7 ms·

Ah well, just saw the house fire tweet and sent him a few bucks. Guess I'm on one more list now. There seem to be a few articles that are at least not half fil

Ah well, just saw the house fire tweet and sent him a few bucks. Guess I'm on one more list now. There seem to be a few articles that are at least not half filled with the ramblings of an elderly neighbour: https://www.qgazette.com/articles/more-charges-possible-for-astoria-bomb-suspect/ https://www.qgazette.com/articles/more-charges-possible-for-... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8737513/NYPD-discover-bomb-making-materials-inside-NYC-home.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8737513/NYPD-discov... https://abc7ny.com/suspicious-package-queens-astoria-fire/6425363/ https://abc7ny.com/suspicious-package-queens-astoria-fire/64... Emotional distress seems pretty normal after your house burns down and there's plenty of people in our community with hobbies that would be considered odd. Naming suspects in these cases seems so weird from a non-US perspective, there's not even been a court case.

ratww 6y ago
This is terrible. All the news are based on speculation, but they plastered his very-Googlable-name everywhere, only making it harder for him to get a job now. I honestly can't see anything positive about those articles existing before there's a proper court case.
- schmappel 6y ago
  I never understood the need to name suspects - address and all - in this country. In my home country suspects that are (or are about to be) charged and convicted with a crime have their last name abbreviated (e.g. Paul S.), which seems completely reasonable to me. You're innocent until proven guilty, for one. But even if you're guilty and convicted, your punishment should be limited to whatever the judge rules it should be. I don't see the need for public shaming beyond whatever punishment they get in court should they be convicted. When someone is released after a prison sentence they have a right to resume their life. They did their time, after all. Sorry if I sound like I'm rambling a bit, English is not my native language.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    It's about retribution and the idea that lawyers can influence the justice system and let "bad guys" go free. A lot of the states with lax laws around naming people accused of crimes are the same ones still dishing out the death penalty.
marcinzm 6y ago
>Naming suspects in these cases seems so weird from a non-US perspective, there's not even been a court case. As I understand it, the original reason for this is to prevent the police from simply making people disappear. It's a public check on what the police and government do to people.
- darkwater 6y ago
  Even in that case is the WRONG solution to a problem.
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    Then what is the better solution? Saying it's wrong without giving alternatives isn't a very useful comment imho. edit: And the solution needs to apply to the US, with all it's brokenness, not some other country with different social structures.
    - chris_wot 6y ago
      The media doesn’t do this is the U.K. or Australia. We have much stronger libel laws. Nobody has been “disappeared” by the police, either.
      - joh6nn 6y ago
        serious question: how would you know?
      - rodgerd 6y ago
        > Nobody has been “disappeared” by the police, either. Your faith in the British police would be charming if it wasn't the thing that lead to things like the Guildford 4.
    - darkwater 6y ago
      > Then what is the better solution? That police should not make people disappear from their families without proper noticing, it would be a starter. I'm not from the USA but I think I can already guess who usually suddenly go missing because the police got them.
baobabKoodaa 6y ago
I agree it's terrible that the papers named him so early, and I do think we should give him the benefit of the doubt, but given the information out there right now, there is a reasonable chance he actually was making a bomb. It seems to me like people are willing to jump to the opposite conclusion simply because he's "one of us". Let the investigation play its course.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  ... what? You realize the concept of innocent until proven guilty is not a unique concept to HN readers right? That presumption of innocence is not "act like maybe he was making bombs until proven guilty"? It sounds like you've let the media erode your understanding of a very basic human right, but do not try and cast it on others as some sort of tribalism. He is innocent until proven guilty. Not "reasonable chance" according to your random opinion, but a judge and jury and various council go through a legal case and legally find him guilty.
  - unreal37 6y ago
    Obligatory Reddit-type response: "Sir, this is a Wendy's drive-thru. Not a court of law." HN response: Of course, everyone is free to say what they wish. First amendment. Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Freedom is the basic human right. Wikipedia says, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense." Notice that this covers the rights of someone "who has been charged with an offence" in "a public trial". There's not actually a "human right" preventing people from having or expressing opinions. Does that make sense?
    - BoorishBears 6y ago
      Precious little about your comment makes sense from that first sentence to the rest of it. > Of course, everyone is free to say what they wish. First amendment. Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Freedom is the basic human right. I'm not even going to bother falling into the tangential tarpit of acting like someone is a bomb maker without them having gone to trial is a "1st amendment right". After all, if your best defense of a statement is "I'm legally allowed to say it", it's probably not worth much consideration. > Notice that this covers the rights of someone "who has been charged with an offence" in "a public trial". No it doesn't. It covers the rights of a person. Period. That's literally the point of a universal declaration of human rights You're trying to play word sashimi to make a point that isn't made. The definition of guilt is specific to a public trial exactly because a "trial" of public opinions is so easy to manipulate. Sure it can't force the general public to be decent people and understand that people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty... but it's also not endorsing the public not do so. It's not limiting presumption of innocence to trials.

