4 ms·

>Russia has a cancerously warped morality. As if other countries don't share it... A man was recently in the news for killing a man who peeped on his daughter

>Russia has a cancerously warped morality. As if other countries don't share it... A man was recently in the news for killing a man who peeped on his daughter in a public restroom in the US. The comments were flooded with people supporting his actions and bragging they'd do the same. It's trivial to find similar stories with similar receptions in the US and other countries. Some people just really believe in "self served justice" It mostly seems to stem from disenfranchisement and a belief "the system doesn't work", so it's justified to take matters into your own hands.

mlyle 7y ago
> A man was recently in the news for killing a man who peeped on his daughter in a public restroom in the US. Surely we can see that there's a bit of a difference between killing someone in the heat of the moment vs. using investigators to find them, lying in wait, and then stabbing them to death in front of their children. And you can find asshats celebrating anyone. The person in question is facing a murder 2 charge and will go away for a long time; they will not leave prison to acclaim and a cushy public job; he will not win governmental medals for "upholding law and order"; etc.
- BoorishBears 7y ago
  There are plenty of premeditated examples too... but it is HN so surely I should have expected someone to fixate on my single example of a trend
  - mlyle 7y ago
    "Trend" --- as in you're arguing that this is something on the increase? You're missing the main problem in your post. In the example we're talking about, it's a deplorable case of the person involved not facing real justice or proportional consequence. You can always find people advocating for deplorable things. But in the example we're talking about, this group of people was so large as to create acclaim; to give him an important public job; and to award him a medal. Surely that's different from a few people saying "THAT PEDOPHILE DESERVED IT." We'll never get rid of the few people saying something stupid; but we can hope that the state and bulk of the populace comes to a reasonable decision, at least (8 years in prison, in this case).
    - BoorishBears 7y ago
      ??? What??? Saying something is a trend does not imply it's increasing? trend: a prevailing tendency or inclination (And before you go and check, none of the other definitions imply an increase specifically either) If you're going to nitpick, at least be correct about the nits you pick. - I'm not missing the main point, I'm intentionally calling out a hypocritical, borderline racist sub-point that wasn't even needed in the original comment. Why shoehorn this point Russians are somehow morally flawed people, what did that add to anything and how is it even supported by the story when exactly as you confirmed you'll find people cheering for murders anyways. You're literally making my point.
      - mlyle 7y ago
        > Why shoehorn this point Russians are somehow morally flawed people, what did that add to anything and how is it even supported by the story when exactly as you confirmed you'll find people cheering for murders anyways. You're literally making my point. Yah, so whether it's one person doing it or the state doing it-- it's the same. /s :P > Saying something is a trend does not imply it's increasing? It implies it is CHANGING IN SOME DIRECTION. Words have a definition and a connotation; better dictionaries make this information clear in the definition. M-w says: 1a: a prevailing tendency or inclination : DRIFT current trends in education b: a general movement : SWING the trend toward suburban living c: a current style or preference : VOGUE new fashion trends d: a line of development : APPROACH new trends in cancer research 2: the general movement over time of a statistically detectable change also : a statistical curve reflecting such a change 3: a line of general direction or movement the trend of the coast turned toward the west We can look at etymology, too: > Old English trendan ‘revolve, rotate’, of Germanic origin; compare with trundle. The verb sense ‘turn in a specified direction’ dates from the late 16th century, and gave rise to the figurative use ‘develop in a general direction’ in the mid 19th century, a development paralleled in the noun.
        BoorishBears 7y ago
        You're using the wrong definition based on context clues and trying to correct me based on your wrong interpretation of said wrong definition. This is the most HN comment I have ever read, thank you. - Also so you don't claim I'm just dodging the slightly on-topic part of your reply: The government that mass incarcerates it's population, started wars half way across the world for bad reasons, radicalizing generations to come in the process, kills civilians indiscriminately as long as they're brown, etc. has the moral high ground how again? Didn't we literally just pardon a man who brutally murdered people on behalf of our nation in such ruthless fashion, our own elite soldiers turned their backs on him and called him a monster?
