Afroman found not liable in defamation case

Post by LPisGood » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 2:49 PM UTC

fc417fc802 wrote: post #200

martin_a wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a country with a lot of guns. Police do regularly get shot at when raiding. Call me naive, but I think this could be solved by stricter gun laws. Yes, bad guys might have guns, but that's the case everywhere around the world. But being afraid that everybody could have a gun and use it against you while doing your work must clearly change something in your behaviour as a police officer... Why not calm down the…

That's like observing that we could probably solve the issue of people saying mean things on the internet by requiring ID to access it. You have to consider any expected negative consequences as well as if you'd be violating any rights.

Post by moi2388 » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 2:50 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #237

moi2388 wrote: post #201

I 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.

Post by TallGuyShort » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 2:51 PM UTC

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…

Post by m-s-y » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 2:52 PM UTC

johncessna wrote: post #223

NikolaNovak wrote: post #136

I have a potentially silly question, and obviously naive - but why so many drawn guns? Fun music videos aside, what was the background here? Were they coming in on a Massive gang fortress? Or are all the stereotypes of American police forces true and they just come guns a-blazing all the time? I mean, that wasn't even police officers with hand guns, they have army-like guys with massive automatic rifles, and they see…

I'm not saying what they did was correct, but they were allegedly told that he had a drug operation and a kidnapping dungeon.

Post by tt24 » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 2:55 PM UTC

alpha_squared wrote: post #236

tt24 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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/…