There are police and the justice system and people who will conduct investigations and have far more information about whatever happened who can mete out punishments if they are necessary.
There is no need to sic the Internet lynch mob on every person unfortunate enough to get 5 seconds of fame for some dumb thing.
Oddly enough, it is not the job of random people to pass judgement and harass strangers over the Internet based on a news article they skimmed for a couple seconds.
> There are police and the justice system and people who will conduct investigations
Terrific. Let me know when the "police and the justice system and people" start investigating Rod Ponton's persistent and seemingly malevolent use of his vast prosecutorial power to destroy an innocent woman's life.
> There is no need to sic the Internet lynch mob on every person unfortunate enough to get 5 seconds of fame for some dumb thing.
Go ahead and address your letter of complaint to reason.com. Let them know you object to their "lynching" of Rod Ponton, based on nothing more than thorough journalism and public records.
> Oddly enough, it is not the job of random people to pass judgement and harass strangers over the Internet based on a news article they skimmed for a couple seconds.
Perhaps you don't care enough to learn about the case, or even read an article about it. Maybe you relate to Rod Ponton and sympathize with him. Regardless, given your apparent inclination to defend him from scrutiny by people who do happen to care, the only sensible response I can muster is Fuck You. You're part of the problem.
Good idea. Let's get rid due process and the presumption of innocence, because you read an article about a jerk.
Take a deep breath and calm yourself. Reading one news article does not make you a judge, jury, or an executioner. This isn't a comic book, you are not the Punisher who gets to make criminals pay on your own terms.
It's highly disturbing that you view a desire for everyone (yes, even guilty people!) to have a fair trial before getting their life destroyed as a "problem" that I'm part of.
As far as I can tell, nobody here is advocating that we "get rid of due process and the presumption of innocence". And I assure you that neither I nor the fine reporters who've covered this consider ourselves the Punisher :)
What Rod Ponton did is not a matter of debate. It is in fact a matter of extensive public record. The legality of his actions on the other hand-- that is, whether they should be punishable under the law-- is a fair thing to debate, and I would certainly not wish to deprive Mr. Ponton of any of his legal rights whatsoever.
Quite the contrary, I think we would all (except you apparently) like to see Rod Ponton brought to trial in a neutral venue with competent representation, an impartial judge, and a jury of his peers. Rather than, you know, being protected by the system that he feeds, hidden from the prying eyes of the media and, when noticed in random HN threads, defended by sanctimonious sympathizers such as yourself.
> I think we would all (except you apparently) like to see Rod Ponton brought to trial in a neutral venue with competent representation, an impartial judge, and a jury of his peers
And do you think that stirring up an Internet mob is likely to achieve that? Historically, has that been what Internet mobs do? Are you somehow under the impression that Hacker News is a favorite hangout for the District Attorney in the appropriate jurisdiction? How exactly do you believe that cursing at random people on the Internet will achieve this goal?
I'll tell you what, if you email me in 30 days (March 13, 2021) and tell me that you've honestly thought about this even once in the previous 7 days, I'll Venmo you $5 USD. Honor system. My email is in my profile. If instead by then you've moved on to the next outrage du jour, maybe it's time to admit to yourself that you care more about feeling outraged than seeking justice.
Well if nate_meurer is wrong about what the public record says, then Ron Ponton can very well use his connections to get the Brewster County Sheriff's Office to force him to roll over and write an obsequious apology and publish it on Facebook for many years, just like he did to his ex-lover. He's not just an innocent kitten who can't stand up for himself.
Quick, if you and I just make ourselves feel really mad and outraged about that it will fix everything and make the world a better place. C'mon, let's go.
Did you seriously call someone stating facts that really need to be known stirring up an internet mob?
Judge Ferguson and the attorney Rod Ponton are known pieces of shit here in Texas, so instead of crying about the facts- perhaps you should thank GP for enlightening you, and increasing your knowledge.
It makes absolutely no difference in my life. Nor am I in a position to make a difference in either of their lives. By what possible definition of the word "need" do I need to know? What does my knowing accomplish? Exactly what are you expecting me to do about it?
There's a constable in Outer Mongolia who likes to kick puppies. Shall I tell you about him so you can be impotently outraged about it?
For something that "makes absolutely no difference in my life", you sure are whining about it a lot. Do you have a dog in this fight?
If what you said were actually true, and you didn't care so much more than everyone else, then you would have never said anything about it in the first place, and you CERTAINLY wouldn't keep replying to everyone's messages, beating a dead horse, trying to stir up your own mob, making a big deal out of nothing, and telling other people that they're overreacting, when you're the one who's overreacting to something you claim you don't even care about.
It's clearly very important to you that nobody ever question public shaming. You must be very invested in publicly shaming people. Do you happen to be a journalist?
It's as if he has confused the cute little imaginary kitty cat with the evil old real lawyer, and he thinks you're ferociously going after an innocent kitten.
Nobody is forcing him to give up his rights over this incident, he isn’t going to jail, so calling it a “lynch mob” is disingenuous at best and a view-pushing exaggeration at worst. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean people have to like you for doing it, so what you say is a ‘lynch mob’ is just everyone collectively agreeing to not like someone for a few days.
No it is not just "people being mad at you for a couple days". Even people who are famous for good reasons and generally well liked get stalkers, occasionally violent ones. Pointing the attention of a hundred million plus people at someone and telling them "this person is bad and evil" all but guarantees there will be some nonzero number of mentally unbalanced people who will take it too seriously. You might as well shove them in front of a bus.
Why should you or I or anyone not directly involved need to like or dislike this person who has zero impact on our lives beyond a moment of amusement? If he committed crimes, I hope he goes to jail. But I don't have all the facts about that and I'm not on the jury so that isn't and shouldn't be up to me. And no, reading one news article does not constitute all the facts.
That's just a side effect of being in the news at all. Even before the internet was in everyone's pocket, celebrities had paparazzi and crazy stalkers. Bad people are going to do horrible things but that doesn't mean we should stop propagating all news thanks to them. You're basically advocating for a heckler's veto.
> Most findings say that the acting party's actions cannot be pre-emptively stopped due to fear of heckling by the reacting party, but in the immediate face of violence, authorities can force the acting party to cease their action in order to satisfy the hecklers.
There is no need to sic the Internet lynch mob on every person unfortunate enough to get 5 seconds of fame for some dumb thing.
Oddly enough, it is not the job of random people to pass judgement and harass strangers over the Internet based on a news article they skimmed for a couple seconds.