Honestly? We only hear about the ones where it was an undercover cop, because that's when they get caught. Selection bias. It could be that 99% of the time, it's an actual hitman. Would you and I (the general public) ever really know about those times?
You'd think once in a while a "real" Internet hit man would get caught, and you'd read about that. But I've never read that story. I just read story after story about the morons who think they can more or less request a murder on Craigslist, and who let money change hands with the first person they talk to who seems amenable.
You don't just never hear about "internet" hitmen getting caught- you never hear about any hitman getting caught, that I've heard of. I find that suspicious, and am not willing to conclude "ah, so hitmen must not exist". There are just too many people, too many grudges, too much power & money. They probably slip through the cracks, either in the shadow of a kingpin going down, or perhaps most hitmen pretend to be ordinary criminals and take the rap as part of the job.
Real crews on the street do indeed pay hitmen. http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2013/04/04/suspects-in-duhre-m... the cost is $15k for a regular guy in the game and up to $100k for ranking crew members. They don't advertise on the internet. They are always ex cons and other crews will use them, they are completely independent and not loyal to anybody (surprise, no loyalty in the hitman industry).
This isn't the first time organized online crime has mirrored it's real life equivalents. There was that guy who designed ATM skimmer devices (Cha0) who kidnapped and beat a guy suspected of being an informant.
Interesting how fast DPR slid into gangsterism guess it comes with the territory of running an online cartel
I would guess that they take the rap not "as part of the job" but simply because there's no dilemma in the first place. Imagine the required scenario: a cop telling an admitted serial killer "Look, you're a small fish. If you can give us someone who's really worth our time, we can make life a lot easier for you."
First of all, that already seems like a dubious proposition. Really, they're going to give him immunity for all the people he murdered in exchange for information and cooperation? I guess maybe, but they sure as hell aren't going to publicize that fact.
But before you even get to that point, the cops have to find a suspect who admits to being a hit man. If I were a hit man, probably the last thing I'd say to a cop upon being arrested for murder would be "Oh, don't worry, I do this for a living." If you look at the risk and reward, the almost certain odds of being charged with even more murders are going to outweigh the slim odds that the cops want to lighten your sentence in exchange for cooperation.
So the only group of hit men that leaves who might be willing to confess are those who are already serving life sentences, or are on death row. But we have to filter the life sentences down even more to life without parole, since I think admitting to a past career in assassinations might look slightly iffy to a parole board.
If you have life without parole, I can still think of plenty of plausible reasons that you wouldn't want to admit to being a hit man.
Do any of you actually believe any of this shit? Do you realize what level of distraction we're likely reading at this point? Keep a healthy dose of skepticism for the next few weeks until everything settles down. The authorities are probably not going to be releasing the truth if they still have the means to catch other criminals in the same way they caught DPR.
I'm pretty much in favor of drug legalization, and I believe that the vast majority of people imprisoned on drug charges should be free, but it does not follow that everyone who distributes drugs is therefore innocent. To the contrary, practically everyone involved in large-scale trafficking is human scum. That's part of the reason I support legalization, to put these fucks out of a job.
So, yeah, I don't trust the government much, but I still have no trouble believing that a drug kingpin, online or off, is a murdering dirtbag.
You think the DOJ invented an entire murder-for-hire scheme with an undercover cop in a federal indictment because they're intent on convincing message board nerds to distrust Bitcoin?
I personally know a guy who almost went down for manslaughter which the police knew he couldn't have committed (he had been arrested for something minor on the other side of the country at the about same time the incident occurred). It took him about a year and a half to clear his name even though the police had documentation proving he couldn't have been there. They wanted him to go down for it that bad. They also beat him during questioning and tried to pressure him into a confession. He's a real quiet harmless guy too... So... There is NO WAY I'd trust the police.
Ok, fine, we'll never know the proportions. But you can get a confidential informant to say whatever you want for $100, and that can be enough for a search warrant. Then you don't call the shady CI at trial and work from the bust results instead.
No way to know how common it is, but I could see that method actually being good police work if they're putting away someone who needs to go away.
Parallel construction requires you to acquire the same evidence in a lawful manner that is not "tainted" by the inadmissible evidence. If they cannot find admissible means to accomplish this, they cannot use the evidence in court.
It's not some magical way to make up evidence like some seem to think.
Once they know for sure they'll find something, it's easy to bootstrap a stop and search from "little white lies", about subjective or unverifiable things. (The car was 'erratic'; there was a 'smell'.) The lies no longer have any risk, when they're only used to set up sure things.
