7 ms·

an example of how low folks in our industry can go There's nothing special about our industry, crazy people are everywhere. It's a simple numbers game, become

an example of how low folks in our industry can go There's nothing special about our industry, crazy people are everywhere. It's a simple numbers game, become popular enough and your popularity will cover some number of mentally unstable individuals. Actresses, singers and presidents have all been shot for no other reason then they were famous. Public criticism or lack of coverage probably makes things worse for Arrington, but I'm guessing not by much. Crazy people by definition do not behave rationally. I'm not sure there is a solution to that beyond, make sure you keep as much of your life as you can secret. The name of the young actress who was killed by her stalker some years ago escapes me, but I think he was able to get her address form the DMV. Arrington can either quit, or keep paying for security, or find a way to keep his office and his home secret.

xenophanes 18y ago
I don't see why police couldn't do anything about the dangerous guy intimidating and threatening him. Is serious intimidation really not a crime of any sort?
- migpwr 18y ago
  They could issue a restraining order but he chose not to do that because it would give the guy specifics about the places he regularly visits and where he lives.
  - xenophanes 18y ago
    I meant why couldn't the police do something effective that would make him safe? isn't that their job?
    - litewulf 18y ago
      What would the police do? Break his legs? (Honestly, it seems the kind of circumstance where I can't really think of anything the police should be able to do to anyone who seems dangerous or "suspicious", because both are very much judgement calls.)
      - xenophanes 18y ago
        OK I looked up "assault". He is blatantly guilty of assault, as far as I can tell, so why not just put him in jail? Assault: (Law) an act, criminal or tortious, that threatens physical harm to a person, whether or not actual harm is done
        RobGR 18y ago
        So suppose the cops arrest him. He is unlikely (statistically speaking) to be held without bail, so he's out in a day or two. Then you have a trial. Suppose you have people like me on the jury -- I know that morons threaten to kill each other all the time on the internet, in person, and on CB radio and via snail mail and every other means of communication man has invented. I would likely acquit unless you can present some serious evidence of actual intent, and owning a gun having a previous a felony would not cut it. So now what ? Is the situation better or worse ? It better be LOT better, because society is collectively out of quite a bit of money by the time all that is said and done. I don't think Arrington is necessarily over reacting to the threat, either. Without knowing the details it's impossible to tell, and even if you knew the details you might be uncertain. There is a very wide zone between something that will justify society's all-out response and what makes you feel creepy. There is probably no way for society to make everyone feel warm and comfy about all their interactions with each other. Think about if we had a general policy of jailing people based on a definition of "threatens physical harm" that was that lose. Think back over every bad relationship you ever had . . . are you absolutely sure that some disasterous former manager or former employee could not have gotten you jailed ? Absolutely sure ?
        xenophanes 18y ago
        Why can't you have a very brief trial where you explain the definition of assault and present the uncontroversial evidence of the assault, and that's that? Not trying to argue. Just don't see why that wouldn't work. the jury should just be like "well, it's a crime, and he did it" instead of saying it's common so we'll ignore it.
        18y ago
    - jerf 18y ago
