[tomhow]

Please don’t make assumptions about where I’m a citizen, voter or resident. Even if you're right it’s irrelevant.

The guidelines require us to converse curiously, to be kind, and to avoid ideological battle and flamebait. To write “A judge making a “mistake” like this deserves a bullet in the head, nothing less” is obviously in breach of all those expectations.

If you want to mount a case for ways judges and other actors in the legal system should be held accountable for errors that lead to illegitimate convictions, sure, you can do so thoughtfully. This isn’t difficult.

[illliillll]

You publicly work for a SF based company, the first google result for Tom Howard Ycombinator is a public profile maintained by you which claims that you are based in San Francisco.

It's also noteworthy that you choose to live in one of the 27 states that still has the death penalty.

>Even if you're right it’s irrelevant

I think you made it relevant with personal attacks like "barbaric". There's really nothing wrong with me calling out your hypocricy, given that you presumably pay quite a bit of taxes to a government that uses some of them to carry out legal and illegal executions.

I bet your tax dollars have killed far more innocent people than mine have, so if I'm barbaric, what does that make you? Or is this simply a case of words being less palatable than the actions, where talking about the killing is viewed as worse than the actual killing?

If you honestly considered the death penalty barbaric, you would presumably not be working for a California-based company. Otherwise your objection seems rather performative, especially for a rich man who could easily relocate.

>If you want to mount a case for ways judges and other actors in the legal system should be held accountable for errors that lead to illegitimate convictions, sure, you can do so thoughtfully. This isn’t difficult.

This is simply not a case where the specific details leave much room for thoughtful analysis, I suspect that if you take the time to actually read and reflect on the courts decision you will perhaps see my comment in a different light.

As indicated by the scare quotes, this clearly wasn't a mistake. The judge repeatedly claims things that were not in the evidence presented to him, his misconduct has absolutely nothing to do with the typo that may have mislead the police and prosecutors. This judge made a deliberate decision to not do his job.

[tomhow]

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.

[illliillll]

> This is an unhinged ad hominem attack

Do you see any fighting words from me? No? That's because there were none. It is downright hilarious of you to accuse me of an "ad hominem attack".

You call me barbaric and unhinged because you find my opinion unpleasant. You turned the conversation to personal attacks, and you chose to make my criticism of your person relevant to the conversation.

Of course it is relevant that you, the person accusing me of being barbaric, are someone who voluntarily hands out their money to fund executions.

Maybe consider whether or not this approach to moderation truly helps you reach the goal you desire. You could equally well have asked me to use less inflammatory wording without resorting to irrelevant personal attacks.

[tomhow]

My opening comment politely asked you to “use less inflammatory language”. My characterizations have been of your conduct not your self. If you had anything of substance to say you wouldn’t keep fixating on where I live. As I’ve said, if you want a website where it’s fine to say someone “deserves a bullet in the head”, go somewhere else. This isn’t the place for you.