4 ms·

> police have been devoting a huge amount of resources to track down peaceful people engaged in voluntary trade like Charlie Shrem and the operators of the Silk

by pyre 12y ago

> police have been devoting a huge amount of resources to track down peaceful people engaged in voluntary trade like Charlie Shrem and the operators of the Silk Road Market Um, the "operator(s) of Silk Road Market" allegedly attempted to hire a contract killer. I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of peaceful, if true.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
tumultuous 12y ago
Except the contract was against the guy who the cops threatened into being their informant. It was peaceful until the police showed up.
- jamesaguilar 12y ago
  I'm afraid that "the police were about to find out about me through this guy" does not count as a reasonable excuse for murdering someone.
  - aminok 12y ago
    It doesn't, but it's also not a non-violent threat. The police were out to lock him in a cage for decades.
    - jamesaguilar 12y ago
      No enforcement of any law is completely non-violent. That doesn't in any way excuse or justify killing or trying to kill to avoid enforcement.
      - aminok 12y ago
        I think you rephrased what I just said.
        jamesaguilar 12y ago
        It appeared that you were trying to minimize taking out a hit on someone because, to paraphrase, "the police started it." If that isn't what you were doing, my bad, but if it was, then my comment was as designed.
        innguest 12y ago
        But the police can take out a hit on me if I start a commotion and flee. Then they will pursue me with the intent (or legal right) to kill me and I will be blamed for it. So it makes sense to blame the police for starting a commotion that set in motion a situation that would not have arisen otherwise. Just playing devil's advocate, but the only difference I see here is that the government has a monopoly on law and they hire the police, and the killer that person allegedly hired is not working for the law the government made, but for the law that person made. So there's no need to pontificate here. This is just the difference between an organization having a monopoly on violence and then acting surprised when others want to make contracts with rules based on violence as well. Not to mention our current president has ordered the murder of US citizens before but no one is arresting him.
pilgrim689 12y ago
It's innocent until proven guilty isn't it?
- jamesaguilar 12y ago
  The court has to pretend that. We in the public can follow any decision rule we please, including maximum likelihood.
- ianferrel 12y ago
  Yes. But what does that have to do with investigation? Can't really fail to investigate until proven guilty.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    Right. The trial is not where "we find out what happens." It's where the state, having already decided you suck and need to spend some time in jail, needs to prove it to a jury of your peers beyond a reasonable doubt in a formal setting where only legally obtained evidence can be used.
- pyre 12y ago
  Well, I did make my comments conditional on the allegations being true. My only point was that the Silk Road case isn't just about the big bad government rushing after innocent people that just want to do their drugs in peace while keeping to themselves, but are caught up in the War on Drugs. That said, if the law enforcement were forced to presume that you were innocent until convicted, they would not be able to investigate you because they would no longer be presuming that you were innocent. The statement that I commented on makes the assumption that the admin(s) of Silk Road were doing nothing but providing a marketplace for consensual (though illegal) transactions. If the admin(s) of Silk Road were engaged in a murder-for-hire plot, then I would assume you are ok with the FBI investigating such things (though maybe I shouldn't make such assumptions). Murder-for-hire goes well beyond people just minding their own business.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
orik 12y ago
The “police have been devoting a huge amount of resources to track down peaceful people engaged in voluntary trade like Charlie Shrem and the operators of the Silk Road Market,” Ver says The part you left out is the most context that that statement was made by Ver, someone interviewed for the article, and no real claim was being made that the Silk Road is peacefully run. You can gain additional insight into the statement when you look at how Robert McMillian introduces Ver, a few paragraphs back. Ver put a 37 bitcoin bounty on [the hackers] head. [Ver] was himself sentenced to 10 months in federal prison...
- pyre 12y ago
  Maybe I'm wrong in this, but I read: peaceful people engaged in voluntary trade like [...] the operators of the Silk Road Market to be a claim that the Silk Road Market operators were "peaceful people" that the FBI had no business going after. I don't know anything about the case against Charlie Shrem, but that "and" groups Charlie Shrem and the Silk Road operators into the same bucket. So long as that quote is being faithfully reproduced, I don't see how talking about his prison sentence has much to do with what I'm talking about.
  - orik 12y ago
    I don't mean to say those guys aren't scumbags - I'm sure some of them are. I just wanted to point out the opinion of the silk road presented in the article was not an opinion belonging to wired but instead it belongs to this Ver guy, who is in fact a criminal.
wyager 12y ago
Those charges were dropped, iirc. It seems quite possible that that's not actually what happened.

