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

101–110 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#101

Post by sneak »

embedding-shape wrote: post #62
quietsegfault wrote: post #11

The judge really loved the cops for some reason. So embarrassing for him.

Well, he probably interacts with them on a daily/weekly basis, or at least other people from their department, and probably don't want to end up on their bad side. In the end, justice and freedom of expression seems to have prevailed, so doesn't really matter what the judge think/thought in the end.

Justice didn’t prevail. Afroman had to spend THOUSANDS defending himself in this bullshit civil lawsuit, and his countersuit got thrown out because police have qualified immunity.

This is after they raided his house, bashed in his door, broke his cameras, stole his money, and then didn’t charge him with a single thing (and only returned part of the money).

There is no justice here.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#102

Post by shadowgovt »

embedding-shape wrote: post #72
yread wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

We are, of course, not privy to the jury's reasoning unless they choose to divulge it.

Which is unfortunate, because we may never know if they concluded "Given who you've demonstrated yourself to be, your wife is justified in seeking other lovers whether or not this allegation is true" or if there were other factors involved.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#103

Post by SaltyBackendGuy »

ryandrake wrote: post #71
JoshTriplett wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a common archetype when people get challenged (escalation of commitment), they effectively double down. I don't necessarily think it was racially motivated (but also don't doubt that it could have been).

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#104

Post by mmmm2 »

dghf wrote: post #90
subpixel wrote: post #73

I haven’t found any information about what cause the police had, why a warrant was issued, etc. I’m not suggesting suspicion has merit, but given all the idiocy I’m wondering what other forms of chicanery may have taken place to get a warrant.

Tip from a “confidential informant”, I believe I read somewhere.

From Afroman's BATTERAM HYMN OF THE POLICE WHISTLE BLOWER: https://youtu.be/HM8Ee6pcXvQ?t=190

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#106

Post by shevy-java »

This was also on youtube - Afroman made his points very clearly. That was an easy case.

Makes you wonder why taxpayers have to pay for incompetent cops all the time. I understand that some proection is needed, but the whole system is really defunct if such cases even (have to) come to court.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#107

Post by hollywood_court »

komali2 wrote: post #96
hollywood_court wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ask…

It seems the job selects for those types. I suppose people interested in law enforcement / justice that aren't that way either end up as lawyers or working for the FBI or something.

If you don't have any kind of marketable skills yet want to make a decent living with plenty of benefits, becoming a LEO is the easiest choice for most people.

Or if you don't have any marketable skills yet have a spouse that has a job with health benefits, you can become a real estate agent.

Those two career paths seem to be the most chosen for almost all of the 'not so bright' folks I grew up with.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#108

Post by shevy-java »

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…

> 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.

It is not even that rare; some cases covered by Audit the Audit or Lackluster (same guy), or the civil lawyer. The amount of incompetence among many cops is surprising. They really literally don't even know the law or constitution. Just about anyone is hired. Quality standards are mega-low.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#109

Post by shadowgovt »

sneak wrote: post #69
Asooka wrote: post #64

I know things are bad in the USA right now, but news like these show that you still have your basic rights. This kind of song would not fly in any other country on Earth. No other country has Freedom of Speech laws strong enough to defend against insulting the police. There have been some people abusing their freedom in recent times cough Kanye cough , but for every loud nazi there are ten more excellent people whose…

This wasn’t a 1A case, it was a civil defamation suit. He won because they failed to prove defamation, NOT because the judge threw out the lawsuit because of a violation of constitutional rights. Separately: saying something shitty or unpopular that you disagree with isn’t someone abusing their rights to free expression. Expressing unpopular viewpoints that others consider abusive is exactly the point of such rights.…

Perhaps interesting here is that some of the things he said were definitely not defensible via "truth is an affirmative defense." But it's ultimately up to the jury, and they can also find him innocent because a reasonable person wouldn't be offended by outlandish accusations.

(Ultimately, though, they can find him innocent for any reason. If they decided he should walk because you can't legally offend cops, that's fine too.)

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#110

Post by ProjectArcturis »

mmooss wrote: post #93
embedding-shape wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

> Not very smart itself. How sad to reduce the whole thing to ignorant stereotypes

It's hard to call it an ignorant stereotype when it is the explicit policy of some police departments not to hire smart people. And to go to court to defend that policy.

https://abcnews.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story...

Post reply on HN