from someone blackmailing you over criminal acts you've done, you turn yourself into the police. You don't hire a hitman and add yet another crime to the list.
Um, sounds like like addiction to me.
example: drop tons of Agent Orange on the lands/people of Vietnam? Just an oopsie! and they move on, wipe their hands clean. People dead and children deformed. Oopsie! Our mistake. Next meeting.
I wonder: If the money had been gained legally then stolen, what steps could the victim legally take to recover it?
This. If he hadn't created a multi-million dollar drug empire, there would've been no blackmail. Therefore, the fact that he had to resort to murder to stop the blackmail is no defense at all.
Because they have been told by the media, over and over, for decades. At least that's my theory. Consider how often the phrase "drugs and alcohol" is used in the general context of substance-based addiction.
Because it is socially accepted. Being a connoisseur of fine wines or whiskey is something many people consider sophisticated. Being a connoisseur of, say psychedelics or stimulants is, apparently a criminal offense.
According to The Federal Bureau of Prisons: - 48.7% of prisoners are in for drug related offenses
Apparently a large number (12.3-27.3%) are for Marijuana related offenses.
See http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offens...
Any ideas what can we do? I like projects that try to give more power to the people (like DemocracyOS), but I think it's rather kind of a bugfix for a badly designed system - it's important to try to improve it to keep it somehow working in the short term, yet (IMO) the whole architecture is broken and won't work in the long term when everything changes so fast...
The average IQ of most western countries, including the US, is around 100. That's probably significantly lower than the average reader here on Hacker News. I'm not sure if a person with an IQ of 100 ever asks themselves intelligent questions like yours...
Alcohol has a long tradition in the western civilization, so people feel somewhat comfortable with that. Other drugs probably seem very new and scary to the average guy.
There is a feedback cycle, where the media both manipulates and responds to public opinion.
Also you're assuming some sort of strong correlation between IQ or some other measure of intelligence and good political judgement.
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 effects on people, and these effects end up affecting others as well (hence "no smoking in public places'-style laws), and it has a real cost to society (hospitalisation, and just the human cost). Last I checked Sticks aren't that costly to civilisation in recent times.
Trying to be clever with semantics won't convince anyone of anything.
We talk about food addiction when people eat way too mcuh, not when people eat a proper amount to survive.
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 addicted to coffee" or "I'm addicted to chocolate" usually just means you'd find it hard to give it up. [I don't know if clinically those statements are true for some though.]
As it happens I've given up alcohol, chocolate, coffee, videogames, and cars at various points and the car was definitely the hardest requiring the most change in my lifestyle.
I don't see how prohibition and the War on Drugs prevented them from happening too. All that was achieved by the War on Drugs was a massive waste of taxpayer money[0], the creation of a large, organised, violent and powerful criminal underground[1], filling up of prisons with non-violent offenders[2], denying treatment to millions of addicts and treating them like criminals, and the violation of the rights, freedoms and liberties of large numbers of innocent people[3].
[0]-
1) http://cdn.thewire.com/img/upload/2012/10/12/drug-spending-v...
2) http://www.drugpolicy.org/wasted-tax-dollars
3) http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/06/opinion/branson-end-war-on...
[1]- http://www.countthecosts.org/sites/default/files/Crime-brief...
[2]- http://www.ibtimes.com/drug-offenses-not-violent-crime-filli...
[3]-
1) http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/balko_w...
2) http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/26290903/police-militariz...
3) http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10826084.2015.1...
Considering that many smart people believe in opposing ideologies, many of those being extreme and some which I think are really stupid, I can't believe that. I'd consider empathy and open-mindedness much more likely to correlate with support for good policies. Also people tend to disagree on what policies are good. People disagree on what good basic principles are, what the likely outcomes are, and whether those outcomes are good or not. There is disagreement even among smart people, even after the stupidity of much of the drug war.
That said, in my mind short of violent action, I find it hard to see how having to serve more than two decades in prison is any kind of justice for any kind of non-violent crime. I also find that seeing the U.S. prison population at near 1% is rather depressing, and that most drugs probably shouldn't be criminalized and their use are more representative of other social issues at hand.
