This always happens though. Every time someone is thrown in a cage unjustly, the state tries to redirect us (yes, us, here in this forum and others like it) to look at other details of the situation, whether it's details of the person's political or personality or, in this case, details of this (also seemingly unjust) probation violation.

Who cares if he smoked weed or installed a VM or evaded a government keylogger? Those are all really shitty reasons to put someone in a cage, whether it's couched as "probation terms" or not.

▲

perihelions 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'll steelman the unpopular position: I think sobriety is a reasonable condition of freedom for someone with psychiatric self-control issues, that have lead them to commit felonies in the past.

Vandalizing your employer's infrastructure over a grudge is, I suggest, strong evidence of a major impulse control issue. It think it makes sense and is in the public interest, draconian as it is, that this person shouldn't be allowed to get high and have unmonitored internet access. The same place they've committed felonies before, on impulse.

Further context: his own defense lawyer filed a motion asking a court to find this guy mentally incompetent to stand trial,

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-txed-4_19-cr-00...

▲

klibertp 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I think sobriety is a reasonable condition of freedom for someone with psychiatric self-control issues, that have lead them to commit felonies in the past.

Were he high on weed, maybe he'd not commit the felony in the first place. Yeah, banning him from alcohol is fine, from stimulants broadly - also OK, but weed? Honestly? How often, statistically speaking, does smoking weed make a person aggressive? While this person may be an outlier, without precise information on it, I'd say the ban on weed is as sensible as a ban on butter or relanium. If it doesn't serve any obvious purpose (like with alcohol: being drunk makes you do stupid things more often), then maybe it's really just a way of harassing this person?

▲

IncreasePosts 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Weed for normal people isn't a big deal, but weed for people on the cusp of mental illness or even just mental unwellness can exacerbate whatever issue they are facing.

Alcohol on the other hand mostly just knocks you out from doing anything too cerebral after you pass the ballmer peak. I say this as a person who prefers weed to alcohol 100x.

▲

klibertp 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No, the problem here is not being dead drunk and immobile; it's everything before that. Even if you drink strong alcohol, it's going to take a while before you're that intoxicated - in the meantime, you have enough time to vibe-code Windows ME, so to speak (IOW, to drunk drive, throw fists at random people or harass them, get lost and robbed, etc...). People can spend long hours being drunk before collapsing, which is basically begging for trouble, almost no matter what they decide to do during that time.

As for mental health issues worsening due to THC - that's true, but alcohol has a much higher probability of causing or exacerbating such problems. On the other hand, the therapeutic use of THC has seen much better results than alcohol. If both happen to be legal in that jurisdiction, then banning weed but not alcohol really doesn't make sense. Further, even if possession is illegal, smoking itself (without inhaling, or however that went) isn't against the law in many places.

It really just seems arbitrary and strange, unless there was a psychiatric evaluation that we're not aware of, or this happened somewhere where weed is very strictly illegal (think alcohol in Saudi Arabia-level).

▲

nerdsniper 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Alcohol on the other hand mostly just knocks you out from doing anything too cerebral after you pass the ballmer peak.

That's pretty minimizing of alcohol's contribution to violent acts (bar fights, escalating disagreements at supermarkets/etc, domestic violence) as well as vehicle collisions.

	▲	IncreasePosts 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Those aren't exactly what I would call cerebral activities.

▲

vel0city 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

One important thing to remember is parole is not freedom. He was still serving a sentence for his crime.

▲

gruez 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> the state tries to redirect us (yes, us, here in this forum and others like it) to look at other details of the situation

Isn't the reddit post doing the same thing by trying to imply he was jailed for running a TOR node when he was officially jailed for breaking parole terms? Even if they think those were just excuse to jail him, the refusal to acknowledge those details makes the account at least deceptive.

	▲	jMyles 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Well yes, I do agree with this. I wish people were more up front in these situations. But it's not easy because the waters are so muddied. But yeah, you're absolutely right (typing that phrase now makes me feel like an LLM).

▲

RandomBacon 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It seems like those are very easy terms to follow, that he agreed to.

If someone who did some serious stuff, couldn't follow easy terms, it is cause for concern.

	▲	toast0 15 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Parole terms aren't usually up for negotiation. It's generally parole or stay in prison. You can agree to the terms offered, but it's a coercive agreement, so I wouldn't put much weight on the parolees agreement. That said, I agree the terms seem reasonable. But even if you stay in prison for your full term, you're likely to have supervised release which has similar terms.
	▲	qingcharles 14 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I've helped people released onto parole for years. It's tough. The terms might seem easy, but often aren't in practice. Most people have a history of addiction and/or mental illness and suddenly they are thrown into a world where everything is available for a price, and any medical help they were given is suddenly taken away and the life where everything was done for them (food cooked, clothes washed) is gone. The majority are returned to prison within days/weeks/months of release.

▲

pjc50 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm reasonably anti-carcerial, but he did actually commit a crime, and one of the conditions of release from that crime was agreeing not to do those things - that's what probation means - an agreement he promptly broke.

There has to be some penalty for noncompliance or you get more of it.

▲

arp242 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

He used encrypted services to commit a bunch of crimes. He was then released on the condition that he would no longer use the encrypted services that he used to commit the crimes with. He then lied and used those encrypted services anyway. It's really that simple.

I am absolutely NOT a fan of "tough on crime" type stuff. By and large I feel the US criminal justice system is an inhumane cruel monstrosity. But the conditions were not all that unreasonable (except the weed stuff) and all of this smells of bad faith on the part of this couple.

▲

iLoveOncall 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You care if he was a pedo?

Go check page 28, lines 3 to 8 on https://rockenhaus.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/U.S.-v.-Ro...

	▲	spicybright 15 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Summary: He was logged doing a search for the "North American Man/Boy Love Association", and then after downloaded some kind of VM access/TOR software the logging ended. I'm surprised this isn't mentioned much here, there's a lot of reddit comments that picked up on this and the OP (self-identified as the wife) isn't replying to any, only the ones that fit her story. https://old.reddit.com/r/TOR/comments/1ni5drm/the_fbi_couldn... The OP here also downplays a lot of what the husband did. He was on probation from DDOSing and then physically damaging company equipment after he was fired. Then on probation from that he smoked weed, ghosted his probation officer, broke the terms.
	▲	jMyles 15 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Well of course. So try him on that.