Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Tell his parents is precisely what you should do. That's what would lead to possible behavior change. Letting him get away with it validates the behavior and teaches that it's OK and he will be able to talk his way out of such things again.

It does everyone a disservice to not tell his parents.

The author got manipulated twice. First convinced to hand over his money and then convinced not to tell the parents.

The scammer player the author like a guitar. Right there is the psychopath's first big lesson - "people listen when I cry".

The genius of the scammer/budding psychopath being that the blogger thinks he "won".




The message he sent to his brother was also sent to his mother, she just hadn't read it yet when the blog post was made.

The author wasn't manipulated twice, he didn't let the scammer get away with it. Although he should probably call the police.


Police involvement is unlikely to make anything better. For every person who is scared straight, how many end up getting chewed up by the system, and coming out worse then they came in?

Telling the parents would probably be more impactful - especially given that he really wanted to prevent that from happening.


This is somewhat reminiscent of the "Scared Straight" idea, but I think that's pretty much debunked (as you allude to): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scared_Straight!#Criticism


It's possible he has access to his mother's account, and has deleted it.

I don't think it would be unusual for a 22 year old student to visit home and borrow mum's laptop.


It's possible but the scammer specifically asks the author to delete the message before his mother reads it, so it seems unlikely.


very possible. I checked the mothers account later and I couldn't find it (even though I had the link. He or his brother blocked me on her FB but I think it was his brother because this was before he begged me to delete my message to his mother


[flagged]


Wow that is a big accusation, I'm not sure that is fitting for HN without some form of proof.


Plus he's been educated about the dangers of scamming from interlinked accounts. If he does try this again it won't be as easy for the next victim to get their stuff back.


Downvoted you. It's a big jump from "somebody, 22 yo, scammed somebody else online at least once" to "psychopath".

To be frank, I think I wish the word "psychopath" was deleted from the dictionary altogether. It's just a handy label to apply to all sorts of baddies, effectively dehumanizing them (he's a psychopath- he would do anything to you, so you're justified in doing anything to him).


I disagree. It would never have entered my mind to do such a thing at age 22.

These people rarely change; if you don't punish them severely, you're giving them an unfair advantage over honest people. We don't want to live in a society dominated by crooks.


> These people rarely change

How do you know? What's for sure is that a regime of severe punishment guarantees that they won't, whereas an opportunity to reform (a carrot appropriately seasoned by a stick if necessary) at least allows that they might.

(Also, who are "these people"? People who do something wrong? Have you never? Your misdeeds have been more minor, assuredly, but what if one of 'us' finds them offensive enough that you suddenly become one of 'them'?)


Respectfully, I cannot see that what "would have entered your mind at the age of 22" has any bearing on your argument. The experience of one person (yourself) is not a valid basis for extrapolating blanket judgements of others, whether they're positive or negative. I'm not making a comment on your attitude towards severe punishment, more on your stated reasons for holding that attitude.


I'm sure there is a reason why people behave like this: Childhood trauma, poverty, bad parenting, etc...

I can sympathize to some extent - But in a broader context, if you don't severely punish this behaviour (when caught), it becomes a beneficial attribute for people to have... Fast forward a few generations and society would be filled with such people.


We already do


Although calling someone a psychopath without access to their medical history is not literally correct, I don't agree with the spirit of your comment.

After being caught, this scammer was actively trying to be seen as a human being. That is exactly the tactics he chose and this is exactly the tactics that helped him escape any punishment so far. I would advise against humanizing scammers too much.


So you're saying that after being caught, he should have sent to the victim of his scam a picture of himself putting live cats in a blender? Just to avoid being seen like somebody that tries to look human, you know.

In other words, in your view, if he doesn't look human then he's a psychopath; if he does, this proves again that he's a psychopath. Confirmation bias?

Ah, by the way and just FYI, psychopaths and scammers are human beings.


Yes, it's entirely possible to be both human and a piece of shit at the same time. It's the scammer's job to convince everyone that he is more human than a piece of shit, and it's our job not to fall for that. The factual validity of whatever bad names we might call him is irrelevant.

(No, I don't think that calling scammers bad names is a viable anti-scammer strategy. I just don't agree with the opposing effort, which should only be expected from the scammer.)


"So you're saying that after being caught, he should have sent to the victim of his scam a picture of himself putting live cats in a blender? Just to avoid being seen like somebody that tries to look human, you know."

Why would you even bother making this post? I can't imagine there is even like .0000001% of your being that believes that this is remotely close to what the person you're responding to thinks, so what exactly is this meant to accomplish? "haha, look at me mocking a point you never came close to making..."?