When black markets exist to the extent that the drug trade does, it usually indicates that the law is probably wrong. A black market for anything will always exist, but when you're starting to see it affect even 1% of the population as it does in this case, that should indicate that legally, the position should change in a way that reduces the need for such markets. However, time and time again governments try to push in the other direction, the U.S. revolution from England is in a large part based on this.
You most certainly can. And it's completely legal. Driver's licenses have nothing to do with buying and selling vehicles. Some (all?) dealers might not do it, but there's other reasons besides legality for them to worry about.
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.
IQ attempts to measure the speed of the brain, via a proxy designed by humans who probably on average think a bit highly of their own intelligence. No risk of cognitive bias there....
And does it really work that way? You can be entrapped so long as your defense has no chutzpah?
Isn't it the case that law enforcement can be guilty of entrapment AND the defendant guilty of a crime? Hasn't this been established many times before? Wouldn't this exclude 'chutzpah' arguments?
I'm not sure that this really replies charitably to the premise of the discussion - i.e. that there was coercion. According to your argument nothing short of law enforcement physically forcing someone to take an action would be entrapment; so long as there are choices - even bad ones. Nor was there a reply to the fact that the hitman wasn't his idea.
It seems to me that those wishing the justice system overlook these issues already had decided on DRPs guilt and were convinced to get it at, even if that meant sacrificing due process and papering over it.
DPR can be behind bars - I don't care. But due process is something that even those wishing it were ignored for this conviction rely on and need, even if they don't think so.
Bernie Madoff got 150 years.
"It's his own fault he couldn't go to the police for help with the blackmail, so the court cannot reasonably excuse him for not doing so."
That's not how blackmail works within the legal system.
That being said, I think this is the federal government showing, through the courts, how terrified they are of people running things they cannot control. Bitcoin terrifies them. They want to send a very clear message.
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#State-by-state_...
Louisiana appears to allow lethal force just to prevent unlawful entry into a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.
You're also looking at one law about one situation to dispute what I conjectured about a different situation. Is it not legal to chase down the thief yourself? If you are threatened in the process, is it not then legal to defend yourself? Are 'dead or alive' bounties not legal? The effect may well be the same.
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 anything.
Please refer to the guide, it explains all of these myths. If you think things work some other way, cite law to the contrary.
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 alleged that the police committed any crimes. That would have allowed them to suppress the evidence and, as learned in the link I posted earlier, the evidence that he hired a hitman WAS allowed in court because it was part of the crimes he was charged with.
I did reply to your other post about it 'not being his idea'. That EXACT argument is explained in the law guide, right here: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=646
The short answer is that, even if they offer you a hitman, all you ever had to do was say no. Giving you an opportunity is not entrapment. It just shows that if it hadn't been for the police, you would have committed a crime (solicitation for murder, here).
Finally, 'due process' means that he had his day in court. He got that and was sentenced by a jury of his peers. You can disagree with the reasons behind it, but there are good reasons for these rules which are clearly explained in the guide.
The fact that he was willing to deal with hitmen is the problem here. It's not self-defense, nor can it be. It's not a solution a non-criminal would ever accept. The fact that he had only bad solutions was due to his own guilt--there would be no illegal activities for the blackmailer to expose if he had not engaged in any. And if the blackmail was false, he'd have every reason to want to cooperate with the police and prove his innocence by working with them to catch the blackmailer.
If I want to protect myself, I'm going to want a bullet with quite a bit more punch, thanks.
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 Natsu. I don't think you're the legal expert I was hoping would be in this thread. Again thank you for sharing your opinion.
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.
Disagree with your definition of addicted
=====
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.
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.
If you actually want to convince people on the fence (GP's comment is clearly meant only for the audience of those already convinced), it's more important to actually use convincing arguments. "Sticks hurt people" convinces no one.
Further, this is all 1L stuff (i.e. the basics). DRP's lawyers know all this stuff. And yet, as far as I can see, they didn't even try this argument. There's only one reason a lawyer doesn't raise an argument that would get their client off the hook: because it's bogus. (Raising bogus arguments in court is a bad idea... it wastes everyone's time and angers the judge, do it enough and you can get sanctioned.)
And they did cover the hitman issue--they most certainly did try to suppress the evidence that he hired a hitman (just not with arguments over entrapment). You can read more here:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1391...
