5 ms·

> I feel like a lot of people in this thread are forgetting he likely killed his neighbor in 2012 and has been on the run since. In America, we're supposed to

> I feel like a lot of people in this thread are forgetting he likely killed his neighbor in 2012 and has been on the run since. In America, we're supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty. It's a shame it really only takes an accusation.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
chris11 5y ago
> we're supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty. The legal system should presume innocence. It's completely reasonable for people have lower standards for assuming guilt.
- colordrops 5y ago
  In general yes, but it takes on a different form when the person is an eccentric that has very publicly challenged powerful authorities and has been both the source and target of disinformation campaigns.
  - chris11 5y ago
    He was accused of making bath salts, and he was reported to be involved with prostitutes and much younger women. His reported statements seem to confirm that, not deny that. I probably won't describe someone as evil for committing victimless crimes. But MPDV is a hard drug that's connected to serious, graphic crimes. I believe he was involved with trafficked women in third-party countries, that's rape. So I easily believe both the murder and rape accusations.
    - colordrops 5y ago
      > He was accused of making bath salts, and he was reported to be involved with prostitutes and much younger women. His reported statements seem to confirm that, not deny that. Open and shut case then. So unattributed "reported" anecdotes on the internet are all it takes these days, huh. No wonder it's so easy to smear and bury people. Everyone here on HN is so strict about online security and providence and yet assign truth to a story based on anonymous anecdotes.
  - twelve40 5y ago
    I enjoyed following the guy's adventures (if/when it didn't involve killing people), but what on earth might attract powerful authorities that would go as far as killing him in a Western jail? He's not Epstein and mostly posted fantasies and various minor scams.
    - colordrops 5y ago
      There isn't some unified hive -mind organization that controls "western jails". It could be some particular bloc with an agenda that took him out
morelisp 5y ago
1) Presumption of innocence applies only in court which McAfee purposefully avoided. 2) He was found guilty in civil court. 3) If he wanted to be judged by American standards he should've perhaps stayed in America. 4) You're acting like accusations of torturing and murdering your (yes actually dead) neighbor happen regularly to random people. Cancel culture, amirite?
mikestew 5y ago
"Innocent until proven guilty" is for the courts, who hold sway over one's freedom. It is perfectly acceptable as an individual to go, "yeah, he probably (because I, as an individual, aren't held to a 'reasonable doubt' standard, either) did it" just as it is perfectly acceptable to give some benefit of the doubt. But as others have already pointed out, a court already found him guilty, and it's moot anyway.
- SllX 5y ago
  It’s not just a legal standard, it’s a fair minded principled default. If you have information that didn’t make it to trial or that is not legally actionable, you can make up your own mind. If you saw everything the Jury saw and nothing they didn’t see, and still would have voted differently, fine. Innocent until proven guilty is an admission to your own flaws in judging another person. You can live life without that admission, but they are still present within you.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gkoberger 5y ago
He was found guilty in civil court in Florida and forced to pay $25M; he never stood trial because he fled. Also, presumption of innocence applies to the law, not to HN comments.
- CheezeIt 5y ago
  He wasn’t “found guilty,” it was a default judgement.
- beart 5y ago
  One cannot be found guilty in a civil trial.
InitialLastName 5y ago
He was found guilty in a civil suit, and has been actively avoiding a criminal trial. "Likely" is a fully appropriate term, since all evidence points to that being the case, but (as you say) there has been no trial to subject that thesis to evidence.
- prvc 5y ago
  "Likely" != "in my opinion"
- beart 5y ago
  Civil trials do not determine guilt or innocence
  - InitialLastName 5y ago
    Nor can internet comments deprive people of material rights, so we're in the clear!
cortesoft 5y ago
If you flee the country to avoid being tried in court, we are just supposed to say "Oh well, guess you are innocent forever"?
drunkpotato 5y ago
The legal standard for guilt in a criminal trial is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." There is a lot of room between "likely" and that very high standard. It is perfectly consistent to think someone more likely committed a murder than didn't, yet still have a reasonable doubt. So I really don't think there's any shame here.
devwastaken 5y ago
Court of law has rules on what evidence can be brought in. Courts are not the arbiter of justice, they're a system of justice that has flaws and errors.
space_rock 5y ago
Lol he fled his trial. Also people can make up their own mind and people can credibility can him a rapest and a murderer

