It's a little ironic that Brendan Eich had to step down over a $1,000 donation to a political cause nearly a decade ago, but the Valley so far has no problem with "G" hitting a woman 117 times in 30 minutes on video (after which he tried to smother her with a pillow). If he indeed suffers no significant professional fallout from what he did - and as of this moment there are no signs that he will - then the Valley is truly a disturbing place with priorities that are completely out of sync with the rest of humanity.
But the best way I've heard it explained is that everyone knows and cares about Mozilla and Github, and no one knows RadiumOne.
I tweeted John Gruber suggesting he might link to this, and he (rightly, I guess) pointed out that he had no idea who this guy is. And that will be most people's reaction, I guess.
Mozilla and Github, both have consumers who will take action.
This is a far worse case, he provable beat the hell out of her, but a justice system screw-up has let him largely off the hook. Yet consumers (who make the most noise, push the strongest demands on companies, and can affect the bottom line when they are the customers) are not aware of Radium or able to directly affect the bottom line.
I remain uncertain (expressed on Twitter) whether hounding existing investors is the way forward, but certainly pressuring board members (which will include some but not all existing investors) and customers is probably the way.
Whereas my thoughts on Twitter mobs remain to the negative, this guy beat the hell out of his girl and clearly has issues with violence. He shouldn't be running a company, he isn't fit to.
The court got it wrong (from a moral/ethical perspective as the guy did it, but perhaps right on a technical perspective I'll concede)... and I loathe mobs, but if the court failed to do their job then I come down on the side of the mob (even though that doesn't sit well with me).
> The court got it wrong (from a moral/ethical perspective as the guy did it, but perhaps right on a technical perspective I'll concede)... and I loathe mobs, but if the court failed to do their job then I come down on the side of the mob (even though that doesn't sit well with me).
There's a 1983 Michael Douglas movie on point: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086356. It's pretty ham-fisted, but the first thirty minutes are a nice portrayal of a judge forced to throw out convictions due to 4th amendment violations by the police. There's a great scene where the prosecutor pleads with the judge to admit evidence in a murder case despite the 4th amendment violation, and the judge replies: "look, I'm just doing my job here--I suggest you start doing yours better."
He actually is a minor celebrity. He was one of Obama's biggest donors (and has been to the White House multiple times for personal visits with Obama), he was interviewed by Oprah, and had an entire hour of network television devoted to him in his episode of "Secret Millionaire" on ABC.
I think it also hurt the case that the girlfriend backed out of helping the police. When that is the case, there's not much you can do. I really hope someone decides to kick this guy's teeth in.
Maybe Eric Raymond will shoot him. He hates mobs of gay bullies using their free speech to convince someone to resign, but he loves to be the lone white knight vigilante sticking up for women by using his guns to shoot people.
“if he were to threaten harm to Ms. Eicher in my presence, I would cheerfully shoot him.” -Eric Raymond
“I agree with Eric that Kvaratskhelia is extremely creepy and reprehensible in his online conduct. But I find one comment of Eric’s really strange and inappropriate: “if he were to threaten Ms. Eicher in my presence, I would cheerfully shoot him.” One can only hope that Eric has been afflicted by foot-in-mouth disease and would not pull the trigger of anything more harmful than a video camera in response to a verbal threat to a woman in his presence. Such threats, though reprehensible, are well handled by the system of justice without the assistance of vigilantes. I could also hope that Eric would not be _cheerful_ in shooting anyone regardless of the context. Strange.” -Bruce Perens
ESR may be gun-happy, but the very next sentence after the quote you repeated twice is: "But the way to deal with death threats is to (a) report them to law enforcement, and (b) be prepared to defend yourself against the very likely contingency that the authorities won’t be around when you need them. "
I think what he did is absolutely disgusting and am rather upset that he isn't going to be rotting in jail. But honestly I've also never heard of him or his company until this article. On the other hand, I have known of and have had a vested interested in Mozilla for as long as it has existed.
I'm guessing most folks are in the same situation as myself.
His company is private. The most anyone can do is to not do business with him. I think it's absolutely fucked up that he isn't going to prison... but what do you expect people to do? I doubt anyone is going to defend his actions. I don't see how your comparison with Mozilla makes any sense.
It's just an interesting contrast. The Mozilla situation was pushed forward by tweets of employees that were offended by his donation. It's odd that something similar wouldn't happen here.
