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.
I've heard several.
Just in the past week: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2435718/Ex-Army-vet-...
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/09/27/3655150/police-hollywo...
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.
No, but they might take the death penalty off the table.
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
1) Cops have a pretty good suspicion who it is
2) Cops falsify evidence to get search warrant
3) Search warrant executed, they have the drugs, go to trial with the drugs
This case seems to be a little more outlandish than most, though.
(really not hating on police here, I know it's a tough job)
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.
The real original evidence is not discussed. Only the (sometimes very "lucky") later stop, suspicion, search.
It's not some magical way to make up evidence like some seem to think.
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".
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).
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.
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.
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.
And made other stupid mistakes all over the place anyway.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2013/10/02/who-is-ross-u...
What are rules two through six?
Seems like the power got to him, made him a bit delusional...