User Controls
deepdotweb.com seized
-
2019-05-30 at 7:06 PM UTC
-
2019-05-30 at 8:11 PM UTC
-
2019-05-30 at 8:26 PM UTC
-
2019-05-30 at 9:35 PM UTC
-
2019-05-30 at 9:37 PM UTC
-
2019-05-30 at 10:04 PM UTC
-
2019-05-30 at 10:08 PM UTC
-
2019-05-30 at 10:13 PM UTC
-
2019-05-30 at 10:18 PM UTC
-
2019-05-31 at 3:19 AM UTC
-
2019-05-31 at 8:45 AM UTCits clearly aiding and abetting as well
The charge of aiding and abetting can be brought against anyone who directly helps someone else in the commission of a crime, even if they do not participate in the actual crime itself. Specifically, a person is guilty of aiding and abetting if he willfully "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" the commission of a crime.
Unlike the crime of accessory, in which someone aids another person who commits a criminal act, the crime of aiding abetting also includes anyone who willfully gets someone else to commit a crime on their behalf.
Whereas an accessory to a crime usually faces lesser punishment than the person who actually committed the crime, someone charged with aiding and abetting is punished as a principal in the crime, just as if they performed it. If anyone "puts into motion" the plan to commit a crime, they can be charged with that crime even if they intentionally refrained from participating in the actual criminal act itself.
Elements of Aiding and Abetting
According to the Justice Department, there are four major elements in the crimes of aiding and abetting:
That the accused had specific intent to help in the commission of a crime by another;
That the accused had the requisite intent of the underlying substantive offense;
That the accused assisted or participated in the commission of the underlying substantive offense; and
That someone committed the underlying offense.
An Example of Aiding and Abetting
Jack worked as a kitchen helper at a popular seafood restaurant. His brother-in-law Thomas told him that he wanted to and that all Jack would have to do is leave the back door of the restaurant unlocked the following night and he would give him 30 percent of the stolen money.
Jack had always complained to Thomas that the restaurant's manager was a lazy drunk. He would especially complain on the nights that he was late leaving work because the manager was too busy drinking at the bar and wouldn't get up and unlock the back door so that Jack could do his trash run and go home.
Jack told Thomas that there were times that he would wait for up to 45 minutes for the manager to unlock the back door, but that lately things were better because he started handing Jack the restaurant keys so that he could let himself in and out.
Once Jack was finished with the trash, he and the other employees would finally get to leave work, but as was policy, they all had to leave together out the front door. The manager and bartender would then hang out almost every night for at least another hour while enjoying a few more rounds of drinks.
Angry with his boss for wasting his time and jealous that he and the bartender sat around drinking free drinks, Jack agreed to Thomas' request to "forget" to relock the back door the next night.
The Robbery
The next night after taking out the trash, Jack purposely left the back door unlocked as was planned. Thomas then slipped through the unlocked door and into the restaurant, put a gun to the surprised manager's head and forced him to unlock the safe. What Thomas did not know was that there was a silent alarm under the bar that the bartender was able to activate.
When Thomas heard police sirens approaching, he grabbed as much of the money from the safe as he could and ran out the back door. He managed to slip by the police and make it to his ex-girlfriend's apartment, whose name was Janet. After hearing about his close call with the police and his generous offer to compensate her by giving her a percentage of the money he got from robbing the restaurant, she agreed to let him hide from the police at her place for awhile.
The Charges
Thomas was later arrested for robbing the restaurant and in a plea deal, he provided the police with the details of his crime, including Jack’s and Janet's names.
Because Jack was aware that Thomas intended to rob the restaurant by gaining access through the door that Jack purposely left unlocked, he was charged with aiding and abetting, even though he was not present when the robbery took place.
Janet was charged with aiding and abetting because she had knowledge of the crime and helped Thomas avoid arrest by letting him hide at her apartment. She also profited financially from the crime. It does not matter that her involvement came after (and not before) the crime was committed.
. -
2019-05-31 at 8:52 AM UTCnarc, are you looking forward to Wimbledon?
-
2019-05-31 at 9 AM UTC
-
2019-05-31 at 4:58 PM UTC
-
2019-05-31 at 5:08 PM UTC
-
2019-05-31 at 5:54 PM UTCI love how my post last night spawns Infinity right away to just flood it and then goes on a binge to create his own floods.. he did this to make it look like he wasn't just targeting me which at first he wanted to flood me off the front page.