But not once did they say 'entrap'. You seem to be trying to argue that DPR wasn't predisposed to hiring hitmen before the cops got there, but that the cops convinced him that it was his only option.
I've covered why that doesn't cut it: the police CAN join your conspiracy, they CAN lie to you, they CAN give you the means (and the idea!) to commit the crime, and he DID have other options (he doesn't have to like them). Each of those cuts out elements of his defense, leaving nothing.
So the case you have to make is that the police overcame his resistance to hiring a hitman, but the chat logs given never show him saying "no, I don't want to do this" they show him as eager to make use of this "solution."
To establish a claim of entrapment, you have to show that he resisted the idea and that the police overcame this resistance. From there, courts may follow one of two approaches: deciding whether this defendant had been predisposed to commit the crime or whether this approach would have caused any law-abiding citizen to commit the crime.
I've been pointing to the latter approach, as I think it's more productive to take an objective approach than a subjective one. Were a law-abiding citizen in DPR's shoes, they would NOT have hired the hitman. A law-abiding citizen hit by this would have turned to the police for protection from the blackmail, not to a hitman.
The discussion of necessity and duress is relevant to whether he had "other options." Both of those are arguments that one does not have other real options. Because both of those unqestionably fail, he had other options.
To establish entrapment, you have to prove that he had no way out and that they used this to overcome resistance. In the example of actual entrapment, we have someone shown as refusing to commit a crime for money, then agreeing only because someone's life is at stake and the papers aren't really important.
Nowhere have you cited any of the chat logs with him showing resistance to hiring a hitman (this is required!). And then you have to show them overcoming this resistance.
Maybe if you can show the police telling him that police protection is worthless or shooting down his ideas for avoiding hiring a hitman you could get somewhere, but... no such evidence is on offer.
Rather, all of the evidence points to the fact that he was predisposed to commit this crime. From the legal brief cited above:
The next day, Ulbricht told another coconspirator, CC-2, about the theft. (Id.) Ulbricht expressed surprise that the Employee had stolen from him given that he had a copy of the Employee’s driver’s license. (Id. at 6-7.) Later in the conversation, Ulbricht and CC-2 discussed the possibility that the Employee was cooperating with law enforcement, and CC-2 remarked:
So if you want to argue this, take facts cited from court papers (e.g. papers filed by DPR's lawyers), then fit those to the elements of entrapment. Show me from the chat logs or similar sources where he exhibited resistance to the idea, then show me how the police convinced him to give up that resistance.
Because that's how you establish entrapment.
>Disagree with your definition of addicted //
I made pains to show that "addicted" was being used metaphorically. I was describing common use not presenting an alternate definition. That said the roots of the word are in having an inclination towards something and it is still defined in some dictionaries as alternately relating towards habits rather than solely pertaining to psychological or physiological dependency.
Are you claiming they are? Note I simply asked:
> Please cite law statute or legal cases with links. Poorly researched news stories and opinions are much less useful.
Nothing you've posted allows Ulbricht to hire someone to kill Green, no matter how Ulbricht obtained the money to begins with. Until you cite a law by statute you think allows this, we're done.
Your assertion, not true as stated, and only party true except in very specific circumstances. You claim Texas; I show that's not true in such generality; you drop that line. I'll vote this one as "Not backed up."
> I'm pretty sure you could still post a reward, 'dead or alive'
Your assertion, not backed up. And wrong.
> I think it's legal to try to catch the robber yourself indefinitely, and defend yourself if threatened in the process.
Your assertion, not backed up. And wrong.
> Is it not legal to chase down the thief yourself?
Your assertion, not backed up. And wrong.
>Louisiana appears to allow lethal force just to prevent unlawful entry into a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.
And now just simply move your original goalposts from robbery, since your original claim about Texas was not the slam dunk you hoped.
>Are 'dead or alive' bounties not legal?
Your assertion, not backed up. Also wrong.
Do you see why I asked for you to provide statute, since all your unbacked assertions are just wrong?
>So... you make up an assertion I'm supposed to back up? Nice.
You make up assertions, are unable to support them when asked multiple times, and then try to blame me? Classic.
You sound like you're a very insistent and dogged debater.
It would be becoming of you to take your passion for argumentation and apply it to the arguments being made by the opposition. I'm certain that if you did this you would have more success.
