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

Afroman found not liable in defamation case

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#71

Post by ryandrake »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #54
delecti wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect it was less about the legal merits and more about punishing (whether or not they won) through the lawsuit itself.

Of course. Questioning their authority is a status challenge, and they're accustomed to having their status go unchallenged. Hence, punitive punishment. One of many aspects of improving law enforcement would be pointedly training out and averting any perception of being "above" people. "Public servant" is a phrase for a reason.

Yea it’s as simple and stupid as that. This (black) peasant isn’t respecting our authority and higher status. If we let one slide then everyone is going to think we are equal to them. In their logic, they have to fight in court.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#72

Post by embedding-shape »

yread wrote: post #57
Mashimo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but not limited to just that one. https://www.youtube.com/@ogafroman/videos He also has other videos where he calls one of them a pedofile, questioning their gender (Licc'm low lisa) and more.

> pedofile apparently, the deputy in question has a brother who was a deputy as well but was fired and charged with a sexual misdemeanor against minors. Afroman also said he steals money during traffic stops and he was accused of that multiple times. Of course that's not bulletproof evidence but a reasonable person might assume these rumours are not completely unfounded EDIT: also the deputy of course didn't steal th…

> but a reasonable person might assume these rumours to be true

From all the claims Afroman made, it seems the cop sued because of the whole "He claimed he had sex with my wife, which reflects poorly on me", presumably because he only has a chance to win the suit if there is actual lies. The same video seems to have texts about how he crashed into civilians, stealing pills/money and more, but none of that was brought up in the suit, only the cheating part.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#74

Post by sneak »

jcarrano wrote: post #45

[flagged]

This is not remotely true. Furthermore, the way people don’t get away with stuff like this is via extralegal/extrajudicial harassment, abuse, violence, and sometimes assassination (see also: MLK, Huey, Leqaa Kordia, Mahmoud Khalil, Barry Cooper, etc), so we aren’t really sure that he has gotten away with it yet.

He beat a civil defamation suit; these cops still know where he lives. Do you think the events of today made them less angry at him?

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#75

Post by hollywood_court »

embedding-shape wrote: post #58
anon84873628 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That didn't seem like faux crying. Making fun of her in that way is the hardest to defend IMO, since it had nothing to do with her job performance or relevant character attributes. (E.g. how the other officer had been accused of stealing before, or had a brother resign from the force after being charged with a crime involving a minor). That said, I don't disagree with outcome.

Aren't cops by default public figures? They're the de facto face of the police for the ordinary citizen, not sure they should be the type of individual who cries because someone calls them fat, lesbian or whatever. These people have the legal right to essentially execute you in public, I think we should set the bar a bit higher on who should be allowed to be a police officer in the first place.

I was raised by LEOs. My mother and all four of her husbands were career long LEOs in the South.

Of course this is just based on my anecdotes, but LEOs have some of the thinnest skin imaginable. The first time I fought a grown man was when I was 13 and I had to fight my mother's fourth husband. He was a Deputy Sheriff and combat veteran and that dude had the emotional strength of a 12 year old girl who didn't get asked to the winter dance.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#76

Post by plagiarist »

embedding-shape wrote: post #26
looofooo0 wrote: post #2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y This is the video in question, police again falling trap to the Streisand effect.

Also probably a rare case where there are a few Streisand effect's all packed together, where the cops at each step made it worse for themselves. If they never did the raid in the first place, no music video, no "embarrassment". They could have cut their losses, and not made a big deal about it and probably way less people (including myself) would have ever heard about it. Instead they decided to sue, which made even…

If I were in a gang such that I routinely committed theft and violence without consequence from the government, I'd probably have internalized that I am superior to the plebs. So I would expect what is obviously SLAPP to actually come out in my favor.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#77

Post by hrimfaxi »

anon84873628 wrote: post #51
hollywood_court wrote: post #37

Those cops embarrassed themselves. Especially that one lady that was faux crying. Shameful behavior from the largest gang in the US.

That didn't seem like faux crying. Making fun of her in that way is the hardest to defend IMO, since it had nothing to do with her job performance or relevant character attributes. (E.g. how the other officer had been accused of stealing before, or had a brother resign from the force after being charged with a crime involving a minor). That said, I don't disagree with outcome.

These people carry guns and can kill you on the street and they can't take getting called some bad names?

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#78

Post by cucumber3732842 »

SpaceL10n wrote: post #40
lenerdenator wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don't cops have lawyers who can inform them about what is a smart move vs not? Generally, municipalities have at least some sort of attorney on retainer for this sort of thing. Generally. I don't know if that's the case where he lives. Either way, the police have to be smart enough to listen to that attorney, and have to be given a consequence for not doing so . If you can brush off everything as qualified immunity…

I have no evidence besides my own experience, but I think that the "back the blue" mentality might skew their support staff's objectivity a bit. Especially in smaller cities and towns where cops aren't just law enforcement, they are foundational pillars of morality and governance. The point I hope I'm making is that they are getting bad advice not because they are stupid, or the people around them are, but rather bec…

> The point I hope I'm making is that they are getting bad advice not because they are stupid, or the people around them are, but rather because it's inevitable due to complex social and psychological reasons.

Which basically boils down to when the men with the guns and the violence (or their string pullers) set down a dumb path nobody is going to say "that's fucking stupid, you're stupid, good luck with that". It's gonna be a bunch of tepid "well the odds are long but here's how you could prevail" type criticism that lets them think their path of action is fine right up until it hits reality.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#80

Post by esprehn »

Reubachi wrote: post #34

"Mr. Foreman was not at home during the 2002 police raid, but a security camera system and his wife, using her cellphone, recorded the “faces and bodies” of the officers while they were on the property, according to the lawsuit" "2002" New York Times, everyone. Props to afroman for his perfect demeanor/attitude during all this.

2022. I'm not sure phones recorded useful video in 2002.
Post reply on HN