BurtW arrested (update: charges dropped!)

[SomaliRebel]

But what Burt did was illegal, and yet I find myself sympathising with him, and not with self-proclaimed "legit" users.

You find yourself sympathizing with lawbreakers because you identify with them. Nothing wrong with that, most people (especially the young) root for the villain in crime dramas, because they're so free and more interesting.

Why is it that otherwise intelligent people do not understand the difference between "illegal" and "immoral"?

Most do. They also realize that mores are subjective, that ones commonly shared within a particular society are codified into laws.

How can people who have understood and used Bitcoin for years not recognise that Bitcoin's very existence cuts right to the heart of that issue?

You mean, breaking laws you feel are immoral? Bitcoin elevates you above man's law?
Now, imagine if Raskolnikov, instead of using an ax to make his point, posted about his dissatisfaction with bourgeois laws and conventions on an internet forum? We'd have one less book in the world

[1713557968]

1713557968

[1713557968]

1713557968

[1713557968]

1713557968

[Carlton Banks]

You find yourself sympathizing with lawbreakers because you identify with them. Nothing wrong with that, most people (especially the young) root for the villain in crime dramas, because they're so free and more interesting.

No.

I find myself identifying with Burt because he didn't do anything wrong, despite the letter of the law. Most people do not applaud or side with villainous characters in dramas, I don't know where you're getting that from. People take that stance with morally ambiguous characters, because real-life is often morally ambiguous, and that's easy to relate to. Overt villains exhibit clear-cut psychopathy. No-one likes or identifies with people like that, apart from other psychopaths (I know, ironic isn't it)

[SomaliRebel]

You find yourself sympathizing with lawbreakers because you identify with them. Nothing wrong with that, most people (especially the young) root for the villain in crime dramas, because they're so free and more interesting.

No.

I find myself identifying with Burt because he didn't do anything wrong, despite the letter of the law. Most people do not applaud or side with villainous characters in dramas, I don't know where you're getting that from. People take that stance with morally ambiguous characters, because real-life is often morally ambiguous, and that's easy to relate to.

You're mistaken. You, for instance, identify with Burt. A quick google search explains why:
"Villans are usually rebels who reject authority. They know what they want and are not afraid to get it. Society's norms are sometimes too oppressive. People root for villains who are not scared to speak their minds, especially if they agree with what the villains is saying.

Sometimes its sex appeal of the danger and excitement, sometimes its an injustice that needs to be addressed. Occasionally it is the criminal's good looks, like the Mendez Brothers or Casey Anthony. [...]" https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140512203539AAThgXc

Overt villains exhibit clear-cut psychopathy. No-one likes or identifies with people like that, apart from other psychopaths (I know, ironic isn't it)

It's not unusual for psychopaths to see themselves as perfectly normal, and the (perfectly normal) people around them as psychopaths. But you're not a psychopath. What you're feeling right now is perfectly normal, most male children go through a rebellious phase. Think of it as a rite of passage, an elegant way to sidestep the Oedipal complex (see: Daddy issues)

[Carlton Banks]

Oh, lol @ "Google says I'm right". Reality says you're wrong. Moral ambiguity is attractive. Outright, egregious breaking of moral codes is not. If you believe that poor ethical behaviour is appealing, that's you on your own. And your Google article, lol

[SomaliRebel]

Oh, lol @ "Google says I'm right". Reality says you're wrong. Moral ambiguity is attractive. Outright, egregious breaking of moral codes is not. If you believe that poor ethical behaviour is appealing, that's you on your own. And your Google article, lol

Such a contrarian You'll outgrow this too, Carlton, another perfectly natural phase normal children go through.
Searching for "Why Do We Root For Villains" nets me ... About 690,000 results (0.66 seconds). Try it, there's absolutely no need for you to rationalize your attraction to Burt

[Carlton Banks]

Your logic is faulty, adding hundreds of thousands of repetitions of faulty logic doesn't make it any less faulty. Or any less trollish

[SomaliRebel]

Your logic is faulty, adding hundreds of thousands of repetitions of faulty logic doesn't make it any less faulty. Or any less trollish

Carlton. I'm trying to tell you that what you're feeling for Burt is perfectly natural. Why are you arguing? What else do you want me to say?