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >Surely we can see that there's a bit of a difference between killing someone in the heat of the moment vs. using investigators to find them, lying in wait, and then stabbing them to death in front of their children. Enough of a difference to matter in judgments of the behavior? For example, the entire 'heat of the moment' is the recognition that a person can be in a mental state where their actions are abnormal. In general we recognize this mindset lasts a short time (exactly how long is legally allowed and how long is socially allowed differs, but I can't think of any case that allows for more than an hour). But, in doing so, we have now acknowledged such mental states do exist and and given them some level of justification (enough so to be different than murder without the mental state). So, is it possible that a person who loses their spouse and children cannot be put into a similar long term mental state? If you read the wikipedia article, the man seemed to not have been in a normal mental state at all, to the point even the Switzerland courts recognized it after the murder. >On 8 November 2007, Kaloyev was released from prison, because his mental condition was not sufficiently considered in the initial sentence. So, while the mental states do have some difference (one lasting minutes to an hour, the other lasting years), they also seem to not be so different in the view of the courts. So is the difference enough to counter the other poster's comment? I don't think that has been established enough to dismiss their post outright.
  - mlyle 7y ago
    > Enough of a difference to matter in judgments of the behavior? Yes. As you indicate, we have a long legal tradition in Western countries of weighing these things. But beyond that, someone who is one of these states and kills the wrong frickin' person is not likely to be celebrated by society as a hero afterwards ;) > So is the difference enough to counter the other poster's comment? I don't think that has been established enough to dismiss their post outright. That is, don't confuse escaping some degree of culpability (perhaps justified in this guy's case, but not to the extent he did...) with being officially lauded (uh, no way).
- SergeAx 7y ago
  I despise Kaloev for what he did, but Swiss prosecuted Kaloev, put him in jail for 8 years and released after 2, didn't they? So, for Swiss the justice is accomplished and the punishment for killing their citizen is done.
  - mlyle 7y ago
    Yah, I think the Swiss screwed up a little. The bigger issue is the celebration afterwards at home / giving a state office / medal for upholding law and order. These actions explicitly condone the murder.
    - HarryHirsch 7y ago
      Yes, the Swiss screwed up when they handed suspended sentences to Swisscontrol management who condoned working conditions at the Center in Zurich. It's a problem that negligent management that causes death and misery to hundreds and thousands gets off as easily as Joe Random who though his negligence killed just one person. It does cause contempt for the law. At that level of responsibility you need strict liability, and the hammer needs to fall. Otherwise you end up with the 737-MAX.
    - SergeAx 7y ago
      Now the tricky part. Maybe, just maybe, the Swiss didn't screw up? Maybe that's their perception of events and consequences and crime and punishment: heartbroken father and husband at one side of Femida's scales and a culprit of his child and wife's death - on the other? In that case, aren't you with your ideas of jailing Kaloev for life, or other voices talking about even putting him on a death row - are just a mirrored image of those who cheered him for vendetta and murder? Are you? (edit: typo)
      - mlyle 7y ago
        > a culprit of his child and wife's death - on the other? The guy who died made a mistake when overworked and without the normal safety systems backing him up, and without the Russian aircrew noticing and with the Russian aircrew ignoring TCAS. The Swiss found fault with the management chain that made the decisions involved to create the situation and none with the individual controller who made the mistake. Calling him a "culprit" isn't a great match for the circumstances. > In that case, aren't you with your ideas of jailing Kaloev for life, or other voices talking about even putting him on a death row - are just a mirrored image of those who cheered him for vendetta and murder? You're putting words in my mouth. How can you read "Yah, I think the Swiss screwed up a little [in releasing him so early]" as advocacy for the death penalty? You're outright trolling at this point and it's a little sad. In a just world, he would have done 7-15 years, and then not come home to celebrations of vendetta.

