Hacker News Reader

Comment by istinetz | Hacker News Reader

That's a legal principle which exists because of the incredibly high bar we want our governments to cross before they deprive people of their liberties. Individual citizens can believe whatever they want to believe.

Im pretty sure it was implemented because of the amount of mob justice that was going on during the period of the salem witch trials.

You are absolutely correct, but many people like to forget this cause obviously mob justice only happens to bad people. They tend to hold this position right until the mob stands in front of their own door.

pretty sure it was implemented a millennium or two before that

Its generaly attributed to Sir William Garrow a British barrister who made the notion that people should be innocent until proven guilty in trial in 1791. before that the justice system was guilty until proven innocent, so the salem witch trials in 1692 would absolutely be under guilty until proven innocent and unfair trials like that are what changed people mind to mob justice where guilt is assumed not proven.

Exactly! HN is full of armchair judges, armchair scientists, armchair inventors, armchair researchers, you name it! More likely than not, their comments are going to be negative, belittling and demorsalizing to actual human beings involved.

This goes both ways. We don't know which party is guilty. It could be the women. It could be the defendant. We don't know. We don't have access to the case files. The jury is still out there.

Pretty sure this is not how the HN commenters behave with their colleagues in real life or they would be without jobs pretty soon. Pretty sure they would hate it if they were the target of such comments that they spew out here. But here on HN, it is just so easy to sit behind a keyboard and become an armchair expert in everything and attack others or their work or their inventions or their writings. Absolutely deplorable. I am very disappointed!

FYI I’m replying with a humorous (to me) notice. While many HN folks fit your “armchair” statements, I can’t help but think that (as programmers) we generate a lot of value while sitting in chairs that have armrests. I haven’t read the article yet (I generally check the comments first to see if it’s worthwhile, and this one looks interesting), but I can’t help but contrast your opinion with the idea that your “armchair judges” have a level of (pseudo?)intellectual value that I appreciate. I have good experience using the opinions here as a good “tell” whether or not internet content (like the current article) is worth my time.

Ask yourself, would you let your daughter/spouse/sister go on a date/business dinner alone with him after reading the times article?

I don't want to read the times article, it's just going to be more accusations and conjecture without proof

And even if I did, and decided I don't want to let my daughter near him based on the rumours, I would certainly not slander him in public based on rumours

The problem is the bar for proof, like a guilty verdict, is so high in cases of massive power differentials, that it is almost unreachable. Look at Harvey. It was an open secret for decades. He used his connections, payoffs, shady private investigators to suppress his victims. Or like Dan Price put it himself:

> “In the unlikely event that you are falsely accused, remember that it will be much easier for you to overcome false allegations than it will be for actual victims to overcome the trauma of harassment or assault.”

This comment is conjecture

Your refusal to learn what happened is not a firm of wisely handling doubt

social discretion has nothing to do with the legal system

that being reiterated, thats a total nightmare for the guy in that couple to reinforce his girlfriend to see Dan, another man, and then needing to rescue her from peril, whether that’s just reckless driving that made her uncomfortable and putting her in danger or if thats includes a someone (Dan’s) hand on her neck and that crossing her boundaries and that relationship’s boundaries (I would say consensual or nonconsensual, but these are things I don't know with this dynamic, read below). Thats nightmarish when I think about people I love.

I find it interesting that they both made a trip to Seattle from San Diego and the boyfriend was therefore available to rescue her by car, I am wondering if that context was made clear during this date with Dan. This doesnt excuse any nonconsensual thing, there are some aspects I find completely foreign.

As an HN guideline, you should drop the first sentence.

The second sentence stands on its own.

No need for name-calling.

yeah, my bad

Reply on news.ycombinator.com