I would reply point by point but as they say "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."
Thanks again for the discussion. Hope to see you continue to be verbose (but perhaps more charitable) in other threads around HN.
To establish entrapment, you need to locate some place in which he demonstrated some resistance to hiring a hitman, I was unable to find any such evidence in materials before the Court. If you think otherwise, quote anything you like from his log or any other evidence before the Court that shows him being averse to hiring a hitman until they talked him into it.
Without that, you don't get to claim entrapment, legally. The Court would just say you were already predisposed to commit the crime and ignore your protests about how the cops fooled you, as is shown repeatedly in the law guide. Moreover, the burden of proof is on you to establish entrapment, not the other way around. So it's not enough to say that but for the theft/blackmail he wouldn't have done this, you have to show him resisting the idea.
Was he set up by the cops? Undoubtedly so. Every single example in the law guide of non-entrapment shows the cops setting someone up. But there are standards for entrapment which must be met by evidence properly presented in court. If his lawyers do not make this argument, it is because they cannot. If someone suggests that "hey, you should hire this guy to kill that guy who's causing you problems," you will be in legal trouble if you go along with their suggestion instead of refusing it.
So 'charitable' has nothing to do with it. The evidence before the Court isn't very charitable to him. You might argue that this is unfair, but this is how you determine something like entrapment. That's why there are long fights over the evidence (like the one I linked earlier), because that determines what they have to work with.
Is it (A), (B), or (C) that is incorrect?
It sounds like you are saying that (C) is incorrect. However you are confusing how this is shown in court - what needs to be established - from the principle and definition of coercion.
Law enforcement did not charge him for the hitman so the defense did not need to put up a case for entrapment, and as far as I can tell the legal defense dropped the ball a number of places. So it is not enough to point at the defense and backwards reason that if there were entrapment that it would have been established. There was no opportunity. There will be a separate hearing on the use of law enforcement coercion and we may see an argument and evidence presented there.
Neither of us would be willing or able to establish a full defense of DPR or a full case for law enforcement - suggesting that this is my responsibility is intellectually dishonest.
Take any number of resources:
http://www.pdxcriminallawyers.com/articles/entrapment-and-po...
"What Is Entrapment?
When it comes to police coercion, a defendant is assumed to have the responsibility to turn down an opportunity to commit a crime when posed by a law enforcement officer. Instead, a defendant will need to prove that the law enforcement officer took additional actions to force a person into an illegal act. The following may be considered sufficient actions to force a person into committing a crime they otherwise wouldn’t:
- Fraudulent claims or promises
- Depending on the specifics, verbal harassment or flattery
- Threats against a person, their property, or their job
If a defendant wants to cite entrapment, they have a duty to present proof of entrapment. As it is what is known as an affirmative defense, the defendant has to offer evidence to clear their willing involvement in a crime."
http://www.grayarea.com/entrap.htm
"So, a defendant cannot be exonerated of a crime on an entrapment claim even if he or she can prove that police had no reason whatsoever to suspect even the slightest of criminal inclinations. What they must prove is that were induced by police to commit the crime. This leads us to the second of the four questions: What constitutes inducement?
An officer merely approaching a defendant and requesting that they commit a crime does not. To claim inducement, a defendant must prove he or she was unduly persuaded, threatened, coerced, harassed or offered pleas based on sympathy or friendship by police. A defendant must demonstrate that the government conduct created a situation in which an otherwise law-abiding citizen would commit an offense."
Yes, what you are arguing against is a straw man. Quite simply you are not charitably interpreting the situation whereby law enforcement created a situation in which DPR had an incentive to hire a hitman as entrapment. It is the simulation of blackmail, fraud and threats to DPR's business that constitute coercion.
Merely suggesting that there be a hitman is not coercion. But simulating blackmail, defrauding him and threatening his business constitute coercion.
This is what we're talking about and you have repeatedly been ignoring.
Because you are arguing merely in the context of "they offered a hitman and he agreed" you are arguing against a weakened form of my argument.
My argument, in full, charitable form, can be seen in the second reference quoted.
"An officer merely approaching a defendant and requesting that they commit a crime does not. To claim inducement, a defendant must prove he or she was unduly persuaded, threatened, coerced, harassed or offered pleas based on sympathy or friendship by police. A defendant must demonstrate that the government conduct created a situation in which an otherwise law-abiding citizen would commit an offense."
