Silk Road Drug Dealer Admits Guilt in Murder Case

[darknetmarkets.co]

After being arrested in 2014, Kevin Campbell admits guilt over drug overdose of a customer from Silk Road.

Read more: https://darknetmarkets.co/silk-road-market-dealer-pleads-guilty-to-murder-of-customer/

[Xester]

After being arrested in 2014, Kevin Campbell admits guilt over drug overdose of a customer from Silk Road.

Read more: https://darknetmarkets.co/silk-road-market-dealer-pleads-guilty-to-murder-of-customer/

It is a good news. Kevin Campbell may be troubled by his conscience and cannot take it anymore and so he just confess or plead guilty to the court. Another thing of pleading guilty is possibly to lessen his sentence in the penitentiary or jail. But its good for the family of the victim that after a long race for justice they finally got the price they wanted so much for almost 3 years.

[darknetmarkets.co]

After being arrested in 2014, Kevin Campbell admits guilt over drug overdose of a customer from Silk Road.

Read more: https://darknetmarkets.co/silk-road-market-dealer-pleads-guilty-to-murder-of-customer/

It is a good news. Kevin Campbell may be troubled by his conscience and cannot take it anymore and so he just confess or plead guilty to the court. Another thing of pleading guilty is possibly to lessen his sentence in the penitentiary or jail. But its good for the family of the victim that after a long race for justice they finally got the price they wanted so much for almost 3 years.

Guilty pleas also take less sentence time and I am assuming incriminating evidence has been building up this whole time.

[Sithara007]

I think that Kevin Campbell is innocent in this case. If an user doesn't know how to use drugs, then why blame the dealer? If someone dies from drunken driving, are you going to arrest the driver, or the CEO of the alcohol company which produced that particular brand of alcohol?

[NyeFee]

I think that Kevin Campbell is innocent in this case. If an user doesn't know how to use drugs, then why blame the dealer? If someone dies from drunken driving, are you going to arrest the driver, or the CEO of the alcohol company which produced that particular brand of alcohol?

Both to blame. The one who produces alcohol, he knows the consequences of the use of its products! If you use your logic you can justify and those who produce the drugs. And sellers say that doesn't make people buy drugs.

[darknetmarkets.co]

I think that Kevin Campbell is innocent in this case. If an user doesn't know how to use drugs, then why blame the dealer? If someone dies from drunken driving, are you going to arrest the driver, or the CEO of the alcohol company which produced that particular brand of alcohol?

He is guilty of selling drugs illegally. The fact that those drugs ended up killing someone, he becomes an accessory to murder. This is standard law. The drunk driver is not a good example of comparison. It is more like a car company that sells faulty brakes with their cars. They distribute to dealers, and let's say this dealer knew of the faulty brakes but did nothing about it. He would be just as guilty as the car company.

Not sure that is a better example. Either way, Campbell sold drugs illegally, that is his primary guilt, and the death happens to become a murder charge. Maybe murder was a harsh use in the article and we should have used second degree...

[criptix]

I think that Kevin Campbell is innocent in this case. If an user doesn't know how to use drugs, then why blame the dealer? If someone dies from drunken driving, are you going to arrest the driver, or the CEO of the alcohol company which produced that particular brand of alcohol?

He is guilty of selling drugs illegally. The fact that those drugs ended up killing someone, he becomes an accessory to murder. This is standard law. The drunk driver is not a good example of comparison. It is more like a car company that sells faulty brakes with their cars. They distribute to dealers, and let's say this dealer knew of the faulty brakes but did nothing about it. He would be just as guilty as the car company.

Not sure that is a better example. Either way, Campbell sold drugs illegally, that is his primary guilt, and the death happens to become a murder charge. Maybe murder was a harsh use in the article and we should have used second degree...

Nono he is innocent.
Welcome to the world of russians trolls.

The only people who should be able to give out heavy drugs are doctors who work for clinics specialised in drug abuse (see portugal).

[peter0425]

He is guilty for sure that's why he admit to it. Maybe he is afraid of his life as well or being paranoid of the situation. At least justice has been served and the family will have its closure.

[tvbcof]

...
The only people who should be able to give out heavy drugs are doctors who work for clinics specialised in drug abuse (see portugal).

Ya, that's the expected response from a state-worshiping control freak.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/07/30/doctors-death-part-one.aspx

...

The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she desribes how the US health care system may contribute to poor health.

ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:

12,000 -- unnecessary surgery
7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals
20,000 -- other errors in hospitals
80,000 -- infections in hospitals
106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of drugs

...

