[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.

[ChrisLomont]

> Texas was the first thing to come to my mind

From your source " the protection-of-property element of the deadly force law is “pretty unique to Texas.” ".

If this type of law is pretty unique to Texas, let's look at the Texas law, instead of necessarily simplistic summaries.

Here [1] is the actual Texas state law. The relevant section is 9.42. The law states that deadly force may only be used in the case you claim if the person meets (among other conditions) that "the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.". Section 9.42B.

So no, you're not just free to shoot people for robbery, willy nilly. There are several steps that, even in Texas, need to be met.

>When is a robbery over? The stuff never stops being yours, and they never stop running away with it.

and

>I think it's legal to try to catch the robber yourself indefinitely, and defend yourself if threatened in the process.

is just nonsense. Even Texas requires that a person be defending their property or (Section 9.41b) "if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:" with some more constraints after that. You cannot just chase them months later and do anything.

So, "laws don't allow killing for robbery," unless there are quite a bit of other circumstances, and very few places allow it for any circumstance except when there is presumed lethal threat to the defender.

And absolutely certainly the laws do not allow Ulbrecht to hire someone to kill another no matter what the circumstances.

Please cite law statute or legal cases with links. Poorly researched news stories and opinions are much less useful.

[1] http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.h...

>I think it's legal to try to catch the robber yourself indefinitely

[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.