mlyle 7y ago

> A man was recently in the news for killing a man who peeped on his daughter in a public restroom in the US. Surely we can see that there's a bit of a difference between killing someone in the heat of the moment vs. using investigators to find them, lying in wait, and then stabbing them to death in front of their children. And you can find asshats celebrating anyone. The person in question is facing a murder 2 charge and will go away for a long time; they will not leave prison to acclaim and a cushy public job; he will not win governmental medals for "upholding law and order"; etc.

BoorishBears 7y ago
There are plenty of premeditated examples too... but it is HN so surely I should have expected someone to fixate on my single example of a trend
- mlyle 7y ago
  "Trend" --- as in you're arguing that this is something on the increase? You're missing the main problem in your post. In the example we're talking about, it's a deplorable case of the person involved not facing real justice or proportional consequence. You can always find people advocating for deplorable things. But in the example we're talking about, this group of people was so large as to create acclaim; to give him an important public job; and to award him a medal. Surely that's different from a few people saying "THAT PEDOPHILE DESERVED IT." We'll never get rid of the few people saying something stupid; but we can hope that the state and bulk of the populace comes to a reasonable decision, at least (8 years in prison, in this case).
  - BoorishBears 7y ago
    ??? What??? Saying something is a trend does not imply it's increasing? trend: a prevailing tendency or inclination (And before you go and check, none of the other definitions imply an increase specifically either) If you're going to nitpick, at least be correct about the nits you pick. - I'm not missing the main point, I'm intentionally calling out a hypocritical, borderline racist sub-point that wasn't even needed in the original comment. Why shoehorn this point Russians are somehow morally flawed people, what did that add to anything and how is it even supported by the story when exactly as you confirmed you'll find people cheering for murders anyways. You're literally making my point.
    - mlyle 7y ago
      > Why shoehorn this point Russians are somehow morally flawed people, what did that add to anything and how is it even supported by the story when exactly as you confirmed you'll find people cheering for murders anyways. You're literally making my point. Yah, so whether it's one person doing it or the state doing it-- it's the same. /s :P > Saying something is a trend does not imply it's increasing? It implies it is CHANGING IN SOME DIRECTION. Words have a definition and a connotation; better dictionaries make this information clear in the definition. M-w says: 1a: a prevailing tendency or inclination : DRIFT current trends in education b: a general movement : SWING the trend toward suburban living c: a current style or preference : VOGUE new fashion trends d: a line of development : APPROACH new trends in cancer research 2: the general movement over time of a statistically detectable change also : a statistical curve reflecting such a change 3: a line of general direction or movement the trend of the coast turned toward the west We can look at etymology, too: > Old English trendan ‘revolve, rotate’, of Germanic origin; compare with trundle. The verb sense ‘turn in a specified direction’ dates from the late 16th century, and gave rise to the figurative use ‘develop in a general direction’ in the mid 19th century, a development paralleled in the noun.
      - BoorishBears 7y ago
        You're using the wrong definition based on context clues and trying to correct me based on your wrong interpretation of said wrong definition. This is the most HN comment I have ever read, thank you. - Also so you don't claim I'm just dodging the slightly on-topic part of your reply: The government that mass incarcerates it's population, started wars half way across the world for bad reasons, radicalizing generations to come in the process, kills civilians indiscriminately as long as they're brown, etc. has the moral high ground how again? Didn't we literally just pardon a man who brutally murdered people on behalf of our nation in such ruthless fashion, our own elite soldiers turned their backs on him and called him a monster?
SkyBelow 7y ago
>Surely we can see that there's a bit of a difference between killing someone in the heat of the moment vs. using investigators to find them, lying in wait, and then stabbing them to death in front of their children. Enough of a difference to matter in judgments of the behavior? For example, the entire 'heat of the moment' is the recognition that a person can be in a mental state where their actions are abnormal. In general we recognize this mindset lasts a short time (exactly how long is legally allowed and how long is socially allowed differs, but I can't think of any case that allows for more than an hour). But, in doing so, we have now acknowledged such mental states do exist and and given them some level of justification (enough so to be different than murder without the mental state). So, is it possible that a person who loses their spouse and children cannot be put into a similar long term mental state? If you read the wikipedia article, the man seemed to not have been in a normal mental state at all, to the point even the Switzerland courts recognized it after the murder. >On 8 November 2007, Kaloyev was released from prison, because his mental condition was not sufficiently considered in the initial sentence. So, while the mental states do have some difference (one lasting minutes to an hour, the other lasting years), they also seem to not be so different in the view of the courts. So is the difference enough to counter the other poster's comment? I don't think that has been established enough to dismiss their post outright.
- mlyle 7y ago
  > Enough of a difference to matter in judgments of the behavior? Yes. As you indicate, we have a long legal tradition in Western countries of weighing these things. But beyond that, someone who is one of these states and kills the wrong frickin' person is not likely to be celebrated by society as a hero afterwards ;) > So is the difference enough to counter the other poster's comment? I don't think that has been established enough to dismiss their post outright. That is, don't confuse escaping some degree of culpability (perhaps justified in this guy's case, but not to the extent he did...) with being officially lauded (uh, no way).
SergeAx 7y ago
I despise Kaloev for what he did, but Swiss prosecuted Kaloev, put him in jail for 8 years and released after 2, didn't they? So, for Swiss the justice is accomplished and the punishment for killing their citizen is done.
- mlyle 7y ago
  Yah, I think the Swiss screwed up a little. The bigger issue is the celebration afterwards at home / giving a state office / medal for upholding law and order. These actions explicitly condone the murder.
  - HarryHirsch 7y ago
    Yes, the Swiss screwed up when they handed suspended sentences to Swisscontrol management who condoned working conditions at the Center in Zurich. It's a problem that negligent management that causes death and misery to hundreds and thousands gets off as easily as Joe Random who though his negligence killed just one person. It does cause contempt for the law. At that level of responsibility you need strict liability, and the hammer needs to fall. Otherwise you end up with the 737-MAX.
  - SergeAx 7y ago
    Now the tricky part. Maybe, just maybe, the Swiss didn't screw up? Maybe that's their perception of events and consequences and crime and punishment: heartbroken father and husband at one side of Femida's scales and a culprit of his child and wife's death - on the other? In that case, aren't you with your ideas of jailing Kaloev for life, or other voices talking about even putting him on a death row - are just a mirrored image of those who cheered him for vendetta and murder? Are you? (edit: typo)
    - mlyle 7y ago
      > a culprit of his child and wife's death - on the other? The guy who died made a mistake when overworked and without the normal safety systems backing him up, and without the Russian aircrew noticing and with the Russian aircrew ignoring TCAS. The Swiss found fault with the management chain that made the decisions involved to create the situation and none with the individual controller who made the mistake. Calling him a "culprit" isn't a great match for the circumstances. > In that case, aren't you with your ideas of jailing Kaloev for life, or other voices talking about even putting him on a death row - are just a mirrored image of those who cheered him for vendetta and murder? You're putting words in my mouth. How can you read "Yah, I think the Swiss screwed up a little [in releasing him so early]" as advocacy for the death penalty? You're outright trolling at this point and it's a little sad. In a just world, he would have done 7-15 years, and then not come home to celebrations of vendetta.