An officer did not merely approach DPR and request that he commit a crime.
They simulated blackmail, fraud and threat to property: that is coercive.
Definitions of blackmail includes the word "coercion".
Please, I don't care how long your posts are if you don't bother to address the premises of the argument.
Because you are refusing to address the use of simulated blackmail and fraud to coerce DPR, you are not charitably engaging the argument. You are arguing against a straw man. You are pretending that law enforcement merely chatted with DPR online without setting up coercive pretenses.
Please, for your own sake, be charitable when debating people - either in person or online.
> Given (A) that blackmail is coercion (psychological pressure), and (B) coercing someone into committing a crime is entrapment. Would (A) and (B) then not imply that (C) blackmailing should count as entrapment?
(A) isn't sufficient motive for hiring someone to murder someone (you have no right to use deadly force to protect mere property). Also, even if someone hold a gun to your head and tells you to kill someone else, it's still criminal if you do that (it's one of the examples in the law guide). This makes it nearly impossible to entrap someone into hiring a hitman, without even getting into the particulars of this case.
(B) is necessary, but not sufficient, to support a claim of entrapment.
A person must prove that they put up some resistance to committing the crime and that the police or their agents overcame this. So he needs a quote of him saying "NO" to the idea in the chat logs (or something equivalent to this, in the admitted evidence), then police pressure, then him changing his mind.
You can see how it played out in the law guide sample: the young lady refuses to commit the crime for money, but relents when a police agent tells her that lives are at stake. That refusal is very important!
As your source correctly states, a "defendant is assumed to have the responsibility to turn down an opportunity to commit a crime when posed by a law enforcement officer." The quotes quoted by the Court demonstrate the opposite, that he was very agreeable to the police's suggestion once offered, failing to meet this duty. Those demonstrate against the resistance he must show that he put up to claim entrapment.
If you can find something in the chat log, his legal briefs, or wherever that proves he said "no" before he said "yes", please offer it. Your source correctly confirms that he has the burden of proof to show this and establish entrapment.
> Law enforcement did not charge him for the hitman so the defense did not need to put up a case for entrapment
The hiring of the hitman was an element of the "continuing criminal enterprise" (CCE) charge, for which he was later convicted. This has been covered in previous discussions of the court documents. I am not clear on why you are still objecting to this.
I am also confused by your version of "charitable." It's not my intent to be disrespectful, but I can't reasonably claim that a case exists without evidence for it. I can't claim he's legally innocent, nor that he was denied due process, given that he was convicted by a jury of his peers in a court of law. I can't assume things to be in DPR's favor without admissible evidence showing that when analyzing how the law would treat this scenario. Nor can I shift the burden of proof in his favor when the law says otherwise.
That's now how law works.
I'm sorry if I come off as harsh, I certainly don't intend that. But you should be aware that real courts are absolutely hostile to such arguments. Not only would you get savaged by opposing counsel, you'd face motions for sanctions for wasting everyone's time.
I'm not going to sue anybody, I'm just going to point out that what you want to argue doesn't work because it doesn't meet the legal definitions :)
DPR can't properly meet either element of entrapment under either the subjective or objective standard due both to a lack of evidence and admitted evidence that shows him being agreeable to the suggestion. As the law guide says, "they're allowed to go after those who would say yes."
The charge of entrapment is separate from the severity of the crime someone is entrapped into or whether the entrapment would be considered a sufficient motive, were it not simulated. It is merely enough that the police coerced the defendant.
The blackmail, however, was for a delayed use of force - loss of freedom/liberty - which is tantamount to loss of life, and indeed in this case Ross lost the remainder of his life. It would be uncharitable (again) to suggest that it was merely about property. But (again) all one needs to establish entrapment is threat to property.
> This makes it nearly impossible to entrap someone into hiring a hitman, without even getting into the particulars of this case.
Can you support this argument by citing the law, precedent or a summary? (This claim is not supported by your webcomics.)
> even if someone hold a gun to your head and tells you to kill someone else, it's still criminal if you do that Please stop referring to webcomics as "the" law guide.
Of course its still criminal. Do not confuse this with whether it is entrapment. (If done by the police) It is both entrapment and it is criminal.