After the search hits paydirt, the petty fabrications used as a cover story to create probable cause seem credible, and the perp's denials flimsy and self-interested. And since the prosecutors and courts only ever hear the surface story – the original illegal evidence is never revealed to them – they don't even know they're looking at a "parallel construction".
I definitely don't believe that "parallel construction" should become the norm.
But at the same time, I have faith in the decision the federal appellate courts (you could claim that's naive, but I do).
In the long term, I hope that any parallel means to make "admissible" evidence unallowed should be excluded. But until that is legally determined, I honestly do support common law / American jurisprudence. And if people continue to make their opinion heard, I believe that it will change.
My father is an attorney who works for city and county governments. My grandfather is a state judge. I don't claim that either of them exceptional to the current debate, but I strongly believe that jurisprudence will evolve similarly to public opinion.
If I've learned anything, it's that both of my family members honestly try to prioritize their government oversight/trial work over personal opinions. To the point of of heated arguments with my family and I.
And I'm not a lawyer, so I cannot refute several of their constitutional arguments. But I similarly can't effectively argue against their options in "traditional" cases.
I will say without qualification that many cases can only be fairly adjudicated with seemingly "neutral" opinion. And that any opinions about transparency or openness put current law is not necessarily worthwhile. I may not agree with their logic, but I respect the judicial precedent.
For that reason, I hope far more pressure is placed on Congress than the Judiciary ( since one can define standards, and the other must obey the higher court decisions) for a fast-changing, judicial change. (really, I'm waiting for the next generation of judges to set the points of discussion).
Recent documents, indicating DEA/IRS agents were trained to hide the original surveillance evidence, suggest even the prosecutor might not know the true genesis of a particular bust.
This information is all months old though. Some of it more than a year old. I mean, I don't know if we're getting the unadulterated truth or not, but it isn't like they just discovered all this yesterday. They've had time to take it and run with it.
That's actually one of the reasons the story doesn't add up for me. It just doesn't seem like reasonable behavior for a bright guy. Plus, the whole thing is just too neat. Reads like it's straight out of Hollywood.
Odd too that the other alleged ordered hit hasn't yet been verified by authorities, but the details around it are supposedly so well-documented and clear. So, we have all of this specific info about it, but somebody's not willing to sign off on the allegations?
I have no hard facts with which to contradict the story here, and this is certainly not to proclaim anyone's innocence. Only to say that something feels off with this.
Yeah, I am sure there are a number of "suspected" people of whom this can be said. Some of them were guilty. Some not.
In any event, when I wrote that it seemed unreasonable for a bright guy, I didn't mean that smart people don't do bad things. I meant that it seems to have been an incredibly stupid way of going about it in this case.
I agree. According to the article he evidently ordered another hit worth $150k. This idiot sounds like he was trying to become some sort of psuedo mob boss. Totally doesn't look the part though [1]
Second: "The indictment isn't the first court document to level chilling murder-for-hire allegations against Ulbricht. A separate 39-page criminal complaint claims that two months later Ulbricht ordered a $150,000 hit on a Silk Road user known as FriendlyChemist."
Quoting yourself is a common rhetorical device. Deliberate, outlandish appeal to authority. It translates as "OMG I can't believe people are so dumb they didn't know this, but just for good measure I'll spell it out for you."
The irony/humor comes from the contrast of saying something completely obvious, but couching it in the quotable quotes phrasing of something remarkably insightful.
I love HN because it's the only site where one guy can be an authority on cryptography, politics, computer science and hitman etiquette all at the same time, and nobody bats an eyelid
by that logic, you should love reddit more - they have people are experts in all those things PLUS relationships, biology, animals, fitness and even modern pop culture, all rolled into one guy!
Definitely true. What comes from including your name though? I think had someone less widely known said the same thing more people would have questioned their motives.
I'd point out his profile but I imagine that would garner even more negative attention. ;)
2x outlandish score multiplier, though as you note it works better if your name is already recognized.
If a friend emails to suggest going out to dinner, I might reply "My name is Ted Unangst and I approve this message", aping the words at the end of presidential candidate commercial. My friends don't actually need to be told my name; it's just funny.
He paid $80k to an undercover cop to have someone else killed.
Incidentally: Thomas Ptacek's First Rule Of Internet Violent Crime (based on something like a decade of news stories):
If you ask someone you meet on the Internet to accept money in exchange for killing somebody, and they say yes, THEY'RE A COP.