4 ms·

You forgot the part where he wanted Curtis Green dead because of a theft of USD$350,000.00 in Bitcoin commited by the dirty undercover DEA agent who he then hir

You forgot the part where he wanted Curtis Green dead because of a theft of USD$350,000.00 in Bitcoin commited by the dirty undercover DEA agent who he then hired to murder Curtis Green.

joelwilliamson 11y ago
If he thought Curtis had robbed him, I suppose it was okay to hire someone to murder him.
- tsieling 11y ago
  Really, now.
mpyne 11y ago
While it's nice that Force is responsible for the theft and not Green, Ulbricht didn't know that and so can't be given any 'credit' for that mistake. He arranged for his own employee to be tortured and murdered, even if his idiocy (and only his idiocy) in choosing hitmen prevented an actual fatality from happening.
- psykovsky 11y ago
  He wanted Curtis Green dead because of Force, not despite.
  - mpyne 11y ago
    > He wanted Curtis Green dead You should have stopped there. Unless you're trying to claim that Force somehow zombified Ulbricht and then mind-controlled him into placing the hit...
dragonwriter 11y ago
I wasn't aware suspecting someone of embezzling (whether or not its the proceeds of your criminal enterprise) was generally an accepted justification, or even significant factor in mitigation, for torture and murder.
drfuchs 11y ago
So you agree that Alupis' item is completely false, which was my sole point. As an aside, you conveniently neglect to mention that Curtis Green feared Ross would have him killed simply because Curtis had been arrested and Ross knew that he might spill the beans. And since Curtis knows Ross better than you or I do, and the fact that he managed to predict that Ross would try to have him killed, brings into question whether the money really made a difference.
tptacek 11y ago
You forgot the part where he wanted Curtis Green dead because of a theft of --- not sure why I need to read past this point.
- indrax 11y ago
  Odd that laws allow for killing to prevent a robbery, but taking a life as punishment is unthinkable. I wonder: If the money had been gained legally then stolen, what steps could the victim legally take to recover it?
  - ChrisLomont 11y ago
    What law allows killing to prevent a robbery? I think you're mistaken. Some places allow using lethal force when your own life is threatened. I am not aware of any place in the US where one is justified in killing merely to prevent a robbery. And if there is, can you show me a law in the US where a citizen can go after a robber long after the robbery is over and then kill them? I think not.
    - indrax 11y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide#Examples_of_justifiable_homicide_laws_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide#Examples_o... Texas was the first thing to come to my mind : http://nation.time.com/2013/06/13/when-you-can-kill-in-texas/ http://nation.time.com/2013/06/13/when-you-can-kill-in-texas... The laws do seem to allow less after the fact, with good reason. My point was that we clearly allow for people to value money over lives. When is a robbery over? The stuff never stops being yours, and they never stop running away with it. A lot of things come into play here, but I'm pretty sure you could still post a reward, 'dead or alive'. I think it's legal to try to catch the robber yourself indefinitely, and defend yourself if threatened in the process. Our wild west laws are only slightly less savage than what was alleged in this case.
      - ChrisLomont 11y ago
drfuchs 11y ago
Your "because" is wrong. DPR's own words about killing Curtis: "ok, so can you change the order to execute rather than torture? ... he [Curtis] was on the inside for a while, and now that he’s been arrested, I’m afraid he’ll give up info." So, Ross himself says that the reason he wants Curtis killed is simply because Curtis might help the authorities (which Curtis did).

You forgot the part where he wanted Curtis Green dead because of a theft of USD$350,000.00 in Bitcoin commited by the dirty undercover DEA agent who he then hired to murder Curtis Green.

joelwilliamson 11y ago

If he thought Curtis had robbed him, I suppose it was okay to hire someone to murder him.

tsieling 11y ago
Really, now.

mpyne 11y ago

While it's nice that Force is responsible for the theft and not Green, Ulbricht didn't know that and so can't be given any 'credit' for that mistake. He arranged for his own employee to be tortured and murdered, even if his idiocy (and only his idiocy) in choosing hitmen prevented an actual fatality from happening.

psykovsky 11y ago
He wanted Curtis Green dead because of Force, not despite.
- mpyne 11y ago
  > He wanted Curtis Green dead You should have stopped there. Unless you're trying to claim that Force somehow zombified Ulbricht and then mind-controlled him into placing the hit...

dragonwriter 11y ago

I wasn't aware suspecting someone of embezzling (whether or not its the proceeds of your criminal enterprise) was generally an accepted justification, or even significant factor in mitigation, for torture and murder.

drfuchs 11y ago

So you agree that Alupis' item is completely false, which was my sole point. As an aside, you conveniently neglect to mention that Curtis Green feared Ross would have him killed simply because Curtis had been arrested and Ross knew that he might spill the beans. And since Curtis knows Ross better than you or I do, and the fact that he managed to predict that Ross would try to have him killed, brings into question whether the money really made a difference.

tptacek 11y ago

You forgot the part where he wanted Curtis Green dead because of a theft of --- not sure why I need to read past this point.

indrax 11y ago
Odd that laws allow for killing to prevent a robbery, but taking a life as punishment is unthinkable. I wonder: If the money had been gained legally then stolen, what steps could the victim legally take to recover it?
- ChrisLomont 11y ago
  What law allows killing to prevent a robbery? I think you're mistaken. Some places allow using lethal force when your own life is threatened. I am not aware of any place in the US where one is justified in killing merely to prevent a robbery. And if there is, can you show me a law in the US where a citizen can go after a robber long after the robbery is over and then kill them? I think not.
  - indrax 11y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide#Examples_of_justifiable_homicide_laws_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide#Examples_o... Texas was the first thing to come to my mind : http://nation.time.com/2013/06/13/when-you-can-kill-in-texas/ http://nation.time.com/2013/06/13/when-you-can-kill-in-texas... The laws do seem to allow less after the fact, with good reason. My point was that we clearly allow for people to value money over lives. When is a robbery over? The stuff never stops being yours, and they never stop running away with it. A lot of things come into play here, but I'm pretty sure you could still post a reward, 'dead or alive'. I think it's legal to try to catch the robber yourself indefinitely, and defend yourself if threatened in the process. Our wild west laws are only slightly less savage than what was alleged in this case.
    - ChrisLomont 11y ago

drfuchs 11y ago

Your "because" is wrong. DPR's own words about killing Curtis: "ok, so can you change the order to execute rather than torture? ... he [Curtis] was on the inside for a while, and now that he’s been arrested, I’m afraid he’ll give up info." So, Ross himself says that the reason he wants Curtis killed is simply because Curtis might help the authorities (which Curtis did).