I've never even heard of this guy or his company before this. I also wonder if this company has a "coolness" factor. For example, if the CEO of AT&T, Monsanto or some Oil company did this I wouldn't expect outrage from SV since those companies' reputations in SV are already so low that no amount of badness from them would shock the tech-community.
They'd be like just "Huh, yeah... rich execs in evil corps getting away with horrible crimes because our justice system only works when money & ethnicity aren't a factor. yawn. Happens every week. That problem is too big for me. Moving on..."
Not saying this is good... just expectations and moral-bar is set differently for different companies. If the CEO of Mozilla/Facebook/Apple/Google/Dropbox did this we all _KNOW_ the interwebz would freakin' E-X-P-L-O-D-E.
The GitHub or Mozilla stories are more interesting because they raise good questions about what behavior and points of view are acceptable for people in power.
In the RadiumOne CEO case, the answers to those questions are obvious. I know that, for better or for worse, there are a lot of overly active devil's advocates on HN. But nobody -- nobody -- is going to be rushing to this guy's defense. There is no reflection, discussion, or debate about this guy's behavior, because there's no need for that, because it is so obvious that this guy is 100% in the wrong and needs to be fired. And that means the story gets less attention.
That being said...it will be interesting to see how companies that do business with RadiumOne react. If G remains in place but RadiumOne's clients don't cancel their contracts, then the story will get more interesting.
He sure is defending himself on twitter, though. The usual "don't believe everything you read, two sides to every argument" way. Maybe he's patting her on the head in the video.
Incredibly disturbing how little news this has made. No comment from anyone on the Board or at RadiumOne. I really hope they don't get anywhere near the IPO stage if "G" remains in control.
What makes you think that "the Valley so far has no problem with" that? What is you evidence of that? I see a lot of strong evidence to the contrary.
The fact that he worked the legal system because he's rich doesn't mean "the Valley" or the rest of the world doesn't have a huge problem with what he did.
No, its not ironic. That's exactly the difference between for-profit companies controlled by private interests and non-profit companies influenced by community interests.
Moreover, trying to extrapolate one data point to draw conclusions about the Silicon Valley in its entirety is a really bad argument.
>> "That's exactly the difference between for-profit companies controlled by private interests and non-profit companies influenced by community interests."
It feels like it should be the other way around to me. When something is influenced by community interests and a number of people make noise there should be a public vote or similar to decide on the offenders fate. It should be up to the community as a whole. A for-profit company needs to get rid of someone as toxic as this as there is a possibility it will effect sales. A for-profit company can't wait around to make a decision like that, it needs to be quick.
Mozilla is a political organisation relying on public support. It needs a leader that doesn't have public political views that are strongly opposed by those whose support it needs.
This guy is head of an ads company, if the customers refuse to do business with it the board will sack him or they will go bust.
If this guy is named new Mozilla CEO I think that you might see a stronger reaction than that to Brendan Eich.
Edit: For the record I wouldn't want to do business with this man or his company but the Mozilla comparison is completely irrelevant.
First, I have never heard of RadiumOne or this guy, and I suspect that most other people have not, either. While most people have heard of Mozilla.
Second, most people have absolutely nothing to do with this company. I could threaten to boycott RadiumOne's products, but I don't even know what they do. While Mozilla (or DropBox) is a place I can react against.
(I didn't like Eich being forced out, FWIW. I'm just pointing out the practical distinctions.)
Actually I am pretty sure I heard of this guy through HN a few years ago, he was pretty famous for starting two ad selling firms under the age of 20 and selling out for big bucks.
Even back then I got a bad vibe(the usual Jobsian psychopatic one) out of the gushing articles written about him.
He should be removed as well, immediately. Yes, the tape might have been seized illegally [hence reduced charges, which is fair..the system needs to make it clear you have to play by the rules on both sides].
But ya, the lack of fallout is infuriating...if I was using RadiumOne, I'd boycott until he was gone.
It's not ironic. It's the pervasive attitude that violent misogyny is tolerable. We haven't grown past the point where women aren't 2nd class citizens and it's disturbing...
>It's the pervasive attitude that violent misogyny is tolerable.
What the hell are you talking about? Literally no one here is saying "Well, I don't really care about women being beaten." There is obviously a huge negative reaction to this, and in case you didn't notice, if there hadn't been serious police misconduct, this guy probably would have been slapped down with forty-five felony charges.
