4 ms·

But he didn’t traffic anything though Nebraska. Did they have evidence that he intended to? Seems unlikely.

by alex_young 3y ago

tptacek 3y ago
Yes, they did.
- alex_young 3y ago
  Ok you didn’t mention it unless I’m misreading things. What evidence did they find as to his future travel plans? Maybe with 18k he was planning on taking a longer route home or retiring in Colorado or something.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    The text messages. Remember: even in Colorado, random people can't sell weed --- if the person he was texting wasn't a licensed dealer, he's got problems, and: casual buyers just rolling through Colorado don't generally text licensed dealers; you just show up and buy. If he was planning on retiring in Colorado, he could have told that to the sheriffs --- he did not, but rather told a story that fenced him off from alibis like that (see: "don't talk to the police"). Nebraska is a "substantial step" attempt liability state (he's lucky he didn't get pulled over in Kansas, which is an "any overt act" state!). Maybe he'd have had a good case; maybe the evidence wouldn't be compelling enough for a Nebraska jury. But maybe that case survives long enough for $18k to be a bargain, compared to the legal fees to beat the trafficking rap. I don't know. But these details weren't in the article --- the summary that was presented was deliberately sanded down to make Bouldin more sympathetic. By the logic on this thread --- logic I largely agree with --- it shouldn't matter how sympathetic Bouldin is. The author of the article should have trusted us with the whole story.
    - alex_young 3y ago
      Ok so there is no evidence that he intended to traffic anything though NE. The details about his phone doesn’t sound like something meaningful to report on in this context to me.
      - tptacek 3y ago
        So, if you were on the jury, you'd acquit. If he's assured a jury consisting only of people like you, he's home free, and should call the sheriff's bluff and defend himself pro se to hold onto his cash.
        alex_young 3y ago
        Th jury for the trial for the crimes they never charged him with? Maybe they didn’t have evidence of a crime if they didn’t charge him. What is your reasoning?
        tptacek 3y ago
        That they had substantial evidence of his intent to traffic (see the other comment on this thread that tracked down the NE Supreme Court case, which cited even more evidence), and probably would indeed have arrested him if he didn't fork over the cash. I feel like I've been pretty clear about this.
        alex_young 3y ago
        He didn’t fork over his cash. They confiscated it under his objection. If they had evidence of a crime they would have charged it.
        tptacek 3y ago
        No, that's not always true.

But he didn’t traffic anything though Nebraska. Did they have evidence that he intended to? Seems unlikely.

tptacek 3y ago

Yes, they did.

alex_young 3y ago
Ok you didn’t mention it unless I’m misreading things. What evidence did they find as to his future travel plans? Maybe with 18k he was planning on taking a longer route home or retiring in Colorado or something.
- tptacek 3y ago
  The text messages. Remember: even in Colorado, random people can't sell weed --- if the person he was texting wasn't a licensed dealer, he's got problems, and: casual buyers just rolling through Colorado don't generally text licensed dealers; you just show up and buy. If he was planning on retiring in Colorado, he could have told that to the sheriffs --- he did not, but rather told a story that fenced him off from alibis like that (see: "don't talk to the police"). Nebraska is a "substantial step" attempt liability state (he's lucky he didn't get pulled over in Kansas, which is an "any overt act" state!). Maybe he'd have had a good case; maybe the evidence wouldn't be compelling enough for a Nebraska jury. But maybe that case survives long enough for $18k to be a bargain, compared to the legal fees to beat the trafficking rap. I don't know. But these details weren't in the article --- the summary that was presented was deliberately sanded down to make Bouldin more sympathetic. By the logic on this thread --- logic I largely agree with --- it shouldn't matter how sympathetic Bouldin is. The author of the article should have trusted us with the whole story.
  - alex_young 3y ago
    Ok so there is no evidence that he intended to traffic anything though NE. The details about his phone doesn’t sound like something meaningful to report on in this context to me.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      So, if you were on the jury, you'd acquit. If he's assured a jury consisting only of people like you, he's home free, and should call the sheriff's bluff and defend himself pro se to hold onto his cash.
      - alex_young 3y ago
        Th jury for the trial for the crimes they never charged him with? Maybe they didn’t have evidence of a crime if they didn’t charge him. What is your reasoning?
        tptacek 3y ago
        That they had substantial evidence of his intent to traffic (see the other comment on this thread that tracked down the NE Supreme Court case, which cited even more evidence), and probably would indeed have arrested him if he didn't fork over the cash. I feel like I've been pretty clear about this.
        alex_young 3y ago
        He didn’t fork over his cash. They confiscated it under his objection. If they had evidence of a crime they would have charged it.
        tptacek 3y ago
        No, that's not always true.