Generally speaking I'd feel in better hands with some street pusher peddling Mexican tar than from an AMA certified doctor pushing big pharma product.

BTW, I did another order from Infowars.  Mostly I wanted Carroll Quigley's book 'Tragedy and Hope' and it came into stock.  I didn't get any 'super male vitality' after all.  As much of a kick I get out of the name, it was not worth the $60 to have sitting unopened in my collection.

I did notice that Jones himself recently echoed my concerns about contamination of his 'nutraciudicals'.  My concern was that if Jones were a deep cover operative then he could be in on a scheme.  The concern Jones mentioned was related but different; industrial sabotage to discredit his operation.  He claims that they do their own random sampling and testing to avoid or detect this.  To me both are valid concerns although not likely.  I any event, I only buy his wares to support the effort and don't actually use them (except the vitamin D) since I have no medical issues.

[criptix]

Funny that in portugal you have close to zero deaths because of drugs. I wonder why.

/edit so you rather buy heroin and similiar from the next illegal mexican pusher instead from a clinic related to drug abuse? Wtf you are insane or you probaly really are getting heroin from the next illegal mexican drug dealer.

Care to explain what your blogs say about that?



Btw tvbcof why do you always post websites that sell weird stuff to their visitors?
Dont you realize that you are getting scammed? ^^"

[darkangel11]

I think that Kevin Campbell is innocent in this case. If an user doesn't know how to use drugs, then why blame the dealer? If someone dies from drunken driving, are you going to arrest the driver, or the CEO of the alcohol company which produced that particular brand of alcohol?

He is guilty of selling drugs illegally. The fact that those drugs ended up killing someone, he becomes an accessory to murder. This is standard law. The drunk driver is not a good example of comparison. It is more like a car company that sells faulty brakes with their cars. They distribute to dealers, and let's say this dealer knew of the faulty brakes but did nothing about it. He would be just as guilty as the car company.

Not sure that is a better example. Either way, Campbell sold drugs illegally, that is his primary guilt, and the death happens to become a murder charge. Maybe murder was a harsh use in the article and we should have used second degree...

It's true that this is how the law works, but Sithara's example of an alcohol company is actually better.
Alcohol can kill if overdosed, drugs can kill if overdosed. Alcohol can be digested by human body in small doses, same as drugs.
Selling cars with faulty breaks would imply that the seller knew that driving the car will lead to crash, injury or death and the buyer would not be aware of it. The product is bound to fail and lead to a disaster.
In case of drugs both the seller and buyer are aware of the consequences of an overdose, just like a person who buys a rat poison is aware of the consequences of eating it. Using drugs may or may not lead to death, so the car example is too harsh IMO.

IMO, the dealer should be sentenced for an illegal drug sale, but should not be held responsible for the overdose.

[criptix]

I think that Kevin Campbell is innocent in this case. If an user doesn't know how to use drugs, then why blame the dealer? If someone dies from drunken driving, are you going to arrest the driver, or the CEO of the alcohol company which produced that particular brand of alcohol?

He is guilty of selling drugs illegally. The fact that those drugs ended up killing someone, he becomes an accessory to murder. This is standard law. The drunk driver is not a good example of comparison. It is more like a car company that sells faulty brakes with their cars. They distribute to dealers, and let's say this dealer knew of the faulty brakes but did nothing about it. He would be just as guilty as the car company.

Not sure that is a better example. Either way, Campbell sold drugs illegally, that is his primary guilt, and the death happens to become a murder charge. Maybe murder was a harsh use in the article and we should have used second degree...

It's true that this is how the law works, but Sithara's example of an alcohol company is actually better.
Alcohol can kill if overdosed, drugs can kill if overdosed. Alcohol can be digested by human body in small doses, same as drugs.
Selling cars with faulty breaks would imply that the seller knew that driving the car will lead to crash, injury or death and the buyer would not be aware of it. The product is bound to fail and lead to a disaster.
In case of drugs both the seller and buyer are aware of the consequences of an overdose, just like a person who buys a rat poison is aware of the consequences of eating it. Using drugs may or may not lead to death, so the car example is too harsh IMO.

IMO, the dealer should be sentenced for an illegal drug sale, but should not be held responsible for the overdose.

He sold heroin and similar... it is not like he sold some cannabis or magic mushrooms.
I think a better example would be selling a tank to a known terrorist.

[tvbcof]

Btw tvbcof why do you always post websites that sell weird stuff to their visitors?
Dont you realize that you are getting scammed? ^^"

Infowars.com?  I certainly don't 'always' mention them.  In fact I think only when talking to you because you mention them and their 'brain force' even more than I do.

