zlacker

He ordered the killings of 6 people.

Even by the bloodiest of bleeding heart standards, contract killing isn't some victimless crime.

>>Spooky+(OP)
Not everyone is convinced this happened.

>>Spooky+(OP)
Well, it helps if you are sentenced for things you are convicted of then.

Because, even by the "Hang them by the neck until they are dead" gung-ho standards, you generally have to be convicted of something before being punished for it.

>>Spooky+(OP)
He was charged with murder-for-hire in a separate jurisdiction, and he hasn't faced trial for those charges yet. Today he was sentenced to life in prison for a number of victimless crimes.

>>jMyles+c2
I can't upvote you for some retarded reason. But you're correct as far as I'm concerned.

>>jamoes+45
He was also charged in a separate jurisdiction, yes, but murder-for-hire was actually a component of one of the charges he was accused of in this trial.

Either way enough relatives of deceased drug abusers testified at sentencing, and enough heartless chat logs of DPR's were introduced as evidence, to rather eviscerate the idea that Silk Road was completely "victimless".

>>mpyne+M7
> Either way enough relatives of deceased drug abusers testified at sentencing, and enough heartless chat logs of DPR's were introduced as evidence, to rather eviscerate the idea that Silk Road was completely "victimless".

By that logic relatives of deceased drunk-driving victims should be testifying against bars and liquor store proprietors as well.

I think while most expected this kind of outcome, the comments coming out in support are really a round-about kind of way of expressing various posters underlying opinion about U.S. drug laws and policies as ridiculous, draconian, counter-productive and harmful.

>>hurin+l9
> By that logic relatives of deceased drunk-driving victims should be testifying against bars and liquor store proprietors as well.

Uh, should I be the one to tell you that such relatives often do that very thing?

But at least bars and liquor stores don't often go about torturing and murdering their employees, so at least they have that going for them.

>>jMyles+c2
That is because a lot of people are simply ignoring the evidence available since they have an ideological stake in Ross's non-violence. The balance of probability here is that Ross intended to kill 6 people and fucked it up.

>>srdev+ta
Still, I prefer for the evidence to be presented in an open forum, under oath and subject to rebuttal, before I will believe it.

And yes, I think I have a sort of psychological "stake" as you say in Ross' non-violence.

>>jMyles+Ma
The evidence in question, Ross's journals and chat logs, were presented in trial and subject to rebuttal. He wasn't being tried for those crimes; those charges are still pending, but they were material to the case and the defense failed to dispute them. At the present moment, it is highly probable that he intended to have 6 people, including the innocent roomates of his targets, murdered.

>>mpyne+M7
No it wasn't. Here are the charges that were involved in this trial.

http://freeross.org/the-case-the-goal-and-why-this-matters-2...

>>jabsca+we
Feel free to grep for 'murder-for-hire' in this document https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1391..., where the judge ruled on the admissability of evidence about Ulbricht's attempts to hire murderers to kill 6 people.

Or if you don't grep, you could just start from the beginning; the judge essentially leads off with the murder-for-hire subplot right from the beginning of her ruling.

As mentioned by dragonwriter, this murder-for-hire scheme was an overt act charged as part of Count One of the indictment (p5)

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-sdny/legacy/...

>>Spooky+(OP)
For which he was duly convicted.

Oh right he wasn't. He was convicted solely for selling drugs, and sentenced for being a geek.

Make no mistake about it - the world hate us, it just tolerates us right now because we are effective and need.