> "G" hitting a woman 117 times in 30 minutes on video (after which he tried to smother her with a pillow)
Your assertive language seems to indicate that you have seen this video or are in some other way 100% sure that he is guilty of the act claimed. Maybe you should reserve opinion till you have enough evidence?
Edit : Those who are downvoting me because you disagree with me: this is not reddit. Remember that I wrote a polite and personable reply even though my feelings are as strong as yours.
The main bit of evidence, the surveillance tape, was thrown out because they seized it without warrant (out of concern it'd be destroyed while waiting for one). That's why the felonies went away.
> The main bit of evidence, the surveillance tape, was thrown out because they seized it without warrant (out of concern it'd be destroyed while waiting for one).
I also think that is the main point in this story, along with the sentence in the article that follows shortly after:
"It is also reported that Kakish declined to press charges."
A quote from the article in the first link states:
> "But perhaps the biggest blow came when Judge Brendan Conroy ruled that surveillance video from Chahal's bedroom - which reportedly captured the 1 1/2-hour attack - had been seized unlawfully by police. The cops claim they took the video without waiting for a warrant because they feared it might get erased, but the judge didn't buy it."
The linked article also suggests that Julia Kakish might have been paid off, neither Chahal's or Kakish's lawyers are saying anything regarding this issue.
The video evidence was thrown out because the judge said it was obtained unlawfully, but does this question the video's authenticity? I don't think it does.
Fuck this shit! Anyone who invests in this scummy bastard's company, for whatever reasons, is an implicit supporter of such heinous behavior.
If you have any way of holding this bastard's feet to the fire, financially or otherwise, it is your moral prerogative to do so, without question. Shame on anyone who supports this pathetic slime ass!
If you care about it, put your money where your mouth is and find a way to publicize this before the IPO and find a way to keep yourself, your friends and your companies from having anything to benefit his business, now and in the future.
Someone == a PR firm: http://www.eileenkoch.com/ (warning: noisy) but as the current revision reflects, Wikipedia articles are built with respect to due weight and neutrality. While it's not ok to hide unflattering info, it's also not ok to bloat a short encyclopaedic article with court case details with the intention of highlighting how bad a guy the subject is.
While in the real world, Wikipedia articles either hide unflattering info or act as smears depending mostly on which faction manages to edit-camp that article more effectively. Regardless of what is "ok"
In addition to PR efforts, there are also some experienced non-PR Wikipedia users who take a slash-and-burn approach to content that's not fully compliant with Wikipedia policies. Rather than attempt to pare it down to what survives, they will simply remove it all.
As someone who's interacted with RadiumOne's engineering leadership, I hate to say I'm only kind of surprised. At a minimum, the attitude and arrogance of its CEO permeates the rest of the organization. In my experience, this company gives off creepier vibes than just about any in SF, if not the entire valley.
I would encourage everyone to give them a wide berth.
Ironically, Gurbaksh Chahal appeared on an episode of 'Secret Millionaire' where he gave a heavy check to a single mother of one who used to get beat up by her ex.
117 times in half an hour! That's worse than what Chris Brown did to Rihanna. And he's planning to raise a $100 million IPO for RadiumOne? Pssh, I wouldn't invest a dime in a company, RadiumOne for example, whose CEO beats on women. I'm thinking that there's an unfortunate team over at RadiumOne trying to save his reputation by flooding social media with his inspirational messages.
I've just lost all respect for you, Gurbaksh. I am now going to waste time out of my morning to unfriend you from all of my social networks.
Our criminal justice system is designed to (except apparently at the federal level) keep it from being used against dissidents, but this is one case where the rules for evidence collection helped produce the wrong result.
What he did was completely reprehensible and while the courts have ruled, that doesn't mean that society shouldn't punish this behavior. As someone below noted, nobody knows who he is, but we can change that ... and I hope that RadiumOne's customers care enough to find another vendor.
EDIT:
Did anyone else find the line "Security footage from his bedroom" a bit creepy?
> Our criminal justice system is designed to (except apparently at the federal level) keep it from being used against dissidents, but this is one case where the rules for evidence collection helped produce the wrong result.
I think you would be surprised at the ratio of dissidents to scumbags that actually invoke the 4th amendment. This case is the common case, not the outlier. It's a scumbag who clearly did something bad that's getting off because the cops obtained evidence in violation of the 4th amendment.
