Yes yes “even though there was no evidence and those cops were convicted of corruption I’ve decided to believe them because I like police when they go after those bad bad webdevs.”
Whatever my dude. I’ve provided an article that cites sources and you’ve provided “nuh uh” as a rebuttal. I do not care about you and never will, be as dumb as you want it’s a free country.
Yes, the allegations of a drug dealer who was himself caught are very reliable indeed, even though the case was dismissed due to lack of evidence and the agents charged with corruption involved with the case, we should believe the corrupt cops and cornered rat over the other guy and he should rot in prison forever for the thing that was dismissed due to lack of evidence and corruption, JUSTICE!
Btw, while this source backs your claim (that I never disputed) that he wasaccused of these crimes, you’re gonna hate this part:
The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Now where have I heard that before? Oh yeah when I said it (among other places.) Interestingly enough the whole “proven guilty” part is the bit that never happened.
I never claimed he was proven guilty or convicted. I’m only stating there is valid evidence that he paid for an assassination.
You say the case was dismissed due to a lack of evidence, but I’ve seen no proof that was the actual reason for dismissal. Also “not enough evidence” doesn’t invalidate existing evidence, it just means there is not enough that meets very specific requirements for a conviction, not that a person could not logically conclude an event happened as a matter of personal opinion.
Again, “innocent until proven guilty” does not mean a person can’t be personally judged by individuals, as a matter of personal opinion, for that person’s actions simply because a court of law had not convicted him of it. Especially if there is evidence of those actions.
For example, it’s clearly obvious that OJ Simpson murdered his wife and another person. But he was not convicted of it.
“not enough evidence” doesn’t invalidate existing evidence, it just means there is not enough that meets very specific requirements for a conviction
As in lack of evidence eh? Interesting. It’s almost like you need to be convicted of a crime, instead of over sentenced for a different charge and then drop the murder for hire charge quietly when nobody’s looking. What do they call it when you don’t get convicted again? Acq- acqknowledged? No that isn’t it, close… acq-, acq-, Akbar? No that’s star wars. Hmmmm… oh! Acquitted! That’s it, he was acquitted! So I guess that means there wasn’t enough evidence to convict, at least evidence that wasn’t from y’know the corrupt agents you’re defending for some reason and all.
Listen. I don’t care if you believe the court system or don’t. The facts are as follows:
He was never convicted of “murder for hire.”
Those charges were dismissed with prejudice, meaning the prosecutors cannot reopen the case.
That case relies on witness testimony from unreliable witnesses, and there’s evidence the “guilty” DPR acct was accessed up to two weeks after Ross’ arrest, and was accessible by (among others) the very same agents charged with corruption relating to this exact case. And I can prove to you that any chat logs can be fabricated if you don’t believe it, it’ll take me about 5min in GIMP to make you say you like putting cantaloupe in your urethra and send you back a screenshot.
So you can cry all you like, but he was never convicted of that, those charges were dropped with prejudice, and you take this to some cop who cares your “wittle dwug kingpin got away with it.” I personally do not care whether or not you believe and rely on the testimony of cops who were literally convicted of corruption in the case, because there isn’t a goddamn thing you can do about it now besides weep on lemmy. I just didn’t expect there to be any of you “back the blue no matter who” people around here.
You’re seriously overly concerned and worked up over the fact I simply disagree with you and have evidence supporting my reasoning.
I thought you were saying that you don’t care about me? You seem to care a whole lot about what I think, considering you’re trying real hard to be insulting, but you just look like a fool instead.
Yes yes “even though there was no evidence and those cops were convicted of corruption I’ve decided to believe them because I like police when they go after those bad bad webdevs.”
Whatever my dude. I’ve provided an article that cites sources and you’ve provided “nuh uh” as a rebuttal. I do not care about you and never will, be as dumb as you want it’s a free country.
There is evidence, though. I provided a reputable source that states such. So, you’re just misrepresenting my point.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/silk-road-drug-vendor-who-claimed-commit-murders-hire-silk-road-founder-ross-ulbricht
Yes, the allegations of a drug dealer who was himself caught are very reliable indeed, even though the case was dismissed due to lack of evidence and the agents charged with corruption involved with the case, we should believe the corrupt cops and cornered rat over the other guy and he should rot in prison forever for the thing that was dismissed due to lack of evidence and corruption, JUSTICE!
Btw, while this source backs your claim (that I never disputed) that he was accused of these crimes, you’re gonna hate this part:
Now where have I heard that before? Oh yeah when I said it (among other places.) Interestingly enough the whole “proven guilty” part is the bit that never happened.
I never claimed he was proven guilty or convicted. I’m only stating there is valid evidence that he paid for an assassination.
You say the case was dismissed due to a lack of evidence, but I’ve seen no proof that was the actual reason for dismissal. Also “not enough evidence” doesn’t invalidate existing evidence, it just means there is not enough that meets very specific requirements for a conviction, not that a person could not logically conclude an event happened as a matter of personal opinion.
Again, “innocent until proven guilty” does not mean a person can’t be personally judged by individuals, as a matter of personal opinion, for that person’s actions simply because a court of law had not convicted him of it. Especially if there is evidence of those actions.
For example, it’s clearly obvious that OJ Simpson murdered his wife and another person. But he was not convicted of it.
As in lack of evidence eh? Interesting. It’s almost like you need to be convicted of a crime, instead of over sentenced for a different charge and then drop the murder for hire charge quietly when nobody’s looking. What do they call it when you don’t get convicted again? Acq- acqknowledged? No that isn’t it, close… acq-, acq-, Akbar? No that’s star wars. Hmmmm… oh! Acquitted! That’s it, he was acquitted! So I guess that means there wasn’t enough evidence to convict, at least evidence that wasn’t from y’know the corrupt agents you’re defending for some reason and all.
Listen. I don’t care if you believe the court system or don’t. The facts are as follows:
He was never convicted of “murder for hire.”
Those charges were dismissed with prejudice, meaning the prosecutors cannot reopen the case.
That case relies on witness testimony from unreliable witnesses, and there’s evidence the “guilty” DPR acct was accessed up to two weeks after Ross’ arrest, and was accessible by (among others) the very same agents charged with corruption relating to this exact case. And I can prove to you that any chat logs can be fabricated if you don’t believe it, it’ll take me about 5min in GIMP to make you say you like putting cantaloupe in your urethra and send you back a screenshot.
So you can cry all you like, but he was never convicted of that, those charges were dropped with prejudice, and you take this to some cop who cares your “wittle dwug kingpin got away with it.” I personally do not care whether or not you believe and rely on the testimony of cops who were literally convicted of corruption in the case, because there isn’t a goddamn thing you can do about it now besides weep on lemmy. I just didn’t expect there to be any of you “back the blue no matter who” people around here.
You’re seriously overly concerned and worked up over the fact I simply disagree with you and have evidence supporting my reasoning.
I thought you were saying that you don’t care about me? You seem to care a whole lot about what I think, considering you’re trying real hard to be insulting, but you just look like a fool instead.
Move on, kiddo.
No u.
K