> "After being caught, this scammer was actively trying to be seen as a human being."

This is what the GP posted. He was very clearly saying that the scammer was "actively trying to be seen as a human being", something that apparently in the mind of the GP he's not- or at least not completely.

Well, maybe I misinterpreted, but I read it as "the fact that he tries to look scared and repentant is a further proof that he's a psychopath" - which would be a circular reasoning, since he's assumed that he's trying on the base that he's supposedly a psychopath. In any case I don't see any hint to the possibility that he might have been genuinely scared.

So to answer your question, mine was a reductio ad absurdum: given the GP's premises, the only way not to look as a psychopath would have been to look as a psychopath.


We should try not to devolve further into Redditness.


The assumption is that the scammers parents would react in a way that would make a meaningful difference and the very fact that the scammer is a scammer to me calls this into question.

Best way to express your opinion about something with someone is directly, not by asking their parents to do so for you.


Do you have kids? My experience of kids is that they are greatly influenced by how their parents see their behaviour.

Unless of course the parents have not built good relationship with their children, in which case the kids might not care a hoot what the parents think.


>> "My experience of kids is that they are greatly influenced by how their parents see their behavior."

Exactly, which is why it's very possible that the scammer behavior was learned from by the kid from their parents.

I actively engage people around me. I've tried the whole talking to parents way, and if you don't know them it's not uncommon for the response to be to mind your own business or worse, "Fuck you, I know how to raise my kids."

Beyond that, I've found that a number of parents with "good relationships" over estimate that the relationship is based on authority, not respect. This becomes obvious when the parent no longer has any authority over their children.


Assuming that the parent doesn't care helps nobody, though. At least allow the parent to fail.


The parent "caring" and making a meaningful positive difference are not the same things.

Allowing the parent to fail might be super negative for the scammer too. For example, parents withdrawal of financial support for his education, kicking them out, reporting them to the police, or worse, the kid commits suicide; if you read the kids responses, it's very clear they're not stable.

Fine with you disagreeing with my experiences of helping people, but please be careful in how you apply your approach in the real world.


"Exactly, which is why it's very possible that the scammer behavior was learned from by the kid from their parents. "

Kids do stupid stuff, always. Doesn't mean they want their parent to figure out.


He's 22, not 9.


Exactly this. Kid? At 22? I left home at 17, and knew full well when I was doing wrong before that. He is an adult, and the sooner he is treated as one, the sooner he might straighten out. Definitely tell the parents. If the parents come back with, "Mind your own @$!%ng business!" then I would inform the police.


I don't know, I'm 27 but for a lot of major decisions in my life, "what would mom and dad say about this" has been a factor.


Anecdotally, at 23, I don't have (and have never had) a father and my mother lives in another country, whenever I consider any decision and the morality of it, I ask myself "do I want to be the kind of person who does this? Can I look at myself in the mirror if I do?"


That's just not the case for everyone, however.


The the police is who should be told.


Idea that the police would help is what it is. I personally don't know anyone in law enforcement or criminal law that would ever agree that turning their own kid over to the police was something they'd do.

Sure, "call the police" works if there's not another answer or you live a sheltered life, but to me, this is the very reason that communities are failing.


I'm not sure of your point, without tone it doesn't come across at all.

People can become even more concerned to win their parents approval as they grow through adulthood.

When I think of the things I've done as an adult that I'm least proud of then I wouldn't want to tell my parents about them.

As a child with no experience you've got an excuse for your mistakes. As an adult choosing to scam people the only places you've got to hide seem to be anonymity and sociopathy.


The very fact that he asked for his parents not to be told probably means telling them would make a difference.

Unless that was more scammer bait to distract from the original intent to tell the police.


If the kid acted in that way in response to his interactions with his peer group, then his parents could most definitely have an effect .


Telling the brother seems to have done the same function as telling the parents, since that's the point at which the behaviour changed.


Telling the brother showed that there was a threat. Not telling the parents showed that the threat was a bluff.


Not calling the cops showed that, especially.


This is FELONY theft in some states. This man is an absolute idiot for not calling the police on those who set out elaborate schemes to defraud others.


The message was sent to brother and mother simultaneously.


The scammer said it is his parents that he does not want to be told, so that's precisely where his care factor is.


or may be he was a master social engineer and this was a calculated move to stop the author from going to the police


Yup, he said that just like he said that he was paying for the cards, and it was and then wasn't his ebay account...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: