[Alupis]

The people supposedly "murdered" never existed... the names did not belong to real people, nor did the photo id's match anyone of record, etc. It's a rumor that they were Fed baiting him... and likely why the Fed never tried to charge him on the murder-for-hire counts.

[drfuchs]

Curtis Green is a real person, who really worked for Ross, who really was afraid Ross would have him killed, and who in fact Ross did try to have killed. See the very beginning of Joshuah Bearman's "The Rise and Fall of Silk Road" in Wired.

[psykovsky]

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.

[drfuchs]

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).

[dragonwriter]

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.

[tptacek]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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.

[mpyne]

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]

He wanted Curtis Green dead because of Force, not despite.

[mpyne]

> 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...

[joelwilliamson]

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

[tsieling]

Really, now.

[drfuchs]

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.

[redthrowaway]

You can still be charged with soliticing a minor if you happen to be a star on To Catch a Predator. Just because the minor in question never existed doesn't mean it's not a crime.

[baddox]

I think that is also silly. If finding yourself on To Catch a Predator is soliciting a minor, then by that logic the showrunners are purposefully endangering a minor.

[sjy]

No, because the producers are aware that the stand-in is not really a minor or in any serious danger.

[themeek]

Is it not known as entrapment to present a false situation in order to get a conviction or indictment, even if it's to confirm on behalf of the target a tendency or willingness to participate in the activity were to be real - and illegal because of its implications for abuse and its lack of real damage?

[Natsu]

You can find a nice guide as to what is and is not entrapment here: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633

There are a lot of misconceptions about what is or is not entrapment. A lot of things like lying about not being a cop when under cover, putting out a bait car, or just watching you commit a crime without warning you it was a crime are not entrapment and the reason why is explained in the guide.

It's only entrapment when they do something to overcome some resistance you put up to committing the crime. So unless you can show that they somehow changed your mind, the entrapment defense won't work.

Sure, the thief wouldn't have stolen the bait car if they knew it was a bait car, but the question is whether they would have stolen any car.

[themeek]

So in this case wasn't a crisis situation (there being a defector with SR secrets) fabricated by the police and a third of a million dollars disappeared? Would this sort of thing count as doing something to overcome resistance? It's not likely that an anonymous person offering to 'help take care of the situation' would have enticed him - he needed a scenario that compelled him and this scenario was fabricated.

[Natsu]

It's hard to see how being blackmailed regarding the details of one's illegal activity could count as entrapment for murder.

It seems to me that DPR came up with murder as the 'solution' to this problem, even if we claim that the problem itself was entirely manufactured.

Entrapment defenses are only supposed to prevent innocent people from being coerced by police into committing a new crime, not to provide a get out of jail free card to criminals who were somehow fooled by the police.

So the real question is not whether the police gave him a reason to hire a hitman, it's whether he ever would have hired an assassin at all.

[themeek]

According to Wikipedia: Blackmail is an act, often a crime, ... Essentially, it is coercion involving threats of ... of criminal prosecution.

Similar searches for the legal distinction between extortion and blackmail consider blackmail a form of coercion.

Given (A) that blackmail is coercion (psychological pressure), and (B) coercing someone into committing a crime is entrapment. Would (A) and (B) then not imply that (C) blackmailing should count as entrapment?

DPR did not come up with a hitman as a solution. Law enforcement made the suggestion. They did not use the words, just had their fake identity offer to take care of the situation.

[GreenCarnation]

Nope. Entrapment requires the police to have caused someone to commit a crime they wouldn't have otherwise. A good explanation of what counts as entrapment: http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-wa...

[themeek]

I'm not sure I really follow because the comics didn't describe anything that presumably would be entrapment.

Is anyone here a lawyer in this area of law? I don't really trust webcomics....

But let's talk about this alleged hitman situation. Didn't the police come up with the idea and create the situation where a third of a million dollars appeared to have been stolen and a volunteer appeared to defect with information and a threat to bring down the organization?

What exactly does count as coercion? If the police were to make your incentives work out a certain way - let's say they were aware that a non-call-girl was in dire straights was potentially willing to accept money for a personal night, they freeze her bank account and provide a good looking and safe opportunity with a load of cash to do it - would that count as compulsion?

Or is it just by appeal to words that counts as compulsion?

How can a court decide what you would have done otherwise?

It seems like a pretty difficult area of law - and one that the defendant could argue?

For the record I do not support trafficking of drugs and illegal materials, nor calling of hit men: but I do want to make sure that the tools to get a conviction do not further enshrine precedents that have fascistic qualities to them - e.g. parallel construction, entrapment, others.

[Natsu]

IANAL, but from reading lots of the law comic (which is by an actual lawyer), the basic answer is that the state has to have 'corrupted' them into being a criminal here.

The police are allowed to give you the idea (you are required to refuse), they're allowed to give you the means (they can sell you the gun/drugs/etc.), they're allowed to create opportunities (bait cars), they're even allowed to become a part of the conspiracy with you and to lie to you about it (undercover agents).

What they're not allowed to do is to force your hand or corrupt someone who wasn't committing crimes to start.

So it's not going to count if the only reason they would have otherwise refused to commit the crime was because they were dealing with the cops and it's not going to count if the reasons they decided to commit the crime stem from their own wrongdoing. If you want to protect yourself from someone blackmailing you over criminal acts you've done, you turn yourself into the police. You don't hire a hitman and add yet another crime to the list.

[gknoy]

  > Is anyone here a lawyer in this area of law? I don't really trust webcomics....

I think you can trust this one. The author of the webcomic is a lawyer [0]:

" Yes. I went to Georgetown Law, where I was an editor of the American Criminal Law Review. I started out defending juveniles in D.C., then was a prosecutor with the Manhattan D.A.’s office for about 9.5 years, first in the Special Narcotics office and then in the Rackets bureau. I’ve been doing mostly criminal defense since then, both white-collar and street crime, federal and state. "

0: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?page_id=7

[themeek]

Okay sure. :). Thanks.

Unfortunately I can't ask webcomics questions. Looking for answers to questions above.