[Carlton Banks]

I don't want you to say anything. Consider that saying nothing is an improvement on what you did say.

[BurtW]

Wow that thread took a turn.  Legal?  Illegal?  Not even close.

I was trading Bitcoins.  I was operating under the assumption that what I was doing was not a business.  They claimed it was.  The regulations are very "clear" on this point:  if it is not a business I did not need a business license, if it was a business I needed a business license.

Now who decides if it is a business or not?  Regulations clearly state "whether is is a business or not is a matter of fact and circumstance".  OK, fine.  Then who is the decider of "fact and circumstance"?  In the US system the decider of "fact and circumstance" is the jury.

I claimed it was not a business, they claimed it was.  It is not illegal to claim it is not a business and technically they did nothing wrong in claiming it was a business.  Both my attorney and the prosecutor stated that "this is a toss up".  They both knew and stated that it could go either way.  My claim might have been declared correct by the jury and I would have been acquitted of all criminal charges against me.  Of course their claim might have been declared correct and then I could have been sentenced to up to 5 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine.

Now realize that even if my claim is declared correct by the jury this does not settle all the civil suits that have been filed against the property seized.  So even if the jury decided with my side (a 50/50 proposition according to both sides) I would still be facing up to an additional $100,000 in attorny's fees to prove my property was innocent in a totally separate civil court.

Faced with the option of taking this to trail and flipping a coin followed by additional expenses to clear my property on the one hand and just donating $40,000 in cash and $40,000 in Bitcoin to the federal asset forfeiture slush fund what would you do?

This had nothing to do with legal versus illegal.  Only an opinion of whether what I was doing was a business or not.

What should they have and would they have done if they did not think they could just walk away with the loot?

Send me a cease and desist letter explaining that they thought what I was doing might be a business and to get a fucking free license if I wanted to continue doing it.

[SomaliRebel]

I don't want you to say anything. Consider that saying nothing is an improvement on what you did say.

Why are you upset? If I, somehow, cheapened your feelings for Burt by telling you that they're normal and common, I'm really sorry.
Accept my apology plz? Are we good?

@BurtW, I honestly didn't know that cooking meth was against the law. I thought they'd, at least, send me a "cease & desist," but no! Jackboots pulled up in a party van, some bullshit about ignorance of the law not being an excuse

[BurtW]

I don't want you to say anything. Consider that saying nothing is an improvement on what you did say.

Why are you upset? If I, somehow, cheapened your feelings for Burt by telling you that they're normal and common, I'm really sorry.
Accept my apology plz? Are we good?

@BurtW, I honestly didn't know that cooking meth was against the law. I thought they'd, at least, send me a "cease & desist," but no! Jackboots pulled up in a party van, some bullshit about ignorance of the law not being an excuse

Cooking meth is against the law.  Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.  If you cook meth you should be arrested and put in jail because you have broken the law.  End of story.  My case was not a matter of law - it was a matter of opinion on whether it was a business or not.  There is no opinion whether cooking meth is against the law or not - it is.

Read my post above.

[SomaliRebel]

I don't want you to say anything. Consider that saying nothing is an improvement on what you did say.

Why are you upset? If I, somehow, cheapened your feelings for Burt by telling you that they're normal and common, I'm really sorry.
Accept my apology plz? Are we good?

@BurtW, I honestly didn't know that cooking meth was against the law. I thought they'd, at least, send me a "cease & desist," but no! Jackboots pulled up in a party van, some bullshit about ignorance of the law not being an excuse

Cooking meth is against the law.  Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.  If you cook meth you should be arrested and put in jail because you have broken the law.  End of story.  My case was not a matter of law - it was a matter of opinion on whether it was a business or not.  There is no opinion whether cooking meth is against the law or not - it is.