I think this was the right result, because this was a square fourth amendment violation (search in a home), but you can see why the 4th amendment is so politically unpopular and constantly under attack. Ordinary people don't really think or care about the dissidents. They just see guys like this get off on a "technicality."
Can you comment on why this was a 4th amendment violation? It seems like the police were legitimately called to the scene of a crime-in-progress and found evidence of said crime. If they had found cocaine instead of a video of a violent attack, would that also have been inadmissible in a court of law?
As a background consideration, keep in mind that we're talking about the search of a house, which is the absolute heart of the 4th amendment.
Warrantless entry and search of a house is considered per se unreasonable under the 4th amendment. There are a few narrow exceptions. First, a warrant is not required when the sole occupant of the house consents.[1] However, in a situation like this one where the defendant is present, his objection is enough to render the entry unlawful, even if the other person consents.[2]
Second, even if there is no consent, there are a few narrow exceptions the police can use. One of those is when "exigent circumstances" require the police to enter to prevent bodily harm or the destruction of evidence. But even in such cases, the acceptable scope of a warrantless search is limited by the circumstances that give rise to the exigency.[3]
So in this case, the girlfriend called the police saying he was threatening to kill her, which would justify, under the exigent circumstances exception, their entry onto the property. However, that did not authorize them to conduct a search of the house for evidence of domestic violence. The scope of their entry and search should have been limited to the exigent circumstance that justified the warrentless entry: ensuring her immediate safety. The police raised "possible destruction of evidence" as a reason for the search, but they had no reason to believe, until they searched, that there was evidence to preserve. The exigent circumstances that justified the entry was securing the safety of the girlfriend. Once they entered, they cannot shift their theory and say the exigent circumstance is preventing the destruction of evidence.
As for drugs, it depends. One of the other exceptions to the 4th amendment is that police are entitled to seize evidence in "plain view" during an otherwise lawful entry.[4] Had there been drugs strewn around the house, they would have been admissible. However, the video evidence was not in plain view. They had to go looking for it. If the police have to go looking for it, then that evidence is not admissible. That is true even when the evidence is drugs.
Very interesting, thanks. Follow up question: if the girlfriend had said something like "There's a camera in the closet that recorded all this, and he'll probably erase it when you leave" - do you think that would have been sufficient to make it not a fourth amendment violation? The idea being that they were told about it by the victim, rather than searching for it.
My read of the precedent is that when it comes to the invoking the destruction of evidence exception, the exigency must be imminent. If the girlfriend had said there was video tape of the beating, it would take very little time to get a warrant signed. This happened in San Francisco, and a big city like that will have magistrate judges on call 24/7. Meanwhile, if the police were lawfully on the premises to ensure her safety, they not only could lawfully detain him while waiting to get a warrant, but had probable cause to arrest him for domestic violence. My read is that courts favor a short detention like this over a warrantless search.
I suppose that if she had called and just said: "he's going to delete tapes showing him beating me" they would have exigent circumstances to enter to prevent destruction of evidence, even if the circumstances were such that they didn't otherwise have exigent circumstances to enter to prevent bodily injury. But that's somewhat contrived.
Trying to find the written court verdict about the dismissal of the video footage is proving hard... all of the articles cite each other in a big circular loop.
It is curious that he was charged with 45 felonies and had a million $ bail (which is ridiculous) yet in the end he plead guilty to 1 misdemeanor charge? Which what happens sometimes when prosecutors want to save face. Plenty of charges are prosecuted with out video so it being ruled inadmissible is a pain but not some insurmountable roadblock. He might be a horrible person, and I will condemn him when I know for sure, but we seem to be possibly missing some details here.
It was said that the video was attained in an illegal way so was inadmissible. Also that the girlfriend in question likely settled for money and wasn't cooperating.
Linked article said the victim declined to press charges. Possibly the DA felt it couldn't make a solid case without her cooperation, so they just got him to plead to the misdemeanors.
Apparently she went further than declining to press charges, the defendant's lawyer claimed that the victim "'provided photographic proof of an unblemished complexion to SFPD' and filed an affidavit requesting that the investigation be terminated" [0].
I don't understand your expression but I was just quoting a news source without any interpretation implied. I can imagine how such a scenario would hamper the prosecution moreso than someone just not keen on pressing charges.
