zlacker

[parent] [thread] 6 comments
1. ygmeln+(OP)[view] [source] 2015-05-30 03:28:46
The silent majority agrees with this sentence.
replies(2): >>mikeas+a >>ygmeln+xu
◧
2. mikeas+a[view] [source] 2015-05-30 03:33:06
>>ygmeln+(OP)
Why would anyone disagree with this sentence, unless someone thinks having people killed is a normal part of business?
replies(1): >>valar_+2a
◧◩
3. valar_+2a[view] [source] [discussion] 2015-05-30 07:49:34
>>mikeas+a
Because that's not what he was charged with?
replies(1): >>mikeas+Xl
◧◩◪
4. mikeas+Xl[view] [source] [discussion] 2015-05-30 13:50:50
>>valar_+2a
Yes, it was.
replies(1): >>valar_+473
◧
5. ygmeln+xu[view] [source] 2015-05-30 16:38:25
>>ygmeln+(OP)
Its astounding that anybody here would defend this guy. Are Hacker News readers left leaning in general, or just is it just a handful of loud anarchists?
◧◩◪◨
6. valar_+473[view] [source] [discussion] 2015-06-01 18:02:38
>>mikeas+Xl
No, it was not.
replies(1): >>mikeas+Mk3
◧◩◪◨⬒
7. mikeas+Mk3[view] [source] [discussion] 2015-06-01 19:49:02
>>valar_+473
Yes, it was: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9627200

Or if you want to go straight to the source, see item 10b on page 5 of: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-sdny/legacy/...

As far as I can tell, the only reason people are saying he wasn't convicted of murder for hire is because the top-level charge is "conspiracy" or somesuch, with "murder for hire" as one of the specific conspiracy items, and they haven't dug down.

[go to top]