Read my post above.

I have read your post above. You chose to plead out, and then grumble about it.
I would buy your ideological protestations if you, certain of being in the right, took your case to the jury. You didn't. So I do not.

[Carlton Banks]

Apologies if it appears I'm suggesting you're a no-good lawbreaker Burt, my statement about illegality was rhetorical (and I very much support your position)

Now who decides if it is a business or not?  Regulations clearly state "whether is is a business or not is a matter of fact and circumstance".  OK, fine.  Then who is the decider of "fact and circumstance"?  In the US system the decider of "fact and circumstance" is the jury.

And who determines what definition of "business" is used? It's totally bizarre the more you think about it, the rights you had secured for yourself can be totally overridden on the basis of a question that does not even have a definitive answer. And so really, you were at the mercy of the feelings of the judge, jury or (in this case) the state prosecutors. This kind of caprice is considered justice?

Democracy (via representatives, at least) just isn't valid when the majority of the population aren't capable of making appropriate ethical decisions in a case like this (or indeed in all sorts of other situations).

[unamis76]

Wow that thread took a turn.  Legal?  Illegal?  Not even close.

I was trading Bitcoins.  I was operating under the assumption that what I was doing was not a business.  They claimed it was.  The regulations are very "clear" on this point:  if it is not a business I did not need a business license, if it was a business I needed a business license.

Now who decides if it is a business or not?  Regulations clearly state "whether is is a business or not is a matter of fact and circumstance".  OK, fine.  Then who is the decider of "fact and circumstance"?  In the US system the decider of "fact and circumstance" is the jury.

I claimed it was not a business, they claimed it was.  It is not illegal to claim it is not a business and technically they did nothing wrong in claiming it was a business. Both my attorney and the prosecutor stated that "this is a toss up".  They both knew and stated that it could go either way.  My claim might have been declared correct by the jury and I would have been acquitted of all criminal charges against me.  Of course their claim might have been declared correct and then I could have been sentenced to up to 5 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine.

Now realize that even if my claim is declared correct by the jury this does not settle all the civil suits that have been filed against the property seized.  So even if the jury decided with my side (a 50/50 proposition according to both sides) I would still be facing up to an additional $100,000 in attorny's fees to prove my property was innocent in a totally separate civil court.

Faced with the option of taking this to trail and flipping a coin followed by additional expenses to clear my property on the one hand and just donating $40,000 in cash and $40,000 in Bitcoin to the federal asset forfeiture slush fund what would you do?

This had nothing to do with legal versus illegal.  Only an opinion of whether what I was doing was a business or not.

What should they have and would they have done if they did not think they could just walk away with the loot?

Send me a cease and desist letter explaining that they thought what I was doing might be a business and to get a fucking free license if I wanted to continue doing it.

All of this because someone thought you were running some kind of business... Your post really put things into perspective.

If this is a "matter of fact and circumstance", then everyone can be running a business, so let's seize everything. Or maybe nobody runs businesses, let's keep everything as it is.

The cease and desist letter would definitely be appropriate, I guess. Seems like legal/illegal is exaggeratedly open to police and justice's interpretation of the law (where the law should be clear in what is a business or not).

[SomaliRebel]

Democracy (via representatives, at least) just isn't valid when the majority of the population aren't capable of making appropriate ethical decisions in a case like this (or indeed in all sorts of other situations).

Oh Carlton! Ur rite, democracy failed us, could u b our new ethical dictator?
Oddly, democracy is neither here nor there. Democracy didn't have a chance to fail Burt, Burt pled out

@unamis76, "All of this because someone thought you were running some kind of business," Think about it this way:
You claim you killed the guy in self-defense, prosecution claims you're a murderer. "They" get shitloads of murder cases, you have an expensive lawyer. "They" offer you a deal: plead to manslaughter, they drop murder 1.

