Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Police raids home; sues homeowner over CCTV footage of raid

fox19.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 59 posts

Re: US Police raids home; sues homeowner over CCTV footage of raid

#21

Post by effingwewt »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #19

"US police" ??? Contrary to weird headline, this was Adams County Sheriff's Office, and I know that fact because the Afroman video is still on Heavy Rotation for me.

Indeed, just saw his remoxed video for the first time yesterday!

Love that he's asking them via rap lyrics if they are going to help fix his gate etc since they found nothing, and the first response by them was to sue because it showed them being what we all know that are?

I'm more depressed about this planet daily, my cup feels full.

Re: US Police raids home; sues homeowner over CCTV footage of raid

#22

Post by ChickenNugger »

nickthegreek wrote: post #14
ChickenNugger wrote: post #11

> The complaint says Foreman also “created dozens of videos and images of Plaintiffs’ personas and posted them on various social media platforms including Facebook, YouTube, Snap Chat, TicTok and Instagram.” HN title is wildly misleading.

That is just additional information that didn’t make it to the headline. Other facts not included in the title is that the cops took his money and didn’t give it all back. Instead their review stated that they miscounted the money when it came in…

They're not suing him over the footage. They're suing him for publishing it all over the place in an attempt to monetize it.

You don't have to be on the cops' side to see that the headline is ridiculously misleading.

Re: US Police raids home; sues homeowner over CCTV footage of raid

#23

Post by ChickenNugger »

glonq wrote: post #5

I thought that HN discouraged hyperbolic/clickbaity/deceptive titles. "Homeowner" is a celeb [Afroman] and the "CCTV footage" was published in social media and in music videos without their consent.

HN is exactly as wildly biased as all the other big tech sites.

It pretends to be unbiased but it's not.

You'll be flagged/banned for pointing this out.

Re: US Police raids home; sues homeowner over CCTV footage of raid

#24

Post by ok_dad »

ChickenNugger wrote: post #22
nickthegreek wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is just additional information that didn’t make it to the headline. Other facts not included in the title is that the cops took his money and didn’t give it all back. Instead their review stated that they miscounted the money when it came in…

They're not suing him over the footage. They're suing him for publishing it all over the place in an attempt to monetize it. You don't have to be on the cops' side to see that the headline is ridiculously misleading.

So? He filmed it in his own home. What rights should he have over footage from his own private space when others invade that space without invitation? Should a store or homeowner have to get permission from criminals who rob them to show that footage publicly?

Re: US Police raids home; sues homeowner over CCTV footage of raid

#25

Post by ChickenNugger »

ok_dad wrote: post #24
ChickenNugger wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not suing him over the footage. They're suing him for publishing it all over the place in an attempt to monetize it. You don't have to be on the cops' side to see that the headline is ridiculously misleading.

So? He filmed it in his own home. What rights should he have over footage from his own private space when others invade that space without invitation? Should a store or homeowner have to get permission from criminals who rob them to show that footage publicly?

I'm talking about the headline being misleading, not whether he's in the right or not.

Re: US Police raids home; sues homeowner over CCTV footage of raid

#26

Post by uakievsa »

asveikau wrote: post #12
ChickenNugger wrote: post #11

> The complaint says Foreman also “created dozens of videos and images of Plaintiffs’ personas and posted them on various social media platforms including Facebook, YouTube, Snap Chat, TicTok and Instagram.” HN title is wildly misleading.

I don't think so. The HN title accurately describes two events that occurred. The most easily misinterpreted part of the headline to me is it says "US police" making it sound federal. It's a county sheriff's office in Ohio.

[dead]

Re: US Police raids home; sues homeowner over CCTV footage of raid

#27

Post by stuaxo »

glonq wrote: post #5

I thought that HN discouraged hyperbolic/clickbaity/deceptive titles. "Homeowner" is a celeb [Afroman] and the "CCTV footage" was published in social media and in music videos without their consent.

Should you expect privacy if you have broken into someones home ?

I'd say you have broken any social contracts about privacy at the moment you break in.

Re: US Police raids home; sues homeowner over CCTV footage of raid

#28

Post by ok_dad »

ChickenNugger wrote: post #25
ok_dad wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? He filmed it in his own home. What rights should he have over footage from his own private space when others invade that space without invitation? Should a store or homeowner have to get permission from criminals who rob them to show that footage publicly?

I'm talking about the headline being misleading, not whether he's in the right or not.

Good thing there’s a whole article there to read and other articles as well, so you can get all of the details from a source more plentiful than a headline.

Re: US Police raids home; sues homeowner over CCTV footage of raid

#30

Post by cafard »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #19

"US police" ??? Contrary to weird headline, this was Adams County Sheriff's Office, and I know that fact because the Afroman video is still on Heavy Rotation for me.

Adams County is in the US, and I don't see much wrong with referring to a sheriff's office as "police". Of course, I don't know what audience the headline writer had in mind. "Ohio" might suggest a state agency, and "Adams County" would lead to confusion, since there are several.
Post reply on HN