Where are you getting the idea that if the police hold a gun to your head to make you shoot someone that isn't entrapment? Can you cite the law or precedent? Again, the webcomic does not cover this: in the webcomic, the police are not holding the gun.
> (B) is necessary, but not sufficient, to support a claim of entrapment
Right, one also needs (A).
> So he needs a quote of him saying "NO" to the idea in the chat logs (or something equivalent to this, in the admitted evidence), then police pressure, then him changing his mind.
This is not the case. If someone never says "NO" because the police never approach a defendant, but the police apply pressure and then make the approach after the pressure is applied, this still counts as entrapment.
> You can see how it played out in the law guide sample: the young lady refuses to commit the crime for money, but relents when a police agent tells her that lives are at stake. That refusal is very important!
Please stop referring to the webcomic as "the" law guide.
The refusal is sufficient, but not necessary to establish in court that there was pressure applied. All the the defense needs to do is show that there was pressure (coercion). One way to do this is to show that the defendant said no, pressure was applied, and then the defendant said yes. But it is not the only way to establish that there was coercion/pressure.
As my source correctly states to qualify the quote you cherrypicked:
"Instead, a defendant will need to prove that the law enforcement officer took additional actions to force a person into an illegal act. The following may be considered sufficient actions to force a person into committing a crime they otherwise wouldn’t:
- Fraudulent claims or promises
- Depending on the specifics, verbal harassment or flattery
- Threats against a person, their property, or their job"
That is, "the defendant has to offer evidence to clear their willing involvement in a crime." In this case, the defendant would offer the fact that they were blackmailed and defrauded.
> If you can find something in the chat log, his legal briefs, or wherever that proves he said "no" before he said "yes", please offer it. Your source correctly confirms that he has the burden of proof to show this and establish entrapment.
It is not my responsibility to establish this. It is intellectually dishonest to presume that it is my responsibility to do this. It is also intellectually dishonest to suggest that the only way to show that there was police coercion is to show a "no" and then a "yes". Coercion can be established many different ways.
> I'm sorry if I come off as harsh, I certainly don't intend that.
Wrt CCE, this is also a rounding down of the argument. DPR will be facing separate charges in a separate case for the hitman, will he not? The hitman bit was brought up as an anecdote to support the CCE charge and not something that the defense could challenge as entrapment at that time. This is why I bring it up.
By uncharitable I merely mean that you aren't willing to take the actual argument. You have not directly addressed the argument. At this point I am convinced that you are not willing to.
You don't come off as harsh. I would use the word dismissive. I've used the word 'uncharitable'. Maybe 'troll'?
Argument from exhaustion against a straw man.
----------------------------------
Let's go forward from this point.
If the police entered a mall, forced someone at gunpoint to kill another person, could that person then be arrested for murder with no possibility of arguing that they were entrapped?
Suppose that before or during being held at gunpoint, at no point did they tell anyone that "no" they wouldn't kill.
I'm sorry you thought my statement had 'such generality' to apply to any defense from any robbery. If you look back at the point I was making you'll see why this isn't relevant.
Yes, it's separate, but the point was that there are no excuse defenses that cover it, period.
> The blackmail, however, was for a delayed use of force - loss of freedom/liberty - which is tantamount to loss of life, and indeed in this case Ross lost the remainder of his life.
The law recognizes no such equivalence, nor do any of your sources show that. It would be ridiculous for the law to reward you for trying to escape being brought to court, particularly if you thought you had a reason you'd be sent to jail after their examination.
> It would be uncharitable (again) to suggest that it was merely about property. But (again) all one needs to establish entrapment is threat to property.
The threat of going to jail when your crimes are exposed is one made by the court in the first place, so how can it rule that it was somehow wrong to threaten you with punishment or excuse you for trying to have someone killed to avoid answering to the court?
I did support that by pointing out how none of the excuse defenses cover this in general. Hiring a hitman is simply criminal, so you need some reason to say that a law-abiding citizen might think it was okay in this circumstance, which brings us to the excuse defenses. Courts do not entertain hypotheticals, so there's no precedent. If you want to argue that they do, you should instead find a time when someone was excused for hiring a hitman.
> Please stop referring to webcomics as "the" law guide.
