In Memoriam: Ian Murdock

You don't know that for sure so you can't make the link.

All I note is that you didn't do anything when it mattered and now you're quick with the knife of blame.

> He was part of this community.

So are you, and yet, if you posted a bunch of stuff on Twitter about how you were going to kill yourself and ask for having that posted on HN it would neither be the appropriate venue nor would it be productive to have your inner mental health discussed ad nauseam by strangers. Trying to rebuild your reputation afterwards would have been a lot harder because those HN discussions tend to hang around just about forever, long after you came to your senses again.

> He was in crisis and it was obvious. People would have wanted to help.

So, who were those people that would have wanted to help? I don't see anybody here saying that if they had heard about this in time through HN they would have hopped over to Ians place to stop him from doing his deed. You really just keep on adding speculation and claiming it is factual.

> You don't talk someone down from a ledge by turning your back on them.

Well, you don't talk someone down from a ledge either by standing on the ground next to the fallen body and blaming random bystanders who - conveniently - decided to stop the public discussion of the persons mental state as though that is some kind of spectator sport.

> That's all I'll say on the matter.

You felt the need to start this subthread, it is interesting that you should choose to bow out of it now, it would have been better if you had not said anything at all.

If the facts of the case interest you this zdnet article seems to be the most informed:

http://www.zdnet.com/article/debian-linux-founder-ian-murdoc...

It does not in any way shape or form list a lack of HN involvement as a contributing cause of death.

We need to avoid a "We did it, Reddit!" situation, but if we proceed calmly and without frothing mob mentality, we can make a positive impact by finding out the truth.

Eyes of the beholder. From my end it looks like I'm trying to make the polite censor think twice before abusing his power.

Not everything is about productivity.

No, I'm not sarcastic. Bringing out a gun to show people you'll shoot them over possessions is a serious overreaction.

Your story seems to describe a childhood event, and to be honest it sounds like a child's interpretation of the events: things are cast in black-and-white terms with your dad playing the role of the classic "good guy with a gun", there's clear-cut justice where he helps out another family in need, the villains are obviously just villains and thieves. That's all fine, and I have no doubt that you vividly remember these events and that they played out that way.

However, the reality is that, despite what you say, bringing out a gun is an instant escalation-to-the-top technique. Showing someone you're ready to shoot them (and that's exactly what walking up to a stranger with a gun in your hand is doing) is not de-escalation, it's escalation, it's raising the stakes to the highest point.

I mean, they're, in your own words, older teenagers. If they're not supposed to be there, use words! "Hey, that's not your stuff! Go home!" Brandishing a weapon, adding a gun to the mix is dangerous, because immediately and very clearly life is at risk.

If one of those older teenagers thought the same thing--"guns are a good way to go and get my tools back from that crazy guy who's been looting and hauling our stuff back to his barn"--and was walking around with their own gun, what's he or she going to do if some crazy guy with a shotgun comes up and starts yelling at him? All of a sudden, oh shit, the crazy guy's here with his gun and he could point it at me!

Because you're right, you don't know someone's intentions just from looking at them, whether it's the teenagers who you're afraid are picking over your wreckage (your perspective), or the guy who came up to them with a gun in his hand (their perspective).