[Carlton Banks]

If this is a "matter of fact and circumstance", then everyone can be running a business, so let's seize everything. Or maybe nobody runs businesses, let's keep everything as it is.

Exactly. Nothing to do with right and wrong, just arbitrary talk about an arbitrary attribution, to which there is no logical resolution. Outcome: victim is tens of thousands of dollars worse off, Colorado PD is up by a smaller amount, and the victim's legal representatives win most of all. The reason? There isn't one. Other than the PD and the lawyers need to make a living.

I find it disgusting that anyone would participate in what happened to Burt. Even simple court clerks and clerical police staff should be identified and ostracized, I'd love to see how "just doing my job" washes when these so-called people can't get served in grocery stores.

[iCEBREAKER]

So even if the jury decided with my side (a 50/50 proposition according to both sides) I would still be facing up to an additional $100,000 in attorny's fees to prove my property was innocent in a totally separate civil court.

$80k might buy a significant amount of justice on the free market...

[SomaliRebel]

^
http://s33.postimg.org/3kzvghjxb/bad.gif
I hear there are some excellent R&W hitmen available on DNMs.

[BurtW]

I have read your post above. You chose to plead out, and then grumble about it.
I would buy your ideological protestations if you, certain of being in the right, took your case to the jury. You didn't. So I do not.

First, I did not plead out.  Yes, they pretty much immediately offered a lesser felony if I admitted guilt.  I did not.  Eventually they offered a small misdemeanor if only I would admit guilt.  I refuse their offer.  After many months and almost $200,000 in legal fees they decided to drop the case against me and against all the seized property if I agreed to let them keep part of the seized property (basically to save face on their part).  This was not a plea deal.  In a plea deal you must admit guilt.  I did not.  This was a straight payoff to avoid the huge costs of fighting something like this.  You may be sitting on $400,000 in liquid assets you would be willing to spend on justice by a committee of people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty, don't want to be there, take what the judge says as gospel, and wouldn't know a Bitcoin from a hole in the ground - that may be your situation - it is not mine.  In the end we decided for our family's sake the cost and risk was not worth it.

Maybe you don't realize this but even if I won all the cases they do not pay your legal fees and there is no recourse to get your legal fees reimbursed.  And to add insult to injury even if you win, legal costs are generally not tax deductible.  Add that to your calculations there Mr. "you should take it to trial if you are innocent".

So, someone must risk going to jail and total financial ruin in front of a jury in order to impress you?  Have you personally had to face five years in prison on a coin flip?  Even if you have and even if you did take it to trail so what?  My wife and I did struggle with the whole thing over many months.  We went back and forth on it.  Sometimes thinking we should get our day in court to prove beyond doubt that they were wrong and risk the five years in prison.  You can sit there behind you keyboard in your easy chair anonymously spouting your shit but your opinion simply does not matter.

Let's hear your story of bravery and bravado Mr. "proved my innocence at all cost" against a similar situation.

[SomaliRebel]

So, someone must risk going to jail and total financial ruin in front of a jury in order to impress you?  Have you personally had to face five years in prison on a coin flip?  Even if you have and even if you did take it to trail so what?  My wife and I did struggle with the whole thing over many months.  We went back and forth on it.  Sometimes thinking we should get our day in court to prove beyond doubt that they were wrong and risk five the years in prison.  You can sit there behind you keyboard in your easy chair anonymously spouting your shit but your opinion simply does not matter.

Let's hear your story of bravery and bravado "proved my innocence at all cost" against a similar situation.

Can't regale you with tales of my daring-do, always having thanked my lucky stars for plea deals. At the time, a public defender was all I could afford.
On the other hand, I never trotted out my family to help me beg on the internet to cover my legal expenses, and never plead out when I was 100% innocent.
Should I bother mentioning that I never told sob stories about the US legal system failing me, after opting out of a jury trial & having agreed to a deal?