This website is bullshit. I don't care anyways. the world is a globalist economy. it's just sad those people at and around the WTC all fucking died. but hey "The USA does it to other countries"
I didn't. Bush and Cheney used a Saudi Royal and blamed it all on him to kill people first in Afghanistan and the shifts 97 percent into a country that didn't do jack shit (Though Saddam violated a peace agreement, it was an illegal war. they could of arrested and killed Suddam without killing half a Million Iraqi children and Moms and Dads who were innocent civilians.)
Plus all of the soldiers who were wounded or murdered by this illegal war. I saw Cheney out on a fishing boat with his wife and Im guessing a Secret Servant Guarding him in the boat, on his property up in Wyoming or Idaho (Or wherever) looking like he didn't know what the fuck he was doing. Enjoy your million acre spread up there paid for by your illegal war you old smelly goon. -
2019-05-31 at 5:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny just because i tell you where you can buy drugs doesnt mean you have to buy those drugs.
ok banny, i'll explain summing quickly for you that your retarded brain clearly isn't capable of understanding.
so i'm not arguing here that the state is right in applying these sorts of charges in this case, or even that they are definitely going to. i'm not arguing that the state and the lawmakers are right to apply these laws the way they do anywhere, in fact i believe they don't a lot of the time. many users here know full well i am very anti-establishment. your argument is clearly against me as if i was implying such a thing. i'm just pointing out to speckles, just for the sake of discussion, how the law stands under the current regime because at the start of this fred somebody questioned what the law would be charging them with and/or what, if anything, deedotweb are suspected of doing wrong here.
personally banny i agree they didn't do wrong and should not be persecuted for posting a few links and profiting from drug sales that shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
so there's really no point in expecting me to justify the states position and motives for shit now.
do you get that now banny? i can try and simplify it a bit more if you need me to, maybe i can find some simpler alternatives for some of those big complex words i just used in this post if you are unable to understand them. i was just wondering if your ability to understand big words may be a contributing factor to your misunderstanding my intentions.
. -
2019-05-31 at 6:09 PM UTCIt's not drug sale money to the link provider, though. To the link provider, it's just ad revenue money for services provided. To the actual seller of the drugs, it's drug money. You see, perspective matters. From the point of view of the link provider, he doesn't know where the money came from. The seller of the drugs could have gotten it anywhere, even by legal means. There's no way to establish the link provider knew the money he was receiving was linked to drug sales. What exactly links the money the link referrer received to him having to know the money he was receiving was drug profits? Nothing. Oh, he's expected to know it was drug money? Nope. How can we expect to know when there's no way he can prove it is in fact drug money. To him, it's just money, and how his client gets it is none of his business.
-
2019-05-31 at 6:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by Narc ok banny, i'll explain summing quickly for you that your retarded brain clearly isn't capable of understanding.
so i'm not arguing here that the state is right in applying these sorts of charges in this case, or even that they are definitely going to. i'm not arguing that the state and the lawmakers are right to apply these laws the way they do anywhere, in fact i believe they don't a lot of the time. many users here know full well i am very anti-establishment. your argument is clearly against me as if i was implying such a thing. i'm just pointing out to speckles, just for the sake of discussion, how the law stands under the current regime because at the start of this fred somebody questioned what the law would be charging them with and/or what, if anything, deedotweb are suspected of doing wrong here.
personally banny i agree they didn't do wrong and should not be persecuted for posting a few links and profiting from drug sales that shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
so there's really no point in expecting me to justify the states position and motives for shit now.
do you get that now banny? i can try and simplify it a bit more if you need me to, maybe i can find some simpler alternatives for some of those big complex words i just used in this post if you are unable to understand them. i was just wondering if your ability to understand big words may be a contributing factor to your misunderstanding my intentions.
.
well what i meant was that in order to charge someone for aiding and abetting, you need to prove that the one giving out the information, the refferers in this case, knew full well in advance that the information they give out is going to be absolutely certainly and definitely be used to commit crimes, such as buying very illegal drugs.
anything less than that is simple freedom of information. -
2019-05-31 at 6:18 PM UTCepic retardation still coming strong from speckles i see.
"your honor, i had absolutely no idea the money the drug dealers were paying me, in return for linking to their drug sales website, with links that read 'online drug market', in order to send them customers for buying their drugs, was actually drug money. i thought maybe they were running a hot dog stand on time square or had sponsored a dolphin at sea world, or summing as well, and were most likely paying me money from that or summing else. honest i did, your honor, honest. you gotta believe me pleeeeeeezz?, pleez i'm too pretty to go to jail whhaaaaahhhhh"
.