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

chris11 5y ago

> we're supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty. The legal system should presume innocence. It's completely reasonable for people have lower standards for assuming guilt.

colordrops 5y ago
In general yes, but it takes on a different form when the person is an eccentric that has very publicly challenged powerful authorities and has been both the source and target of disinformation campaigns.
- chris11 5y ago
  He was accused of making bath salts, and he was reported to be involved with prostitutes and much younger women. His reported statements seem to confirm that, not deny that. I probably won't describe someone as evil for committing victimless crimes. But MPDV is a hard drug that's connected to serious, graphic crimes. I believe he was involved with trafficked women in third-party countries, that's rape. So I easily believe both the murder and rape accusations.
  - colordrops 5y ago
    > He was accused of making bath salts, and he was reported to be involved with prostitutes and much younger women. His reported statements seem to confirm that, not deny that. Open and shut case then. So unattributed "reported" anecdotes on the internet are all it takes these days, huh. No wonder it's so easy to smear and bury people. Everyone here on HN is so strict about online security and providence and yet assign truth to a story based on anonymous anecdotes.
- twelve40 5y ago
  I enjoyed following the guy's adventures (if/when it didn't involve killing people), but what on earth might attract powerful authorities that would go as far as killing him in a Western jail? He's not Epstein and mostly posted fantasies and various minor scams.
  - colordrops 5y ago
    There isn't some unified hive -mind organization that controls "western jails". It could be some particular bloc with an agenda that took him out

morelisp 5y ago

1) Presumption of innocence applies only in court which McAfee purposefully avoided. 2) He was found guilty in civil court. 3) If he wanted to be judged by American standards he should've perhaps stayed in America. 4) You're acting like accusations of torturing and murdering your (yes actually dead) neighbor happen regularly to random people. Cancel culture, amirite?

mikestew 5y ago

"Innocent until proven guilty" is for the courts, who hold sway over one's freedom. It is perfectly acceptable as an individual to go, "yeah, he probably (because I, as an individual, aren't held to a 'reasonable doubt' standard, either) did it" just as it is perfectly acceptable to give some benefit of the doubt. But as others have already pointed out, a court already found him guilty, and it's moot anyway.

SllX 5y ago
It’s not just a legal standard, it’s a fair minded principled default. If you have information that didn’t make it to trial or that is not legally actionable, you can make up your own mind. If you saw everything the Jury saw and nothing they didn’t see, and still would have voted differently, fine. Innocent until proven guilty is an admission to your own flaws in judging another person. You can live life without that admission, but they are still present within you.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

gkoberger 5y ago

He was found guilty in civil court in Florida and forced to pay $25M; he never stood trial because he fled. Also, presumption of innocence applies to the law, not to HN comments.

CheezeIt 5y ago
He wasn’t “found guilty,” it was a default judgement.
beart 5y ago
One cannot be found guilty in a civil trial.

InitialLastName 5y ago

He was found guilty in a civil suit, and has been actively avoiding a criminal trial. "Likely" is a fully appropriate term, since all evidence points to that being the case, but (as you say) there has been no trial to subject that thesis to evidence.

prvc 5y ago
"Likely" != "in my opinion"
beart 5y ago
Civil trials do not determine guilt or innocence
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  Nor can internet comments deprive people of material rights, so we're in the clear!

cortesoft 5y ago

If you flee the country to avoid being tried in court, we are just supposed to say "Oh well, guess you are innocent forever"?

drunkpotato 5y ago

The legal standard for guilt in a criminal trial is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." There is a lot of room between "likely" and that very high standard. It is perfectly consistent to think someone more likely committed a murder than didn't, yet still have a reasonable doubt. So I really don't think there's any shame here.

devwastaken 5y ago

Court of law has rules on what evidence can be brought in. Courts are not the arbiter of justice, they're a system of justice that has flaws and errors.

space_rock 5y ago

Lol he fled his trial. Also people can make up their own mind and people can credibility can him a rapest and a murderer