4 ms·

Your tax money at work: govt attacking citizens who didn't hurt a fly.

danuker 5y ago
Trading with someone openly admitting to sell dangerous drugs? Not hurting anyone is incidental. > The Government sent an undercover officer to visit The Geek Group and purchase bitcoin and, while doing so, mention that he sold cocaine.
- ur-whale 5y ago
  > mention that he sold cocaine which was a bald-faced lie. entrapment is a thing.
  - carl_dr 5y ago
    Saying he got the money from selling cocaine is almost the opposite to entrapment. It certainly didn’t lead them to selling him Bitcoin when they would not have otherwise - he didn’t induce them to commit a crime. What he did was show they were happy to deal with a supposed criminal, even knowing the money had come from his crimes.
    - luma 5y ago
      That was a interesting issue as the defendant has always been extremely vocal about being anti-drug in person and through his social media channels. I'm frankly a little surprised that he went through with that particular transaction, while I hold a fairly low opinion of the guy he at least seemed to be consistent in his principles. I guess money was the goal and he was willing to compromise himself in its pursuit.
    - olalonde 5y ago
      I don't understand. Didn't the FBI agent induce him to commit money laundering by telling him he sold cocaine? Also, can't the defendant claim they thought it was a joke? Depending on the context, I most likely would have assumed it was a joke. It seems like the kind of answer someone would jokingly give if they didn't want to discuss their real job.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - rtkwe 5y ago
        We know very little about the actual interaction but there's no claim I see that there was coercion when the coins were sold to the undercover cop. Cops are allowed to setup chances for people to do illegal things, that's what stings and bait cars are all about, basically the fact that the person is a cop isn't really material because there's the assumption the person would have committed the crime with another person in the same situation.
  - bawolff 5y ago
    Entrapment is a thing, its just not this thing. That word means something else.
    - ur-whale 5y ago
      There's the US legal definition of the world, which only matters there and nowhere else (and therefore impacts a whooping 4% of people on the planet), and there's what it actually means in the rest of the English speaking world and the fact that what the cops are doing is - albeit legal - basically completely immoral.
      - bawolff 5y ago
        If we're talking about a us court case, i think the us definition is what matters. (Context matters in language) Besides, many other juridsictions would not consider this entrapment either.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        What's basically completely immoral is trying to claim that these criminals are somehow not to blame just because of what word is used for something that wasn't done to them: If the legal term were "gnartleflarb" in stead of "entrapment" even you would see that you have no argument, because they clearly weren't gnartleflarbed. So what if the law enforcement and judicial system now happens to use the word entrapment in stead, and that means something else to you? What is meant in the law still didn't happen, so you still have no argument.
  - cstejerean 5y ago
    Entrapment is a thing but it’s not this thing. Entrapment is making someone do something they wouldn’t have done otherwise.
- jMyles 5y ago
  It seems like you're outwardly defending drug prohibition here. Trading with someone who previously sold plants or compounds to a third party is not per se a moral or ethical quandary, despite apparent laws to the contrary. If that were the worst thing this person did, I suspect he'd have far more support. I am skeptical of the other whispers of unsavory behavior; they remind me of the whisper smears against Ross Ulbricht. Let's see how the thing develops.
- ur-whale 5y ago
  > sell dangerous drugs Cocaine is dangerous? How so? Cliffs and electrical outlets are also dangerous. Are they illegal? Cocaine: all you have to do is not consume it. No need to involve govts in that whole business.
hellotomyrars 5y ago
Wouldn't go that far: https://old.reddit.com/r/grandrapids/comments/lvqr6k/geek_group_leaders_charged_with_illegal_bitcoin/h1b0pbl/ https://old.reddit.com/r/grandrapids/comments/lvqr6k/geek_gr...
rtkwe 5y ago
Well there's counts 18-27 of the indictment which are all structuring transactions to avoid mandatory reporting which certainly look like they knew things weren't entirely above board. Then there's 28 where Boden tried solicit an undercover cop into extorting repayment of a debt from "C.J."

