This is an unhinged ad hominem attack and none of it changes whether the original comment breached the guidelines.
Idealizing killing of people is never okay on HN and we've been consistent about that for as long as I can remember.
Even if your ad hom attack was relevant: where my LinkedIn says I am based says nothing about how many people my “tax dollars have killed” or what I personally support. Digging up limited available public information about someone then making these kinds of assumptions, extrapolations and value-judgments about their level of wealth, career/life decisions and options, and political views is utterly vile. Don't ever do this again on HN; if you did this kind of thing to anyone who wasn't a moderator, the account would be immediately banned.
The facts available in the linked story indicate that there were failures at every level in the system: two teams of investigators, the prosecutors, the defense and the judge. If you have a substantive argument about how to address this kind of failure, you can make it in accordance with the guidelines.
The guidelines exist entirely so that substantive arguments can have the very best chance of being expressed and heard. Trawling through someone's limited online footprint to handwave up a whole lot of irrelevant material only indicates you don't have a strong point to make. Everyone knows that ad hominem is what you do when you don't have a strong argument to rely on, and this is about as bad as ad hom ever gets.
If your style of discourse is to declare that another human “deserves a bullet in the head”, this is not the place for you. My goodness.
Idealizing killing of people is never okay on HN and we've been consistent about that for as long as I can remember.
Even if your ad hom attack was relevant: where my LinkedIn says I am based says nothing about how many people my “tax dollars have killed” or what I personally support. Digging up limited available public information about someone then making these kinds of assumptions, extrapolations and value-judgments about their level of wealth, career/life decisions and options, and political views is utterly vile. Don't ever do this again on HN; if you did this kind of thing to anyone who wasn't a moderator, the account would be immediately banned.
The facts available in the linked story indicate that there were failures at every level in the system: two teams of investigators, the prosecutors, the defense and the judge. If you have a substantive argument about how to address this kind of failure, you can make it in accordance with the guidelines.
The guidelines exist entirely so that substantive arguments can have the very best chance of being expressed and heard. Trawling through someone's limited online footprint to handwave up a whole lot of irrelevant material only indicates you don't have a strong point to make. Everyone knows that ad hominem is what you do when you don't have a strong argument to rely on, and this is about as bad as ad hom ever gets.
If your style of discourse is to declare that another human “deserves a bullet in the head”, this is not the place for you. My goodness.