ratww 6y ago

This is terrible. All the news are based on speculation, but they plastered his very-Googlable-name everywhere, only making it harder for him to get a job now. I honestly can't see anything positive about those articles existing before there's a proper court case.

schmappel 6y ago
I never understood the need to name suspects - address and all - in this country. In my home country suspects that are (or are about to be) charged and convicted with a crime have their last name abbreviated (e.g. Paul S.), which seems completely reasonable to me. You're innocent until proven guilty, for one. But even if you're guilty and convicted, your punishment should be limited to whatever the judge rules it should be. I don't see the need for public shaming beyond whatever punishment they get in court should they be convicted. When someone is released after a prison sentence they have a right to resume their life. They did their time, after all. Sorry if I sound like I'm rambling a bit, English is not my native language.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  It's about retribution and the idea that lawyers can influence the justice system and let "bad guys" go free. A lot of the states with lax laws around naming people accused of crimes are the same ones still dishing out the death penalty.

marcinzm 6y ago

>Naming suspects in these cases seems so weird from a non-US perspective, there's not even been a court case. As I understand it, the original reason for this is to prevent the police from simply making people disappear. It's a public check on what the police and government do to people.

darkwater 6y ago
Even in that case is the WRONG solution to a problem.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  Then what is the better solution? Saying it's wrong without giving alternatives isn't a very useful comment imho. edit: And the solution needs to apply to the US, with all it's brokenness, not some other country with different social structures.
  - chris_wot 6y ago
    The media doesn’t do this is the U.K. or Australia. We have much stronger libel laws. Nobody has been “disappeared” by the police, either.
    - joh6nn 6y ago
      serious question: how would you know?
    - rodgerd 6y ago
      > Nobody has been “disappeared” by the police, either. Your faith in the British police would be charming if it wasn't the thing that lead to things like the Guildford 4.
  - darkwater 6y ago
    > Then what is the better solution? That police should not make people disappear from their families without proper noticing, it would be a starter. I'm not from the USA but I think I can already guess who usually suddenly go missing because the police got them.

baobabKoodaa 6y ago

I agree it's terrible that the papers named him so early, and I do think we should give him the benefit of the doubt, but given the information out there right now, there is a reasonable chance he actually was making a bomb. It seems to me like people are willing to jump to the opposite conclusion simply because he's "one of us". Let the investigation play its course.

BoorishBears 6y ago
... what? You realize the concept of innocent until proven guilty is not a unique concept to HN readers right? That presumption of innocence is not "act like maybe he was making bombs until proven guilty"? It sounds like you've let the media erode your understanding of a very basic human right, but do not try and cast it on others as some sort of tribalism. He is innocent until proven guilty. Not "reasonable chance" according to your random opinion, but a judge and jury and various council go through a legal case and legally find him guilty.
- unreal37 6y ago
  Obligatory Reddit-type response: "Sir, this is a Wendy's drive-thru. Not a court of law." HN response: Of course, everyone is free to say what they wish. First amendment. Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Freedom is the basic human right. Wikipedia says, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense." Notice that this covers the rights of someone "who has been charged with an offence" in "a public trial". There's not actually a "human right" preventing people from having or expressing opinions. Does that make sense?
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    Precious little about your comment makes sense from that first sentence to the rest of it. > Of course, everyone is free to say what they wish. First amendment. Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Freedom is the basic human right. I'm not even going to bother falling into the tangential tarpit of acting like someone is a bomb maker without them having gone to trial is a "1st amendment right". After all, if your best defense of a statement is "I'm legally allowed to say it", it's probably not worth much consideration. > Notice that this covers the rights of someone "who has been charged with an offence" in "a public trial". No it doesn't. It covers the rights of a person. Period. That's literally the point of a universal declaration of human rights You're trying to play word sashimi to make a point that isn't made. The definition of guilt is specific to a public trial exactly because a "trial" of public opinions is so easy to manipulate. Sure it can't force the general public to be decent people and understand that people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty... but it's also not endorsing the public not do so. It's not limiting presumption of innocence to trials.