←back to thread

249 points jaboutboul | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.408s | source | bottom
Show context
underseacables ◴[] No.42130248[source]
I think the key factor here is that the website allowed Americans to bet on the political market. Which I still don't quite understand, the FBI waiting until after the election for this. Why didn't they go after them sooner?

Feels wrong.

replies(5): >>42130346 #>>42130348 #>>42130398 #>>42130626 #>>42130895 #
1. bigtechennui ◴[] No.42130348[source]
One explanation is it gives Polymarket more rope to hang themselves with. Trading volume likely spiked in the lead up, and during, election night. Big numbers make for splashier headlines.

Another could be concern of doing anything visibly election related prior to the election, in case the winner didn’t like the action.

replies(1): >>42130477 #
2. inglor_cz ◴[] No.42130477[source]
While I understand that logic, I also find it a bit distasteful. Law enforcement shouldn't tolerate crimes being committed on its watch any longer than necessary.

Of course, the exact meaning of "necessary" is the problem. We can probably all agree that letting a serial murderer kill more people in order to have more evidence against him would be an absolute abomination. But the situation is not that clear with white-collar crime, especially the sort of crime where the harm is not immediately obvious.

Maybe the fact that the FBI could wait that long before pouncing indicates that this sort of betting is, in fact, a victimless crime.

replies(4): >>42130932 #>>42131455 #>>42131650 #>>42131684 #
3. dopamean ◴[] No.42130932[source]
They probably have a different definition of what is "necessary" than you. If waiting for further crimes to be committed makes the case more of a sure thing in their eyes) then it's necessary. Or if it gives them more serious crimes to prosecute or a higher up person to prosecute. I believe this is common in organized crime investigations.
4. _DeadFred_ ◴[] No.42131455[source]
The wheels of justice move slowly, and for good reason.

I'm confused what your point is? Is it when cops/prosecutors build cases that take time they are tacitly saying the crime is victimless? Do you think law enforcement should only target street level dealers/car thieves because to spend time building cases against drug distributors/chop shops renders the crime victimless?

5. standardUser ◴[] No.42131650[source]
> Law enforcement shouldn't tolerate crimes being committed on its watch any longer than necessary.

That is simply not how it works and for good reason. If it were, imagine the consequences. Most charges would never lead to a trial or a conviction because law enforcement would have acted on the very first sign of criminal action instead of investigating further or working their way up the chain. We'd only end up arresting low level foot soldiers and the higher ups would get away every single time.

6. anigbrowl ◴[] No.42131684[source]
OK but what if that serial murderer were running for president? It would be wrong to deny the people their chance to be governed by a gleeful psychopath.

As HL Mencken once said 'Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.'