Hacker News Reader

Comment by viggity | Hacker News Reader

It isn't nearly enough time, he'll be out in 2 years. He fucking killed someone and he's walking away with a slap on the wrist. Fuck that guy.

View on HN

> Judge Norris said he was giving Sonderman the maximum sentenced allowed by law under the statute — 60 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release, but implied that his sentence would be far harsher if the law permitted.

So, it seems like statute requires updating to increase the maximum sentence permitted for such crimes. Another question is: would that dissuade these attacks by these actors? I'm unsure.

Call your representative(s). While the American justice system leaves much to be desired, I don't think more time for effectively ordering a hit through social engineering is excessively punitive. Ross Ulbricht of Silk Road fame is doing far more time, in part, for paying someone to perform a hit that didn't take place (it was a factor in affirming his life sentence) [1] [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht#Trial

[2] https://www.wired.com/2017/05/silk-road-creator-ross-ulbrich...

> Ross Ulbricht of Silk Road fame is doing far more time just for attempting to pay someone to perform a hit.

I’m fairly sure those charges were dropped and did not come up at trial.

No, they definitely did. They were an explicit predicate to the conspiracy charge.

Paying a killer is obvious proof of intend. We consider intentional acts to be far worse than unintended consequences.

Say you’re on your way to pay the murder-for-hire when you accidentally run over your intended victim while checking HN on your phone. You admit to everything. Which part should contribute more to your prison sentence?

There's no probation in the federal system. He will serve the 60 months.

Agreed. Should be same punishment as a murder for hire. Didn't pull the trigger, but the intent from the swatter was there.

Let's please make an example of these lowlifes that think abusing public safety resources is an acceptable way to "get" people they disagree with.

While I despise these very online losers taking their failure at life out on everyone happier or more successful than them, and especially those they believe to deserve less status than them, It just doesn’t follow that deserve to be punished at the levels murders tend to get.

Even though there have been a few cases such as this, the victim’s death is just too rare to assume that that as the intended outcome. A swat raid on an innocent person should, in any civilized society, never end with death. For vast swaths of the democratic world, that’s also our experience, proofing that it’s not impossible.

It’s a negligent homicide, and I would place a significant chunk of the guilt on the police. Punishing them so,klar to, say, drunk drivers that kill someone seems about right. And two years in prison aren’t a “slap on the wrist”.

It's much more than a negligent act, this is active intentful criminal activity. If you're going to put people in jail for selling weed, but do nothing to someone performing continuous online harassment such as release of private information on public channels, false reports of child abuse, swatting, sending false deliveries to their home, bad mouthing them to their friends, stealing of their online accounts through sim swapping, and all that, well dammit something is definitely wrong.

And the harassment in this case isn't even trolling or a grudge between two people, this is harassment for ransom of property and valuable assets from the target, in this case, valuable Twitter handles.

> It isn't nearly enough time, he'll be out in 2 years. He fucking killed someone and he's walking away with a slap on the wrist. Fuck that guy.

You're being downvoted. I cannot fathom the kind of thought process it takes to downvote you for this statement.

This was a heinous crime that should have been prosecuted as first degree murder.

It's factually incorrect that he'll be out in 2 years.

That's a nitpick. Even five years is a pittance for taking someone's life. In this manner. After attempting to steal from them and harass them. And after showing a history of this kind of abuse directed at other human beings.

I agree, but it's getting downvoted because it's wrong.

I downvoted that post because it's just not correct: federal sentences have not been eligible for parole since 1987 and good-behavior releases are rarely if ever that significant of a reduction. I also downvoted it because ill-informed hauteur doesn't vibe--I mean, if you are going to be outraged, and there are many things (many of which go uncommented-upon here!) to be outraged about, a substantial point that furthers a discussion is pretty important.

I downvoted your post because complaining about downvotes is frowned upon here. (I've done it. I got downvoted for it. It's how it goes.)

> This was a heinous crime that should have been prosecuted as first degree murder.

this thinking lets people escape convictions that would've been a sure thing if they were prosecuted for second degree.

"first degree" doesn't just mean "we punish them more", there are specific requirements for it. and if the facts don't fit the requirements, the defense will explain that _very_ _clearly_ to the jury and you'll have a difficult time getting a conviction. juries are not as excited about handing out first degree murder convictions as you might think.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com