Okay, now this is just silly. 'The', as I used it, doesn't mean it's the only guide or the definitive source of all law, it means it's the same one I've been referencing. You can denigrate it as a 'comic', but legal textbooks actually look very much like that comic in written form. They lay out various scenarios and explain how the law plays out. So the main difference is that this one has little illustrations. It still covers the elements of each item and gives examples of how they work.
> All the the defense needs to do is show that there was pressure (coercion).
They have to show that they were not otherwise inclined to commit the crime and that the coercion was sufficient to change their mind (subjective standard) or to change the mind of any law abiding citizen (objective standard). "They're allowed to go after those who would say yes."
You quote that "the defendant has to offer evidence to clear their willing involvement in a crime"
But such evidence has been offered. They show him carefully considering whether to get a hitman and answering "yes" with no evidence of reluctance or refusal, save some worries about how it might impact his business. The fact that he deliberated works against him, too. He could more easily claim that the pressure got to him if he had acted hastily, in a panic. The fact that it was a coldly calculated move will leave people to infer malice.
> DPR will be facing separate charges in a separate case for the hitman, will he not?
Maybe, but he's got a bunch of life sentences right now, so I almost wonder if they will even bother? I don't expect them to play nice here, though. Whatever they choose will be to make sure he's well and thoroughly screwed, given how high profile this is.
As you can see, I have no illusions about them playing nice.
> It is not my responsibility to establish this.
I pointing out that the burden of proof is, legally, on the side of the one claiming entrapment. That's how the law works. If you want to convince me that DPR was entrapped, that's what you have to establish. Any lesser burden does not meet the standard set forth in law and is, for that reason, unconvincing.
> If the police entered a mall, forced someone at gunpoint to kill another person, could that person then be arrested for murder with no possibility of arguing that they were entrapped?
This scenario is in the duress chapter, albeit not by a cop.
The person in that scenario was guilty if they pulled the trigger. They might get it reduced to a lesser offense like manslaughter, but they wouldn't be excused. The person, cop or otherwise, holding a literal gun to their head would also be arrested.
No such scenario is on offer here, though. The loss of freedom resulting from blackmail over exposing one's crimes would be caused by the court itself. And the court is going to trust the court's own judgement (how could it not?) over the contents of the blackmail. As it will believe that it would fairly judge a law-abiding citizen (for whom the blackmail would be false), it has every reason to infer by that very fact that those who would hire a killer to escape the court's own scrutiny are up to no good.
Moreover, a court does not consider its own threat to jail you in the event it judges you to have broken the law to be equivalent to losing your life. So you cannot draw a hasty equivalence between being jailed and being killed and try to use the duress rules for losing your life. The duress rules don't even excuse you for killing someone when there's an immediate threat to your life, so why would they excuse something less than that? Now, the self-defense rules can excuse you for protecting yourself, but they require an immediate threat (among other things), and yet DPR had time to write about this in his diary, as I have quoted up thread.
If I'm dismissive, it's because I cannot find a case for him to make here, based on law. But this is nothing. Actual lawyers are positively savage in how they destroy weak arguments.
So I do not expect his lawyers to argue this in court, though this is the sort of argument I might expect if he went pro se and tried his own hand at arguing with the court. He might do that just to grand-stand, but it wouldn't buy him anything but press coverage.
I expect that he will appeal somehow, and his lawyers will likely cite some evidentiary grounds, or similar procedural matters (e.g. "the trial court improperly allowed this evidence because...").
I expect him to lose the appeal. If he tries to appeal to the Supreme Court, I expect that will end with them denying his petition for a writ of certiorari.
You, and anyone else still reading this, can determine the relative quality of our expectations by comparing what we have written is likely to happen to what actually happens. There should be some mismatch for both of us, of course--nobody has a crystal ball--but the distance between our expectations and reality is likely the most objective way to make an assessment.
I think perhaps that would be better than continuing further. Feel free to make your own predictions.
I need to point out one final time that you have not engaged with any of the actual arguments that have been made herein, though you are quick to suggest that the arguments are weak or otherwise round your engagement with a strawman as representative of aspiration to the quality of working attorneys.
You are a mighty troll. A very good one sir.
I will stop feeding you now.
I give up. You win by argument from exhaustion.