      No, it's not their job. Police respond to things, but they are basically not allowed to be proactive, barring a riot. There's a ton of reasons for this, including that without an actual law broken tailing this guy could be construed as police harassment, would likely involve a violation of some Constitutional right or other, and, of course, the real reason, that they simply don't have time for that sort of thing. When you set policy for things like police, you get tradeoffs. Protect one person's rights, and you'll block actions the police could have taken to stop another. This isn't intended as political commentary and I don't have any particular thing in mind; think of it as an engineering view of law enforcement. You Can't Have It All. (And Certainly Not For Free.)
      - xenophanes 18y ago
        But making death threats is not a right. It's a crime. I really don't understand all the apologizing for law enforcement that refuses to enforce the law in this case. The victim was harmed a lot, and still no one wants to see the crook stopped?
        redrobot5050 18y ago
        If they were made over the internet, it might take a Federal Law Enforcement Officer (FBI or U.S. Marshal) to make the arrest or get the arrest warrant. I believe interstate death treats become a federal manner. And with all due respect to TC and Mike, it often takes "pull" to get Federal law enforcement involved. They handle all the "big fish". For example, if your start up was hacked, they would be the ones to call, but they won't move on anything less than $50,000 or $500,0000 worth of damages. Disclaimer: IANAL and IANALEO.
- nazgulnarsil 18y ago
  I don't see why police couldn't do anything You must be new here...
zhyder 18y ago
Actresses, singers and presidents are a little different though. Actresses/singers want much of the popularity, but struggle to maintain the right balance. And presidents -well- many folks have logical reasons to want them dead. I can't see the logic behind wanting Michael Arrington dead though, and I don't think he wants to be popular himself (as much as to make his blog/events popular). And somehow I hope our industry is special, that we're less likely to do crazy things in general. We're trained in science and reasoning after all. How many techies do you know that are rabid fans of celebrities?
- Retric 18y ago
  He is an entertainer in that he leverages popularity to make money.
  - yters 18y ago
    What company doesn't require popularity to make money? That's an exceedingly broad use of "entertainer."
    - Retric 18y ago
      I meant that as a complement. I think an "entertainer" is not just a random actor, singer, or blogger, but someone who does those things and makes real money from it. To do that generally takes leveraging popularity. Granted you can make a living as a backup dancer, but I think he has separated himself from the herd.
- jerf 18y ago
  "And presidents -well- many folks have logical reasons to want them dead." Ironically, many of the successful assassins either did not, or had nothing like a logical reason. * Booth's assassination of Lincoln is... complicated but had to do with the Civil War. Call it rational-ish. * Garfield was assassinated by a nutcase who thought Garfield owed him after the assassin's few hundred printed pamphlets putatively got him elected. Not rational. * McKinley's assassin had a head full of anarchism. Call it rational if you like, but it certainly wasn't because of anything about McKinley himself. * Kennedy's assassin's motives are unclear, but it looks like he generally just hated the US and wanted to take down Kennedy and thereby become a "great man". I'm not arguing with anything you said, just find it interesting that of all the people who, like you say, may have some reason to want to pull this off, it's the crazies who succeed. Call it HN's goal of "interesting things".
mechanical_fish 18y ago
The actress you're thinking of is probably Rebecca Schaeffer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer I read about her in Gavin de Becker's The Gift of Fear, which incidentally is a pretty good book about such things. (de Becker is apparently the guy you call if you're a Hollywood star who gets a death threat -- protecting famous people is his company's business. And his published opinion is pretty much the same as yours: All famous people will get threats once they become famous enough, and the most famous people you can name have probably got dozens of stalkers of one sort or another.)

