Earlier quoted context omitted.
2022. I'm not sure phones recorded useful video in 2002.
Right. It’s a little hard to parse but they’re saying “The NYT has a typo”
And what he's implying. "The NYT has a typo, it's all garbage!"
Afroman found not liable in defamation case
231–240 of 798 posts
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
These people carry guns and can kill you on the street and they can't take getting called some bad names?
Yes, exactly. Try calling a cop a “pig” to their face. Or breaking up with a cop. Or just say no to something they’re asking you to do. “Not all cops” and all that, but enough of them are like that that you have to be really careful how you engage with them.
> Try calling a cop a “pig” to their face.
At least where I live in Europe you aren't allowed to insult people and you can get fined for it. Be it a police officer or a any other person.
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
No, you ignored evidence presented while failing to provide any of your own. Evidence has no minimum standard in debate, you can only provide more compelling evidence to the contrary.
I don't think that's fair. He asked about statistical defensibility (implies an entire dataset) and was handed something that definitely does not qualify. What was provided certainly makes it clear that it's a reasonable thing to wonder about but it doesn't (at least I don't think) rise to the level of actually supporting the claim in question.
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
Qualified immunity just protects the police, and other government officials personally. If there is grounds for a lawsuit then he could still sue the government that employs the police department. I think in general, if it is a legit warrant, it is very difficult to win a lawsuit for damage. Though with that video, and how high profile this has been, he might be able to win something. though IANAL, and I'm just going…
The government has sovereign immunity which is why you usually have to sue the people involved rather than the government directly.
The government is sued all the time.
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not some footage issue, there apparently was a smear campaign online. FTFA: > After making the music video, Foreman allegedly continued putting up social media posts with names of the officers involved, the lawsuit states. > Several of the posts allegedly falsely claimed that the cops “stole my money” and were “criminals disguised as law enforcement,” according to the suit. > They also falsely stated that the…
> falsely claimed that the cops “stole my money” That appears to have happened; they're claiming it was a miscount. > were “criminals disguised as law enforcement,” Seems fair. (And opinion, which can't be defamation.) > They also falsely stated that the officers are “white supremacists,” Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption. I'd note that the jury found Afroman not liable on all these.
Statistically speaking "murderer is black" is a sensible assumption in US [1], but I'd prefer it wouldn't be made
[1] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
> falsely claimed that the cops “stole my money” That appears to have happened; they're claiming it was a miscount. > were “criminals disguised as law enforcement,” Seems fair. (And opinion, which can't be defamation.) > They also falsely stated that the officers are “white supremacists,” Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption. I'd note that the jury found Afroman not liable on all these.
> They also falsely stated that the officers are “white supremacists,” > Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption. Interesting, is there a source or some data you’re aware of that suggests that it’s a statistically safe assumption?
The American police force originally started as a formalized slave patrol to capture runaway slaves [0]. It's well-documented [1]. We can try to argue whether modern policing carries that tradition, but case [2] after documented case [3] keeps bearing out more of the same. It's been the topic of research [4] and pop culture [5].
[0] https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/36/3/did-american-pol...
[1] https://time.com/4779112/police-history-origins/
[2] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rodney-King
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#237I would argue that using the footage ought to be legal; they are in his home. Posting their names is questionable; as officers they are public servants, but naming them is perhaps invasion of privacy? Lying however would be slander and illegal, in my humble opinion. Not worth 4 million in damages, but at least a cease and desist?
> naming them is perhaps invasion of privacy?
No. The President of the United states is Donald Trump. His address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and his phone number is 202-456-1414.
> Lying however would be slander and illegal…
They couldn't prove he did.
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you break into someone's home you want to be ready for people with guns shooting at you. Politely giving them a few seconds of free shooting before you draw your guns is not a great survival strategy.
Best to kill anything that moves; it's the only way to survive.
The department would actually prefer that to a scenario where someone is left alive to sue them for raiding 86 1st St when the unreliable informant said 96.
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a country with a lot of guns. Police do regularly get shot at when raiding. And police departments get sent videos of every officer death from around the country and regularly watch them for "training purposes". So it makes sense that they are in a constant state of paranoia.
> Police do regularly get shot at when raiding. I wonder what the ratio of police deaths during no knock raids vs peacefully served search warrants. I certainly believe that bursting through someone’s door with guns drawn is a high risk activity. It seems like maybe no one needed to do that in this case, though.
I think the traffic stop paranoia stems from a couple high profile incidents like
(1) Brannan in Georgia
(2) Darian Jarrott executed after the feds/HSI setup a drug sting but use NMSP trooper as a sacrificial lamb and then mosie their way on over after for the aftermath.
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Police_Shootout_-_De...
[2] https://youtu.be/NqxTf-Vz12o?t=475
I've seen police in online forums reference these a lot when any talks come up of toning down their immediate instinct to draw their guns.
Basically in the US the feds will use local/state police as a sacrifice and not tell them that they're part of a sting of armed violent criminals so they're basically getting set up by HSI etc on purpose for surprises.
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-i...
You understand that white supremacist groups existing as cops doesn't make the majority of cops white supremacists, right? I'd hate to see someone use this kind of bad logic when deciding who is a criminal.
> I'd hate to see someone use this kind of bad logic when deciding who is a criminal.
Oh dear. I have bad news about cops.