4 ms·
if you followed the story closely there is essentially no reason to believe the owner ever attempted to have anyone killed. The substantial evidence points dir
by toolz 12y ago
if you followed the story closely there is essentially no reason to believe the owner ever attempted to have anyone killed. The substantial evidence points directly to him bluffing in order to scare someone. I wrote a short summary on reddit a while back that you can read here https://www.reddit.com/r/silkroadnews/comments/1nndtk/ulbricht_never_attempted_to_hire_for_murder_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/silkroadnews/comments/1nndtk/ulbric...
- ne0n 12y agoAssault: "Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states." http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault
- toolz 12y agoWhat are you suggesting? That he may be guilty of assault regardless? I'm not understanding your comment in context.
- numbsafari 12y agoIt's true. In many states, you are guilty of assault if you threaten someone sufficiently, even if you had no intention of carrying out the threat. It's true for a number of violent crimes. Not sure why the GP got downvoted for stating facts, though I don't know the details of the murder-for-hire plot, so perhaps it somehow doesn't pertain in that particular case. Regardless, it's a legit thing. So be careful about threatening people with bodily harm.