I do very much like the fact that Infowars in particular is becoming a dominant force in media, and I expect that it drives a lot of astute and semi-astute people to distraction.  They have a unique funding model which includes merchandising which makes them, to the establishment, a tough nut to crack.  Even more so because they put out a lot of valuable and powerful information.

To answer your question, 'yes', I do realize that I am 'getting scammed'.  I think that their products are overpriced and hyped to excess sometimes.  Not only that but I doubt that many people really need most of the stuff.  The alternative is to simply gift money and I do that even more with other entities who I respect.  In fact I've given both Wikileaks and Corbett Report more money than I've spent at Infowars.

[criptix]

Btw tvbcof why do you always post websites that sell weird stuff to their visitors?
Dont you realize that you are getting scammed? ^^"

Infowars.com?  I certainly don't 'always' mention them.  In fact I think only when talking to you because you mention them and their 'brain force' even more than I do.

I do very much like the fact that Infowars in particular is becoming a dominant force in media, and I expect that it drives a lot of astute and semi-astute people to distraction.  They have a unique funding model which includes merchandising which makes them, to the establishment, a tough nut to crack.  Even more so because they put out a lot of valuable and powerful information.

To answer your question, 'yes', I do realize that I am 'getting scammed'.  I think that their products are overpriced and hyped to excess sometimes.  Not only that but I doubt that many people really need most of the stuff.  The alternative is to simply gift money and I do that even more with other entities who I respect.  In fact I've given both Wikileaks and Corbett Report more money than I've spent at Infowars.

I think you know that im just trolling you with the brain force thing, but good to know that you only buy that stuff to support alex jones.

I still think that alex jokes & co are just trying to milk people.
They are creating a boogeyman to gather support in form of $$ by selling worthless stuff to their visitors.

Seems really similar to trump, just that he was fishing for votes and not money - although he will surely make a lot of money while and after being president.

[iluvbitcoins]

Ugh, how is it his fault the guy overdosed?

He should be charged for selling drugs

Poor lad who died brought it on himself 

[Sithara007]

Ugh, how is it his fault the guy overdosed?

He should be charged for selling drugs

Poor lad who died brought it on himself 

That is exactly what I am saying. If the drugs were legal, then the user would have been able to get the stuff from medical shops. Here, in this case the potency of the contraband was unknown, and this caused the overdose.

[tvbcof]

I think you know that im just trolling you with the brain force thing, but good to know that you only buy that stuff to support alex jones.

Of course.  I counter-troll by 'pumping' Infowars, but as with any decent trolling there are underlying elements beyond simple entertainment.  In this case I think it of value for people to realize that it is 'safe' to tip-toe into the minefield and actually absorb information from them since other people already do.  In spite of the silly sound-effects and rants and what-not they do put out a decent quantity of pretty good stuff.

I think that people have been conditioned to deliberately in immediately shunt anything which is labeled by TPTB a 'conspiracy theory' and that it is having a negative effect on society.  The thing about a 'theory' is that it is not to be 'believed'.  (If it were then it is a 'fact' rather than a 'theory'.)  Every 'theory' should be understood by anyone who has the time and interest to look.  Understanding something does not mean that one agrees with it or accepts it.  Indeed, one cannot logically reject a theory which one does not understand.

I still think that alex jokes & co are just trying to milk people.
They are creating a boogeyman to gather support in form of $$ by selling worthless stuff to their visitors.

Seems really similar to trump, just that he was fishing for votes and not money - although he will surely make a lot of money while and after being president.

At this point I believe that Jones' primary goal is political and social rather than monetary.  Of course some of his work is 'fear-mongering' and there is a tie-in to the products he merchandises, but my sense is that it is more incidental than anything and a great deal of the time that it is not a driving force in his and his team's content generation.

As for Trump, it never made sense to me that he would try for POTUS as a money-making opportunity given his situation.  To much risk to life and limb, and if it materialized within his lifetime he would be denounced by those who are currently his most adamant supporters...if not his only supporters.

Trump might be trying to develop a political dynasty for his family to enjoy, but doing a shitty job as POTUS won't help that goal.  Look at how the Clinton and Bush families fared by being money-grubbing sell-outs.

It is possible that Trump envisions a totalitarian non-democracy where dynastic rule reigns supreme, but that model only maps well to what the one-world globalists are cooking up and if Trump is in that philosophical camp then he's doing a pretty good job of hiding it.  In a 'one-world' technotronic situation technology can deter Democratic sentiment from forming in the first place and that which does cannot coalesce and gain a foot-hold since no part of the world is available for it.