by pyre 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

tumultuous 12y ago

Except the contract was against the guy who the cops threatened into being their informant. It was peaceful until the police showed up.

jamesaguilar 12y ago
I'm afraid that "the police were about to find out about me through this guy" does not count as a reasonable excuse for murdering someone.
- aminok 12y ago
  It doesn't, but it's also not a non-violent threat. The police were out to lock him in a cage for decades.
  - jamesaguilar 12y ago
    No enforcement of any law is completely non-violent. That doesn't in any way excuse or justify killing or trying to kill to avoid enforcement.
    - aminok 12y ago
      I think you rephrased what I just said.
      - jamesaguilar 12y ago
        It appeared that you were trying to minimize taking out a hit on someone because, to paraphrase, "the police started it." If that isn't what you were doing, my bad, but if it was, then my comment was as designed.
        innguest 12y ago
        But the police can take out a hit on me if I start a commotion and flee. Then they will pursue me with the intent (or legal right) to kill me and I will be blamed for it. So it makes sense to blame the police for starting a commotion that set in motion a situation that would not have arisen otherwise. Just playing devil's advocate, but the only difference I see here is that the government has a monopoly on law and they hire the police, and the killer that person allegedly hired is not working for the law the government made, but for the law that person made. So there's no need to pontificate here. This is just the difference between an organization having a monopoly on violence and then acting surprised when others want to make contracts with rules based on violence as well. Not to mention our current president has ordered the murder of US citizens before but no one is arresting him.

pilgrim689 12y ago

It's innocent until proven guilty isn't it?

jamesaguilar 12y ago
The court has to pretend that. We in the public can follow any decision rule we please, including maximum likelihood.
ianferrel 12y ago
Yes. But what does that have to do with investigation? Can't really fail to investigate until proven guilty.
- danielweber 12y ago
  Right. The trial is not where "we find out what happens." It's where the state, having already decided you suck and need to spend some time in jail, needs to prove it to a jury of your peers beyond a reasonable doubt in a formal setting where only legally obtained evidence can be used.
pyre 12y ago
Well, I did make my comments conditional on the allegations being true. My only point was that the Silk Road case isn't just about the big bad government rushing after innocent people that just want to do their drugs in peace while keeping to themselves, but are caught up in the War on Drugs. That said, if the law enforcement were forced to presume that you were innocent until convicted, they would not be able to investigate you because they would no longer be presuming that you were innocent. The statement that I commented on makes the assumption that the admin(s) of Silk Road were doing nothing but providing a marketplace for consensual (though illegal) transactions. If the admin(s) of Silk Road were engaged in a murder-for-hire plot, then I would assume you are ok with the FBI investigating such things (though maybe I shouldn't make such assumptions). Murder-for-hire goes well beyond people just minding their own business.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

orik 12y ago

The “police have been devoting a huge amount of resources to track down peaceful people engaged in voluntary trade like Charlie Shrem and the operators of the Silk Road Market,” Ver says The part you left out is the most context that that statement was made by Ver, someone interviewed for the article, and no real claim was being made that the Silk Road is peacefully run. You can gain additional insight into the statement when you look at how Robert McMillian introduces Ver, a few paragraphs back. Ver put a 37 bitcoin bounty on [the hackers] head. [Ver] was himself sentenced to 10 months in federal prison...

pyre 12y ago
Maybe I'm wrong in this, but I read: peaceful people engaged in voluntary trade like [...] the operators of the Silk Road Market to be a claim that the Silk Road Market operators were "peaceful people" that the FBI had no business going after. I don't know anything about the case against Charlie Shrem, but that "and" groups Charlie Shrem and the Silk Road operators into the same bucket. So long as that quote is being faithfully reproduced, I don't see how talking about his prison sentence has much to do with what I'm talking about.
- orik 12y ago
  I don't mean to say those guys aren't scumbags - I'm sure some of them are. I just wanted to point out the opinion of the silk road presented in the article was not an opinion belonging to wired but instead it belongs to this Ver guy, who is in fact a criminal.

wyager 12y ago

Those charges were dropped, iirc. It seems quite possible that that's not actually what happened.