Hacker News Reader

Comment by biohacker42 | Hacker News Reader

an example of how low folks in our industry can go

There's nothing special about our industry, crazy people are everywhere.

It's a simple numbers game, become popular enough and your popularity will cover some number of mentally unstable individuals.

Actresses, singers and presidents have all been shot for no other reason then they were famous.

Public criticism or lack of coverage probably makes things worse for Arrington, but I'm guessing not by much. Crazy people by definition do not behave rationally.

I'm not sure there is a solution to that beyond, make sure you keep as much of your life as you can secret.

The name of the young actress who was killed by her stalker some years ago escapes me, but I think he was able to get her address form the DMV.

Arrington can either quit, or keep paying for security, or find a way to keep his office and his home secret.

View on HN

The actress you're thinking of is probably Rebecca Schaeffer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer

I read about her in Gavin de Becker's The Gift of Fear, which incidentally is a pretty good book about such things. (de Becker is apparently the guy you call if you're a Hollywood star who gets a death threat -- protecting famous people is his company's business. And his published opinion is pretty much the same as yours: All famous people will get threats once they become famous enough, and the most famous people you can name have probably got dozens of stalkers of one sort or another.)

I don't see why police couldn't do anything about the dangerous guy intimidating and threatening him. Is serious intimidation really not a crime of any sort?

They could issue a restraining order but he chose not to do that because it would give the guy specifics about the places he regularly visits and where he lives.

I meant why couldn't the police do something effective that would make him safe? isn't that their job?

What would the police do? Break his legs?

(Honestly, it seems the kind of circumstance where I can't really think of anything the police should be able to do to anyone who seems dangerous or "suspicious", because both are very much judgement calls.)

OK I looked up "assault". He is blatantly guilty of assault, as far as I can tell, so why not just put him in jail?

Assault: (Law) an act, criminal or tortious, that threatens physical harm to a person, whether or not actual harm is done

So suppose the cops arrest him. He is unlikely (statistically speaking) to be held without bail, so he's out in a day or two. Then you have a trial. Suppose you have people like me on the jury -- I know that morons threaten to kill each other all the time on the internet, in person, and on CB radio and via snail mail and every other means of communication man has invented. I would likely acquit unless you can present some serious evidence of actual intent, and owning a gun having a previous a felony would not cut it.

So now what ? Is the situation better or worse ? It better be LOT better, because society is collectively out of quite a bit of money by the time all that is said and done.

I don't think Arrington is necessarily over reacting to the threat, either. Without knowing the details it's impossible to tell, and even if you knew the details you might be uncertain. There is a very wide zone between something that will justify society's all-out response and what makes you feel creepy.

There is probably no way for society to make everyone feel warm and comfy about all their interactions with each other. Think about if we had a general policy of jailing people based on a definition of "threatens physical harm" that was that lose. Think back over every bad relationship you ever had . . . are you absolutely sure that some disasterous former manager or former employee could not have gotten you jailed ? Absolutely sure ?

Why can't you have a very brief trial where you explain the definition of assault and present the uncontroversial evidence of the assault, and that's that?

Not trying to argue. Just don't see why that wouldn't work. the jury should just be like "well, it's a crime, and he did it" instead of saying it's common so we'll ignore it.

Honestly, I don't want trials to ever be quick. If you're talking about putting someone in jail, you better be really freaking sure the guy is a threat to society and not just having a really bad week.

I have threatened bloody murder to many a bad library author, and the last thing I need is to get jailed because of that ;)

> Why can't you have a very brief trial where you explain the definition of assault and present the uncontroversial evidence of the assault, and that's that?

The reason I've heard that assault charges aren't always filed is that there has to be, and I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember the exact wording, "sufficient reason " to believe that the accuser can and will carry out his/her thread in order to make it assault.

The situation often cited for this is a 90 lb weakling gets drunk and threatens to beat up someone who fights in MMA for a living. Since the thread isn't credible this technically isn't assault.