xenophanes 18y ago

I don't see why police couldn't do anything about the dangerous guy intimidating and threatening him. Is serious intimidation really not a crime of any sort?

migpwr 18y ago
They could issue a restraining order but he chose not to do that because it would give the guy specifics about the places he regularly visits and where he lives.
- xenophanes 18y ago
  I meant why couldn't the police do something effective that would make him safe? isn't that their job?
  - litewulf 18y ago
    What would the police do? Break his legs? (Honestly, it seems the kind of circumstance where I can't really think of anything the police should be able to do to anyone who seems dangerous or "suspicious", because both are very much judgement calls.)
    - xenophanes 18y ago
      OK I looked up "assault". He is blatantly guilty of assault, as far as I can tell, so why not just put him in jail? Assault: (Law) an act, criminal or tortious, that threatens physical harm to a person, whether or not actual harm is done
      - RobGR 18y ago
        So suppose the cops arrest him. He is unlikely (statistically speaking) to be held without bail, so he's out in a day or two. Then you have a trial. Suppose you have people like me on the jury -- I know that morons threaten to kill each other all the time on the internet, in person, and on CB radio and via snail mail and every other means of communication man has invented. I would likely acquit unless you can present some serious evidence of actual intent, and owning a gun having a previous a felony would not cut it. So now what ? Is the situation better or worse ? It better be LOT better, because society is collectively out of quite a bit of money by the time all that is said and done. I don't think Arrington is necessarily over reacting to the threat, either. Without knowing the details it's impossible to tell, and even if you knew the details you might be uncertain. There is a very wide zone between something that will justify society's all-out response and what makes you feel creepy. There is probably no way for society to make everyone feel warm and comfy about all their interactions with each other. Think about if we had a general policy of jailing people based on a definition of "threatens physical harm" that was that lose. Think back over every bad relationship you ever had . . . are you absolutely sure that some disasterous former manager or former employee could not have gotten you jailed ? Absolutely sure ?
        xenophanes 18y ago
        Why can't you have a very brief trial where you explain the definition of assault and present the uncontroversial evidence of the assault, and that's that? Not trying to argue. Just don't see why that wouldn't work. the jury should just be like "well, it's a crime, and he did it" instead of saying it's common so we'll ignore it.
        18y ago
  - jerf 18y ago
    No, it's not their job. Police respond to things, but they are basically not allowed to be proactive, barring a riot. There's a ton of reasons for this, including that without an actual law broken tailing this guy could be construed as police harassment, would likely involve a violation of some Constitutional right or other, and, of course, the real reason, that they simply don't have time for that sort of thing. When you set policy for things like police, you get tradeoffs. Protect one person's rights, and you'll block actions the police could have taken to stop another. This isn't intended as political commentary and I don't have any particular thing in mind; think of it as an engineering view of law enforcement. You Can't Have It All. (And Certainly Not For Free.)
    - xenophanes 18y ago
      But making death threats is not a right. It's a crime. I really don't understand all the apologizing for law enforcement that refuses to enforce the law in this case. The victim was harmed a lot, and still no one wants to see the crook stopped?
      - redrobot5050 18y ago
        If they were made over the internet, it might take a Federal Law Enforcement Officer (FBI or U.S. Marshal) to make the arrest or get the arrest warrant. I believe interstate death treats become a federal manner. And with all due respect to TC and Mike, it often takes "pull" to get Federal law enforcement involved. They handle all the "big fish". For example, if your start up was hacked, they would be the ones to call, but they won't move on anything less than $50,000 or $500,0000 worth of damages. Disclaimer: IANAL and IANALEO.
nazgulnarsil 18y ago
I don't see why police couldn't do anything You must be new here...

zhyder 18y ago

Actresses, singers and presidents are a little different though. Actresses/singers want much of the popularity, but struggle to maintain the right balance. And presidents -well- many folks have logical reasons to want them dead. I can't see the logic behind wanting Michael Arrington dead though, and I don't think he wants to be popular himself (as much as to make his blog/events popular). And somehow I hope our industry is special, that we're less likely to do crazy things in general. We're trained in science and reasoning after all. How many techies do you know that are rabid fans of celebrities?

Retric 18y ago
He is an entertainer in that he leverages popularity to make money.
- yters 18y ago
  What company doesn't require popularity to make money? That's an exceedingly broad use of "entertainer."
  - Retric 18y ago
    I meant that as a complement. I think an "entertainer" is not just a random actor, singer, or blogger, but someone who does those things and makes real money from it. To do that generally takes leveraging popularity. Granted you can make a living as a backup dancer, but I think he has separated himself from the herd.
jerf 18y ago
"And presidents -well- many folks have logical reasons to want them dead." Ironically, many of the successful assassins either did not, or had nothing like a logical reason. * Booth's assassination of Lincoln is... complicated but had to do with the Civil War. Call it rational-ish. * Garfield was assassinated by a nutcase who thought Garfield owed him after the assassin's few hundred printed pamphlets putatively got him elected. Not rational. * McKinley's assassin had a head full of anarchism. Call it rational if you like, but it certainly wasn't because of anything about McKinley himself. * Kennedy's assassin's motives are unclear, but it looks like he generally just hated the US and wanted to take down Kennedy and thereby become a "great man". I'm not arguing with anything you said, just find it interesting that of all the people who, like you say, may have some reason to want to pull this off, it's the crazies who succeed. Call it HN's goal of "interesting things".

mechanical_fish 18y ago

The actress you're thinking of is probably Rebecca Schaeffer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer I read about her in Gavin de Becker's The Gift of Fear, which incidentally is a pretty good book about such things. (de Becker is apparently the guy you call if you're a Hollywood star who gets a death threat -- protecting famous people is his company's business. And his published opinion is pretty much the same as yours: All famous people will get threats once they become famous enough, and the most famous people you can name have probably got dozens of stalkers of one sort or another.)