Let's not forget that getting someone in trouble and/or threatening harm/death are not the same thing as actually causing physical harm, and that is not the same as actually causing death. Just because someone is part of the underworld doesn't mean they have no qualms about ordering someone's death, and the only thing holding them back is the money.

Revenge is one of the most powerful motivators for murder and can turn otherwise good people into hot-blooded killers [0-5].

Few people would kill indiscriminately, but if you give them a powerful enough motivation? They'll have no qualms taking a life. This guy has had his life ruined, I doubt his marriage will survive this, and he'll be spending a good portion of his life in prison in a foreign country. Furthermore, he gets to be humiliated not once - not twice - but thrice by Krebs. That's a lot of motivation to get back at a guy and it would be foolish to not even entertain the thought that he may seek revenge.

I could link to hundreds if not thousands of stories about revenge killings. Hell - it's such an old motivator it's featured in many parts of Greek and Roman mythology.

E:

Ignoring that the reason the Witness Protection Program even exists is to protect peoples' lives after they ruin a criminal's life.

[0] Possibly NSFW ; no gore but someone dies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PUE8fYxjq8

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/12/ex-ira-gunman...

[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3009762/Man-gets-lif...

[3] http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/texas-dad-accused-murd...

[4] http://www.dailypilot.com/news/tn-dpt-me-0711-van-sentencing...

[5] http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/nearly-4...

I'm not saying criminals don't kill people. I'm simply making a point about assuming all criminals are the same. There are plenty of white-collar criminals that have and will cause the death of innocent people and there are plenty of violent criminals that won't purposefully cross the line to killing a person.

If for no other reason, we should be wary about stereotyping criminals because what is considered criminal is sometimes quite arbitrary and can change quite fast. How many years ago was it a felony in some states to possess more than token amounts of marijuana, or to take part in sodomy?

What I think is dangerous is confirming that he got the Xmas card. Depending how that was sent, he has confirmed that he hasn't relocated his home and that puts him in danger. If Fly wanted revenge, he wouldn't want to hire a hit on the wrong house, now would he? Confirming his family is still in that house makes it a target for a hit or arson if Fly seeks revenge.

Even if Fly was not already a criminal - merely a troll - there are now seeds of revenge planted. He doesn't need to have been a criminal or done any criminal actions for him to want to seek revenge. People who are seeking revenge can be dangerous - to deny that is to ignore millenniums of history proving otherwise. While it has been pointed out this wasn't Krebs first and likely won't be his last - and that he's likely accustomed to such things. The danger is still there.

I am not trying to argue "because he is criminal, he will try to kill" I am saying "because he may seek revenge, he may try to kill". This has nothing to do with his criminality - and my bringing up his criminal behavior was more trying to shed light on "anyone can hire a hitman. they just need money and enough motivation to want someone dead." because it's a commonly held belief that only the rich and powerful (kingpins, political leaders, etc.) have connections or can hire hitmen.

The motivation aspect is covered by "revenge" and "need enough money" can be covered by "criminal activity".

Anyways, I'm done here. I hope he stays safe and I hope his confirming he got the Xmas card doesn't bring him or his wife/family(?) into harm.

I was responding specifically to:

> I guess thinking about it further, the 'good' news is that if the criminal was successful at what he did and had a couple grand to hire a hitman - he wouldn't have needed to crowdfund the heroin. So you're right in that it's more likely a small time, not-black-market-rich troll rather than someone more dangerous.

There's a couple ways to interpret that. One is that he didn't have money because he crowdsourced his scheme, which I think is fallacious on a few levels (e.g. maybe he crowdsourced it because it was a community rep thing, and he wanted to be seen organizing it). The other is that he only sent the heroin because he didn't have the money to hire the killer which he would have if he had the money, which is how I read it. Perhaps you meant the former. but my replies were meant to address the latter. I don't disagree with any of your replies, but they are non-sequiturs to mine, likely because we are arguing separate things.

Enough people get swatted (waste of money, some people can die, etc) that you can't just write it off, either. Krebs has been swatted before, too.