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

I'm sorry, but if you are arguing that Aaron Swartz did absolutely not break any current laws (whether you agree with them or not), then you are delusional, I urge you to read Orin Kerr's analysis of the situation, and refute anything he has stated, in a logical coherent manner, with solid evidence.

I'm sorry but I'm sure this man, his wife, or any of the prosecution team did not expect Aaron to commit suicide or was their intention. I'm sure they are just as upset as everyone else.

Try and put your emotions aside, and let your logic take control again.

> I'm sorry but I'm sure this man, his wife, or any of the prosecution team did not expect...

> I'm sure they are just as upset as everyone else.

What makes you sure about those things? Do you have private information that the rest of us don't have? Based on the information in the press it sounds like the prosecution just didn't care, or worse it sounds like this is the way they act as a matter of policy.

Hi Shock,

Basically we operate in a society (thankfully in my opinion), where actually the onus is on the accuser to prove the accusations, with evidence, beyond reasonable doubt.

The above humans outlined unless have some emotional deficiencies, I believe are like the rest of us, and it's safe to assume when anyone kills themselves it's a sad situation, and can empathise with said person.

So in fact I turn your statement back on to you, please provide solid evidence that would make me to believe they WOULD NOT be upset at the situation.

Considering Heymann has a history of badly under-estimating the suicide risk of young hackers he prosecutes, I'd say he either has "emotional deficiencies", or he's just incompetent. Replying to a suicide risk with "well then we'll lock him up, he'll be safe there" is callous in the extreme.

In both cases, this reflects badly on him and his boss, wouldn't you say?

Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word "sure" which you used plenty. I didn't accuse you of anything so I don't have to prove anything. You told us you were sure of some things and I asked you what made you to be sure. I was genuinely interested in the information you might have. It seems there was none and you just use words liberally, without regard for their meaning. In fact, I am sure of it. See what I did there?

It read to me as if you were accusing the prosecutors of not having any empathy to Aaron in this case. I believe the default human reaction is to feel said emotion, and such I think it's reasonable to assume they did feel empathy unless we have evidence that directly contradicts that. Sorry for any confusion.

The fact is that the justice system, as currently run, is an extortionate racket, worthy of being prosecuted under RICO.

Accepting 6 months in prison to escape the threat of 35+ years would perhaps have been the pragmatic way out, but still probably disproportionate.

"I'm sure they are just as upset as everyone else."

Oh, you think they are just as upset as Swartz's parents?


Did you actually just post this? I'm assuming your a grown adult, so it's weird that I'm having to explain this:

Everyone else refers to the average person, or more so if you want to be technical, the average emotional response..

How about you give up on your mind reading powers for a while? I'm sure you can read the psychology of Ortiz and every other prosecutor, and determine that their opinions of Aaron Swartz are exactly like normal people.

I'd rather believe that they saw him like a target to be scalped, bullied into submission by plea bargain. I don't know why, maybe because US prosecutors have a history of treating the accused like targets to be scalped, and bullied into submission by plea bargain?

Books have actually written on this subject, why don't you have a look? Here are some references:




Finally, don't expect me to re-interpret the idiotic opinions that you post as something really profound, because my mind reading powers are as awful as yours. Express yourself clearly instead.

And don't call me a child - that's ad-hominem, jackass.

You do realize it's perfectly plausible that they did want to bully him into a plea bargain and that they also didn't want him to commit suicide, and do feel empathetic towards the situation?

What, that they had a human interest in Swartz while planning his blackmail? No, that's not at all plausible.

"Plausible" means "likely", not "tcuk positing something that can't be proved impossible".

The term you're looking for is "clutching at straws".

I'm not sure how or why you fail to see or accept any grey area in this. I'm not sure how else to explain my view.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact