Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 209 posts

Re: undefined

#81

Post by RyanMcGreal »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #44

Removing / blaming one person without reforming the system is called a "purge" as in Stalinist Purge Please fix the system not the blame Suggestion: are plea bargains public record? If so can we parse and publicise them? Would it be interesting to know the ratio of years charged vs years pleaded - especially by race and offence and state? Edit: no not trying to compare this in degree with marching thousands to death…

I believe Aaron would agree with you on this:

"[W]hen the system isn’t working, it doesn’t make sense to just yell at the people in it — any more than you’d try to fix a machine by yelling at the gears. True, sometimes you have the wrong gears and need to replace them, but more often you’re just using them in the wrong way. When there’s a problem, you shouldn’t get angry with the gears — you should fix the machine."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5078343

Re: undefined

#82

Post by koide »

jacquesm wrote: post #76
koide wrote: post #74

Ortiz is not responsible for Aaron's death, even if she lied. The real problem is the how the prosecution system is based on terror instead of on justice. Laws can be made less amenable to be used to terrorize, but as long as the deep roots of the system are based on terror, changing laws will not suffice. The aim should be to fix the system and the laws that make the system, not only to fix each overreaching law at…

> Ortiz is not responsible for Aaron's death, even if she lied. She is not fully responsible but she - and Heymann - at least carry partial responsibility for pushing him as far as they did, and consequentially (at least in my opinion) carry partial responsibility for Aaron's death.

Okay, you can argue that, but the two huge responsibles of the suicide are Aaron himself and the terror based system, in that order.

Re: undefined

#83

Post by lloeki »

zokier wrote: post #60
downandout wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linus isn't wrong. She made two directly conflicting statements in press releases, which is what he pointed out. The first, which she made at the outset of the case, was that he was facing 35 years if convicted at trial. They make statements like this in order to foster plea discussions, which resulted in the 4-6 month offer she mentioned in the second statement. While this would be considered extortion in any other…

> The first, which she made at the outset of the case, was that he was facing 35 years if convicted at trial. No, that was not what she said. She said that he could be facing up to 35 years. In other words 35 years would be the maximum penalty. There is no implication that she was seeking the maximum penalty at any time.

Said once, of course. Regularly repeated though, it is a scare tactic to push for a settlement, with "up to" merely acting as a plausible deniability device. Being prosecuted is psychologically exhausting, and such tactics introduce lingering thoughts weakening one's mind even more.

Re: undefined

#84

Post by thetruthNow »

okamiueru wrote: post #69
thetruthNow wrote: post #49

I tracked down Carmen Ortiz's personal information online. I'm sure she would love to hear from Us, The People who she represents, directly. Name: Carmen Milagros Ortiz DOB: 01/05/1956 Address: 20 Herrick Dr, Milton, MA This is how I found her info: 1. This article mentions that she's from Milton, MA: http://www.patriotledger.com/news/x655689172/Q-A-New-US-Atto... 2. Carmen Ortiz is married to Thomas Dolan according…

What do you think this will possibly achieve? How many times has the internet lynch mob been misguided, for you to realize that this is a shitty way to approach matters? Not only that, but if you want to reiterate Linus' statement (as you seem to be suggesting, to Ortiz herself), at least realize that he made a fool of himself here. The two statements don't contradict themselves, and going from that to a "lie" is cou…

I never said that anyone should harass her. That was your idea. Don't project it on me.

If Carmen Ortiz has done nothing wrong, then what does she have to fear?

Re: undefined

#85

Post by zokier »

lloeki wrote: post #83
zokier wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The first, which she made at the outset of the case, was that he was facing 35 years if convicted at trial. No, that was not what she said. She said that he could be facing up to 35 years. In other words 35 years would be the maximum penalty. There is no implication that she was seeking the maximum penalty at any time.

Said once, of course. Regularly repeated though, it is a scare tactic to push for a settlement, with "up to" merely acting as a plausible deniability device. Being prosecuted is psychologically exhausting, and such tactics introduce lingering thoughts weakening one's mind even more.

Her reasons behind the word choices may have been nefarious (although I hardly believe that either). But she didn't lie or contradict herself, which is what Linus is claiming.

Re: undefined

#86

Post by stoolpigeon »

benatkin wrote: post #12
btilly wrote: post #3

Linus is dead wrong on this. We have independent confirmation of everything that Ortiz said from the Boston Globe's interview with Aaron's defense attorney. The maximum statutory penalty for the original 4 indictments was 35 years. The prosecutor was planning to seek 6-7 years. There were two plea bargains offered, one was 4 months and no disputing the period, the other was 6 months but the defense attorney would be…

The main reason he's wrong is because she used lawyer speak. She said something that was misleading but technically true. She said that they didn't seek maximum penalties. What she must want people to think when they read it is that she didn't seek harsh penalties, which she did by increasing the number of counts. But since she didn't say this, it isn't technically false.

" She said something that was misleading but technically true."

The word I use for that is "lie".

Re: undefined

#87

Post by rooshdi »

koide wrote: post #74

Ortiz is not responsible for Aaron's death, even if she lied. The real problem is the how the prosecution system is based on terror instead of on justice. Laws can be made less amenable to be used to terrorize, but as long as the deep roots of the system are based on terror, changing laws will not suffice. The aim should be to fix the system and the laws that make the system, not only to fix each overreaching law at…

In order to fix the judicial system, we need to fix the underlying system which molds it. Unfortunately, this very system encourages those in power to protect the status quo for personal status instead of societal. Thus, we find ourselves in a system which incentivizes egoism over the accessibility of information.

Re: undefined

#88

Post by zokier »

RobAley wrote: post #75
btilly wrote: post #3

Linus is dead wrong on this. We have independent confirmation of everything that Ortiz said from the Boston Globe's interview with Aaron's defense attorney. The maximum statutory penalty for the original 4 indictments was 35 years. The prosecutor was planning to seek 6-7 years. There were two plea bargains offered, one was 4 months and no disputing the period, the other was 6 months but the defense attorney would be…

Linus addresses this in a comment further down below his post : "oh, I'm sure that it's "true" that in private talks they were very much not seeking the maximum penalty. That's how the whole plea bargain thing works. But there's no question that Carmen Ortiz' office also made the whole thing very public, and everything that ever got written about that PR statement talked about the "up to 35 years" etc. So the whole "…

> It was always there very much as a threat.

But wouldn't the maximum penalty be there always no matter what the prosecution would do? I mean, isn't the final decision made by the judges, who can give the penalty the deem fit (in the bounds of the law)?

Re: undefined

#89

Post by logn »

jacquesm wrote: post #67
logn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I think he committed suicide because he thought he was going to be Bradley Manning-inged. I wish he would have waited a little longer and had a little more hope but it's easy to be cool and logical from a comfy chair, meanwhile his mind was facing darkness." Both agreeing and disagreeing here... I don't get how everyone assumes that Aaron was making a logical decision when he killed himself. It's very possible he…

> It's very possible he was depressed and wasn't thinking clearly at all. I'd take that as a given. > It's also very possible that this trial made him depressed. I think to think otherwise would be to ignore plenty of evidence to the contrary. > But to assume that he was thinking reasonably about the circumstances and decided it was best not to live is a huge assumption. Depression completely warps reality. Yes. And…

>> But also his loved ones near him didn't do enough to help.

>You know NOTHING about that and should refrain from such comments.

If you suspect someone is going to harm him/herself, you call 911 and explain as much. They immediately come and forcibly lock the person in a mental institution against their will until a doctor or board decides they're no longer a threat for suicide.

Also, I'm not defending Ortiz in any way. What I am saying is that a lot of people are overreacting. Yes, she's a terrible prosecutor, went way overboard and likely played a role in a young man's death. But to say that he "was killed by the government" (Aaron's father said that) and then for us to focus our anger on Ortiz is absurd. Sure, I can accept the government had a role in his death. But Ortiz is operating within the system that exists, enforcing ToS-violation-is-a-felony precedent that already exists, using multiple counts to force a plea that all prosecutors do.

Re: undefined

#90

Post by Xylakant »

watt wrote: post #80
javert wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a regular intelligent American person (i.e., not a lawyer), you are correct, and Linus is wrong. It is just obvious that the first thing she put out was purely legal posturing. They do it all the time. It means nothing.

It made Aaron kill himself. Must mean something.

Aaron killed himself for reasons we do not know. We are all saddened because of that loss and I understand that emotions are running high, but please keep in mind that he reportedly was suffering from a depression. The pressure from the investigation probably added to all of that, but the whole case may have just been a trigger or even an unrelated event. Depressive people sometimes kill themselves for a variety of reasons that mentally stable people would shrug off and ignore.

Crying out loud "But Aaron killed himself, his death must mean something." just does not help any cause. He was a bright, talented man who got caught up in a legal case that highlights major problems with the way criminal cases get resolved. Focussing on that and highlighting the problems should be the goal, not revenge for his death.

Post reply on HN