On the other hand, if I shove a gun in your face and threaten to kill you then that very much is assault as my threat is very credible.

Some where in between is the line between assault and just being a dick, which isn't a crime.

This is often why many verbal assault cases aren't tried.

The other, unfortunate, reason is that court time is very finite. Prosecutors can only take so many cases to court and prosecutors know that people will often make these types of threats for a short period of time and then just leave that person's life.

If that's the case then the situation often resolves itself and they don't have to take up their valuable court space with this case.

It sucks but that's the way things are:(.

No, it's not their job. Police respond to things, but they are basically not allowed to be proactive, barring a riot. There's a ton of reasons for this, including that without an actual law broken tailing this guy could be construed as police harassment, would likely involve a violation of some Constitutional right or other, and, of course, the real reason, that they simply don't have time for that sort of thing.

When you set policy for things like police, you get tradeoffs. Protect one person's rights, and you'll block actions the police could have taken to stop another. This isn't intended as political commentary and I don't have any particular thing in mind; think of it as an engineering view of law enforcement. You Can't Have It All. (And Certainly Not For Free.)

But making death threats is not a right. It's a crime.

I really don't understand all the apologizing for law enforcement that refuses to enforce the law in this case. The victim was harmed a lot, and still no one wants to see the crook stopped?

If they were made over the internet, it might take a Federal Law Enforcement Officer (FBI or U.S. Marshal) to make the arrest or get the arrest warrant. I believe interstate death treats become a federal manner.

And with all due respect to TC and Mike, it often takes "pull" to get Federal law enforcement involved. They handle all the "big fish". For example, if your start up was hacked, they would be the ones to call, but they won't move on anything less than $50,000 or $500,0000 worth of damages.

Disclaimer: IANAL and IANALEO.

I don't see why police couldn't do anything

You must be new here...

Actresses, singers and presidents are a little different though. Actresses/singers want much of the popularity, but struggle to maintain the right balance. And presidents -well- many folks have logical reasons to want them dead. I can't see the logic behind wanting Michael Arrington dead though, and I don't think he wants to be popular himself (as much as to make his blog/events popular).

And somehow I hope our industry is special, that we're less likely to do crazy things in general. We're trained in science and reasoning after all. How many techies do you know that are rabid fans of celebrities?

He is an entertainer in that he leverages popularity to make money.

What company doesn't require popularity to make money? That's an exceedingly broad use of "entertainer."

I meant that as a complement. I think an "entertainer" is not just a random actor, singer, or blogger, but someone who does those things and makes real money from it. To do that generally takes leveraging popularity. Granted you can make a living as a backup dancer, but I think he has separated himself from the herd.

"And presidents -well- many folks have logical reasons to want them dead."

Ironically, many of the successful assassins either did not, or had nothing like a logical reason.

* Booth's assassination of Lincoln is... complicated but had to do with the Civil War. Call it rational-ish.

* Garfield was assassinated by a nutcase who thought Garfield owed him after the assassin's few hundred printed pamphlets putatively got him elected. Not rational.

* McKinley's assassin had a head full of anarchism. Call it rational if you like, but it certainly wasn't because of anything about McKinley himself.

* Kennedy's assassin's motives are unclear, but it looks like he generally just hated the US and wanted to take down Kennedy and thereby become a "great man".

I'm not arguing with anything you said, just find it interesting that of all the people who, like you say, may have some reason to want to pull this off, it's the crazies who succeed. Call it HN's goal of "interesting things".

>And somehow I hope our industry is special, that we're less likely to do crazy things in general. We're trained in science and reasoning after all.

As an astronaut, I have the same hope for my industry. Puts on diaper

How can wanting someone dead ever be logical? I understand not liking someone, or disagreeing with their policies, but wanting them dead seems a bit extreme.

I don't think "logical" means what you think it does. Are you sure you don't mean "moral", or "acceptable"?

Do you believe there are any cases where one could justifiably kill in self-defense, or are you a pure pacifist?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com