Trading with someone openly admitting to sell dangerous drugs? Not hurting anyone is incidental. > The Government sent an undercover officer to visit The Geek Group and purchase bitcoin and, while doing so, mention that he sold cocaine.

ur-whale 5y ago
> mention that he sold cocaine which was a bald-faced lie. entrapment is a thing.
- carl_dr 5y ago
  Saying he got the money from selling cocaine is almost the opposite to entrapment. It certainly didn’t lead them to selling him Bitcoin when they would not have otherwise - he didn’t induce them to commit a crime. What he did was show they were happy to deal with a supposed criminal, even knowing the money had come from his crimes.
  - luma 5y ago
    That was a interesting issue as the defendant has always been extremely vocal about being anti-drug in person and through his social media channels. I'm frankly a little surprised that he went through with that particular transaction, while I hold a fairly low opinion of the guy he at least seemed to be consistent in his principles. I guess money was the goal and he was willing to compromise himself in its pursuit.
  - olalonde 5y ago
    I don't understand. Didn't the FBI agent induce him to commit money laundering by telling him he sold cocaine? Also, can't the defendant claim they thought it was a joke? Depending on the context, I most likely would have assumed it was a joke. It seems like the kind of answer someone would jokingly give if they didn't want to discuss their real job.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - rtkwe 5y ago
      We know very little about the actual interaction but there's no claim I see that there was coercion when the coins were sold to the undercover cop. Cops are allowed to setup chances for people to do illegal things, that's what stings and bait cars are all about, basically the fact that the person is a cop isn't really material because there's the assumption the person would have committed the crime with another person in the same situation.
- bawolff 5y ago
  Entrapment is a thing, its just not this thing. That word means something else.
  - ur-whale 5y ago
    There's the US legal definition of the world, which only matters there and nowhere else (and therefore impacts a whooping 4% of people on the planet), and there's what it actually means in the rest of the English speaking world and the fact that what the cops are doing is - albeit legal - basically completely immoral.
    - bawolff 5y ago
      If we're talking about a us court case, i think the us definition is what matters. (Context matters in language) Besides, many other juridsictions would not consider this entrapment either.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      What's basically completely immoral is trying to claim that these criminals are somehow not to blame just because of what word is used for something that wasn't done to them: If the legal term were "gnartleflarb" in stead of "entrapment" even you would see that you have no argument, because they clearly weren't gnartleflarbed. So what if the law enforcement and judicial system now happens to use the word entrapment in stead, and that means something else to you? What is meant in the law still didn't happen, so you still have no argument.
- cstejerean 5y ago
  Entrapment is a thing but it’s not this thing. Entrapment is making someone do something they wouldn’t have done otherwise.
jMyles 5y ago
It seems like you're outwardly defending drug prohibition here. Trading with someone who previously sold plants or compounds to a third party is not per se a moral or ethical quandary, despite apparent laws to the contrary. If that were the worst thing this person did, I suspect he'd have far more support. I am skeptical of the other whispers of unsavory behavior; they remind me of the whisper smears against Ross Ulbricht. Let's see how the thing develops.
ur-whale 5y ago
> sell dangerous drugs Cocaine is dangerous? How so? Cliffs and electrical outlets are also dangerous. Are they illegal? Cocaine: all you have to do is not consume it. No need to involve govts in that whole business.

hellotomyrars 5y ago

Wouldn't go that far: https://old.reddit.com/r/grandrapids/comments/lvqr6k/geek_group_leaders_charged_with_illegal_bitcoin/h1b0pbl/ https://old.reddit.com/r/grandrapids/comments/lvqr6k/geek_gr...

rtkwe 5y ago

Well there's counts 18-27 of the indictment which are all structuring transactions to avoid mandatory reporting which certainly look like they knew things weren't entirely above board. Then there's 28 where Boden tried solicit an undercover cop into extorting repayment of a debt from "C.J."