Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandoooo | Hacker News Reader

What's a better world, one where some people has the means to defend themselves against injustice, or one where nobody does but at least we're all equal?

View on HN

He broke the law a bunch of times and then threatened a man's family to force him to comply, and got the man locked up. This isn't fighting injustice, it's causing injustice.

"He broke the law a bunch of times"

Kowing if he did that is dependent on there being a court decision.

Look, I don't like that some probably innocent plane guy is in jail more than anyone else but judging people just because they are rich is also wrong.

Also I'm pretty sure it wasn't Gosn that threatened him but rather the security guy that put together the plan.

>Also I'm pretty sure it wasn't Ghosn that threatened him but rather the security guy that put together the plan.

Is this the reverse of "I just followed orders"? Can the cartel bosses in Mexico not being guilty of the actions of their security guys? Maybe all they wanted was to do a trade but these pesky security guys keep killing people brutally.

Depends on what the order was. If he said "threaten and kill anyone that gets in the way" then yes Ghosn is guilty. If the order was "get me out of the country without harming anyone" then the security guy was guilty. At this point we don't know which it was.

How do you explain his decision to enter Lebanon openly, exposing his plane, therefore exposing the route and the people involved when not exposing the people who organised all this? Why he did not enter Lebanon in the same box he left Japan?

I am pretty sure that Ghosn is intelligent enough to know that as soon as he exposes his route of escape, the people involved in the operation will be exposed. He chooses to expose these when protecting the people he paid.

Was Carlos assuming that the security contractor works for the money and likes being not in jail just like him but airline personnel would do illegal things as part of the rent contract and not having problems with being exposed?

My point is - is it possible that he is directly responsible for the airplane guy going to prison? Possibly, but we don't know.

Presumption of innocence is important.

Example: there's a locally well known actor where I live that was accused of having child porn on his computer a few months ago. The press obviously jumped all over that and he was plastered over all the front pages. Fast forward two months and it's actually looking like he isn't actually guilty and won't be dragged into court. The result for him however is that he's broke, got no more acting gigs and his kids are bullied in school.

Bad result. Because people didn't assume he's innocent until PROVEN guilty. I'd be 100% happy to trade off some exec that steals money from a company getting to skip jail for nobody who's innocent ever ending up in jail.

This is not a court of law, the public opinion is formed from the info available to us and we form our opinions based on our understanding. This is O.K. because we do not put people in prison.

For example, it was O.K. to think that Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos a fraud and express this opinion well before the court decided that.

Therefore I think this is not a glorious story of an innocent CEO persecuted by the baddies, I laid out my reasons for that. You are free to think otherwise but if you want to participate in the discussion you are expected to build up your position and defend it. "Let's wait for the court decision" is not a good argument, especially when a subject is a person who runs from a court decision.

"For example, it was O.K. to think that Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos a fraud and express this opinion well before the court decided that."

That's the part I don't agree with. I don't think it's fair.

It's also unlikely that I'll be able to change your mind on this matter or that you'll be able to change mine during the course of a few comments on HN, so we can agree to disagree :)

> the people involved in the operation will be exposed. He chooses to expose these when protecting the people he paid.

He didn't, these facts are the result of an investigation

Obviously, if you use a registered plane and expose that plane by entering a country with your own identity you are choosing to expose people associated with the plane. If he attempted to conceal his method of transportation, for example entering Lebanon the way he exited Japan, then we would have had a case to argue that he did not choose to expose the people who helped him.

If you insist, we can rephrase it as "He didn't try to hide the identities of the logistic personnel as he hid the people who organised the operation".

It is a very strong clue that they were not from the same team, in sense of willingness and contract.

> if you use a registered plane

What is an "unregistered plane"? Not even the US military has that (except maybe for very specific experimental aircraft and even then).

> for example entering Lebanon the way he exited Japan

That's the reason for the stopover in Turkey. Anything else is spy movie territory.

He left Japan while the decision about his guilt was pending. He chose to work in Japan, so he has to play by the same rules as the rest of us here. It’s a law and order country. If the prosecutor wants you, you’re in big trouble. To be honest, if he was Japanese, he most likely would have killed himself or at least accepted that his life is over due to the shaming. That’s how it’s done here. If you don’t like it, don’t play in this stadium.

Him leaving Japan is undoubtedly illegal and not excusable. However if I understand the allegations correctly, he stole a bunch of money from a company he was running. Putting him to jail for 10 years for stealing $5m from a company that he just made $4bn for seems a bit harsh. Then again, Japan has the right to decide that so my opinion is irrelevant.

In Japan, stealing even a small amount is treated harshly. Recently, I recall that a member of Abe’s cabinet lost his political career because his staff mis-allocated a few hundred dollars worth of lunch receipts, which were erroneously charged to public accounts. Some people see it as disproportionate, but remember that you are expected to be even harsher in judging yourself in these situations. There’s a whole secondary wave of shame if you don’t one-up the required penalty voluntarily.

Nobody is judging him because he's rich. We're judging him for threatening and getting a guy sent to jail.

That's not a choice we are faced with, though, is it?

You're right, of course. We're actually faced with a choice between a world where some can defend themselves against injustice, and a world where some can defend themselves against injustice and also I write thinkpieces about how horrible that is on the internet.

It looks like I am going to choose the former, just so you know.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com