Hacker News Reader

Comment by Cthulhu_ | Hacker News Reader

It's not actually; whatever financial damage the perpetrator suffered is trivial compared to the loss of human life.

I mean he could've sued them instead. Or publically call them out on it. Instead he went for the nuclear option and went on a killing spree. This is morally abject and I can't believe you're even suggesting it might be a fair action.

View on HN

I literally called it an overreaction. But there is a very strong motivation for this. It's not like it came out of nowhere - which calling him mentally ill somewhat suggests. Who knows how big the financial damage was - maybe he lost his marriage or whatever.

I just don’t think overreaction covers this. Even if there is no more appropriate word in the English language, it is still incorrect.

Having your family killed gives you a strong motivation. Losing out on a bunch of money? That doesn’t even come close to being anything worth killing over. Let alone mass-murder.

If he gets in front of a court, his stolen work will literally be called a motive. And that's all I'm saying. The rest is just about how much of an overreaction this was. And it certainly was very much that - as I repeatedly said.

That's liteally what an overreaction is.

Calling him mentally ill does not imply it came out of nowhere. It implies that his response to what was done to him was not reasonable, moral, or the reaction of what society considers mentally well.

Mental instability can mean that something small is more likely to push someone much farther than it should.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com