Re: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
Dale Thorn wrote:
Igor Chudov @ home wrote: [some arguments deleted for lack of time to reply]
Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she.
If she does it right, with empathy, there is not likely to be a problem. On the other hand, if she bad-mouths you to prospective employers or customers you want to do business with, you might be inclined to hit her. This happens a lot when AP is not available.
... But would happen more often if it was.
Why, if AP was readily available, would she want to risk being hit by bad-mouthing you unnecessarily?
people who have such money are not going to bump off very many more people than they already do, because: 1. They need the people to make money off of (Mafia rule #4, never kill someone who owes you money [or is a money source]).
This is a wrong Mafia rule, they do kill debtors who are in default.
Really? Then how do they collect their money? BTW, I heard the rule from the mouth of a real mob hitman.
2. Rich people have a lot of eyes on them, and it would be easy to triangulate a series of murders to them, even without hard evidence. In an AP world, this triangulation/correlation would be enough to convince people to either shun this killer, or kill him outright.
When ten people make deals with each other, it becomes hard to triangulate. And it is easy, if you know what deals are done, to change the result of triangulation: suppose that I know that you borrowed 1 million from Toto, that my _and_ yours business partner had been murdered (by me, but no one knows), and I am afraid that someone will triangulate me and implicate me in that murder. I secretly order the AP bot to kill Toto, and you get implicated. Not good.
We all know how people are framed, and we've seen the Hitchcockian murder scenarios on TV, in movies, etc. Certainly the CIA et al can create these scenarios, but what does that have to do with AP as used by ordinary persons?
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
Dale Thorn wrote:
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
people who have such money are not going to bump off very many more people than they already do, because: 1. They need the people to make money off of (Mafia rule #4, never kill someone who owes you money [or is a money source]).
This is a wrong Mafia rule, they do kill debtors who are in default.
Really? Then how do they collect their money? BTW, I heard the rule from the mouth of a real mob hitman. mafia used to have a habit of hiring some lonely person do do work for them (such as, set up their crypto infrastructure), then make him disappear, and he won' be missed, and they won't have to pay for the work. Bumping off the people
Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes: that you owe money to is bad for one's rep. I'd be reluctant to do consulting for organized crime for this reason. Perhaps that's why the Feds have such easy time wiretapping them. :-) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (2)
-
Dale Thorn -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com