“Innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t exonerate a person from personal judgement based on facts simply because they have not been convicted in a court of law.
Edit -
Also, just because a case has been dropped doesn’t mean they weren’t guilty. Based on evidence, it’s more than reasonable to state he attempted to have someone assassinated.
You’re also going to need to provide more supporting information than a single article that’s a clear opinion piece written by a business that is biased towards supporting Ulbricht. You also share this bias being an apparent libertarian yourself, which could imply you cherry-picked this article.
Not that I can’t change my mind, but that one link ain’t gonna do it.
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.
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.
“Innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t exonerate a person from personal judgement based on facts simply because they have not been convicted in a court of law.
Edit -
Also, just because a case has been dropped doesn’t mean they weren’t guilty. Based on evidence, it’s more than reasonable to state he attempted to have someone assassinated.
You’re also going to need to provide more supporting information than a single article that’s a clear opinion piece written by a business that is biased towards supporting Ulbricht. You also share this bias being an apparent libertarian yourself, which could imply you cherry-picked this article.
Not that I can’t change my mind, but that one link ain’t gonna do it.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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