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

291–300 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#291

Post by helpfulclippy »

dpark wrote: post #184
chneu wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American police are trained to be afraid. They escalate situations constantly. They're trained that every traffic stop is LIKELY their last. I've had a gun pulled on me twice for traffic stops when I went to grab something. I'm white.

“Warrior mindset”. When you’re trained to assume that everyone you interact with is a lethal threat, you tend to react as such.

They go around barking orders at people who haven’t done anything wrong because they look “suspicious,” escalate what could otherwise be calm encounters by showing up to everything armed to the gills, make it clear they can’t wait to use force against persons and property, demonstrate a consistent us-vs-them mentality that looks the other way for clear cases of corruption, commit brazen armed robberies under euphemisms like “civil asset forfeiture,” bypass policymakers wherever possible and lie to them when they can’t, and then wonder why some people don’t like them very much.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#292

Post by ethagnawl »

tt24 wrote: post #180
ceejayoz wrote: post #172

Earlier 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?

Do you personally know any police officers? I do and, as a group, I've found them to be more racist than the general population. I don't know what the working definition of "white supremacists" is in this context but it doesn't make me blink.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#293

Post by mothballed »

EQmWgw87pw wrote: post #271
ceejayoz wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_the_Warrior_Cop Watch the short clip in https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/rcgkis/u... - American cops get shown Scottish cops' deescalation procedures, and they scoff at it. "When you say preservation of life, it is… everybody's life. Ours has a pecking order. I'm just being honest."

So are we all just oblivious to the fact that in the US, civilians practically have access to military gear? How can you police that type of population with sticks and stones?

Most of the other places I'm aware of with such penetration of arms but no police basically rely on monetary bonds through family ties and intertribal appeals rather than trying to capture and imprison them. If the family won't accept the bonds and the criminal refuses to pay then they become an outlaw of sorts and have no recognition in society. A bit brutal, but then again so is mass imprisonment and a heavily armed police state. I make no claim whether it is better or worse.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#295

Post by qup »

martin_a wrote: post #170
legitster wrote: post #160

Earlier 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.

> 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…

You can hardly make stricter gun laws; we have a right to them in this country.

It's hard to limit the guns without infringing on the right of the people.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#296

Post by BurningFrog »

ceejayoz wrote: post #185
BurningFrog wrote: post #177

Earlier 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.

> When you break into someone's home… So we're starting right off the bat with the false premise that this is the only approach cops can take in these scenarios.

[flagged]

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#297

Post by terminalshort »

ceejayoz wrote: post #203
terminalshort wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> I claim that Afroman is a criminal. At 1:44 his own video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y ) says "well, I know why narcotics" regarding the warrant. So I think he'd be OK with that statement of opinion . If that was defamation, warrants like the one in this case are defamatory, having asserted he kidnapped someone.

Of course it's not defamation. But that's not what you said. You said "seems fair"

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#298

Post by GJim »

petesergeant wrote: post #268
ceejayoz wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_the_Warrior_Cop Watch the short clip in https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/rcgkis/u... - American cops get shown Scottish cops' deescalation procedures, and they scoff at it. "When you say preservation of life, it is… everybody's life. Ours has a pecking order. I'm just being honest."

I mean the key point there I think is the one where they point out that Brits simply wouldn’t accept police regularly shooting people. Policing for the people by the people.* * and pretend Northern Ireland doesn’t exist, or course

[flagged]

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#299

Post by LPisGood »

EQmWgw87pw wrote: post #282
LPisGood wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’ve seen other highly developed countries operate just fine without arming their citizenry to the teeth.

I don’t know if there is any precedent from taking away hundreds of millions of guns from an armed country actually

Australia de-armed pretty successfully.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#300

Post by quickthrowman »

throwa356262 wrote: post #125

Serious question: how come the police have not paid for the damage they caused?

They’re not liable to repair damage incurred from a raid or any other action. If the fire department has to chop your door open with an axe to gain entry to your home, they don’t pay for that either, you do.

If the police execute a search warrant on your home and kill your pet or a person, guess who is responsible for cleaning up the blood and mess? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not the police.

Post reply on HN