11 ms·

Were the people offering the murders ever convicted? Did the jury ever indicate the overt act that they counted for the conspiracy was the murder? Was Ross hi

Were the people offering the murders ever convicted? Did the jury ever indicate the overt act that they counted for the conspiracy was the murder? Was Ross himself ever convicted of any charge that requires murder or death? It's just insane to me the government was like, "look, when us and our informants showed up shit got violent! And hey he was convicted on a conspiracy that could include murder as a overt act no matter that the jury was never required to indicate that was the overt act on which they convicted but fuck it we'll use it in the sentencing"

mrguyorama 4y ago
If any human being, including a cop can get you to agree to pay money to someone who says they can kill someone for you, the problem is that you are willing to order a hit on someone, not that cops are allowed to try and persuade you to do illegal things.
- notch898a 4y ago
  Ross wasn't convicted of soliciting or conspiracy for murder though. He was convicted on a more generic conspiracy charge which only needed the prosecutor to prove overt act(s) and the speech for the conspiracy -- possible overt acts could be things like facilitating drugs or transferring money or hurting people. The jury never indicated the overt acts they included were anything related to murder, and the judge should have never presumed the jury found him guilty of anything related to murder. I don't think it's clear he agreed to pay to kill someone, at least not from a criminal perspective. Regarding your statement. I think both are wrong. If agreeing to pay someone for murder is real violence, then so is offering murder. Both the cop and the one paying should be jailed.
  - zirgs 4y ago
    The intent is important. Someone who orders and pays for murder wants someone to be killed. But a scammer/cop who doesn't want to kill anyone in the first place can't be guilty of murder. And they aren't violent, because they haven't committed any violent crimes. At most they have committed fraud. But as I understand - illegal contracts are unenforciable. You can't sue someone for not doing something illegal on your behalf. So idk if it even counts as fraud if the contract is legally void in the first place.

mrguyorama 4y ago

If any human being, including a cop can get you to agree to pay money to someone who says they can kill someone for you, the problem is that you are willing to order a hit on someone, not that cops are allowed to try and persuade you to do illegal things.

notch898a 4y ago
Ross wasn't convicted of soliciting or conspiracy for murder though. He was convicted on a more generic conspiracy charge which only needed the prosecutor to prove overt act(s) and the speech for the conspiracy -- possible overt acts could be things like facilitating drugs or transferring money or hurting people. The jury never indicated the overt acts they included were anything related to murder, and the judge should have never presumed the jury found him guilty of anything related to murder. I don't think it's clear he agreed to pay to kill someone, at least not from a criminal perspective. Regarding your statement. I think both are wrong. If agreeing to pay someone for murder is real violence, then so is offering murder. Both the cop and the one paying should be jailed.
- zirgs 4y ago
  The intent is important. Someone who orders and pays for murder wants someone to be killed. But a scammer/cop who doesn't want to kill anyone in the first place can't be guilty of murder. And they aren't violent, because they haven't committed any violent crimes. At most they have committed fraud. But as I understand - illegal contracts are unenforciable. You can't sue someone for not doing something illegal on your behalf. So idk if it even counts as fraud if the contract is legally void in the first place.