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

301–310 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#301

Post by EQmWgw87pw »

cortesoft wrote: post #285
EQmWgw87pw wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I can see the argument how you would treat a suspect with a gun differently than you would if they have a knife. However, American cops also use guns against suspects with knives or other weapons that they also use in places like Scotland. Why couldn’t American police use these techniques when the suspect doesn’t have a gun? I know the standard response is, “well, they COULD have a gun!”, but I don’t think that is a…

Personally I’ve had encounters with LE and have not had a gun drawn yet, so it’s obviously not the default. But I disagree, I think brandishing a knife is already extreme behavior, I don’t think it’s logical to think “because he has a weapon he probably doesn’t have another!”. And why would someone threatening people with a knife deserve benefit of the doubt?

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#302

Post by LPisGood »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #281
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.

We've also seen it go wrong plenty of times. They can do them and we can do us I figure; I'm quite happy with my gun rights thanks. There are highly developed countries that tightly regulate speech and network access relative to most of the west. Does that mean adopting an ID requirement to post on Twitter coupled with anti hate speech laws would be an obviously good thing?

If tweets were a leading cause of death in children we should probably at least consider making it harder to tweet.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#303

Post by alpha_squared »

tt24 wrote: post #277
alpha_squared wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't see how an organization founded to enforce a cornerstone of white supremacy may have a statistical likelihood of its members being white supremacists?

No, I don't think that this supports the claim that it's a safe assumption that any given cop is a white supremacist.

I've attempted to take your responses as made in good faith twice now, despite evidence to the contrary in other threads. I understand if this topic is uncomfortable for you, either because it challenges your world view or because it feels personally invalidating. It appears as though you're looking for one very specific statistic or logical vulnerability in what others are sharing to refute the overall claim. However, I can only lead you to water.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#304

Post by defrost »

LPisGood wrote: post #299
EQmWgw87pw wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Australia has more guns now, and more guns per capita, than it did at the time it almost unified all gun laws.

It didn't "de-arm" - it brought all states and territories into near alignment on gun regulation.

If you're interested I can link to good footage of my actual IRL neighbour shooting 24x24 inch targets at 5,000 yards, here in Australia.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE

Alternatively you might be interested in Australian footage of feral control, taking down 800 oversized wild pigs in 4 hours from a helicopter.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#306

Post by ryukoposting »

lwkl wrote: post #232
throwaway173738 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I cannot imagine living in a place where I can't tell someone what I think of them once in a while.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#308

Post by cristoperb »

debo_ wrote: post #105

Is the NY Post some kind of National Enquirer analogue? This article reads like it was written by a grade school child trying to emulate the voice of an villainous news reporter.

Yes. Here's an AP article:

https://apnews.com/article/afroman-police-raid-lawsuit-ohio-...

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#309

Post by GiorgioG »

hliyan wrote: post #213
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.

If only your country operated on the Peelian principles of policing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles Relevant fictional quote: There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people. - William Adama

In the US police have no obligation to protect the people.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#310

Post by terminalshort »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #209
terminalshort wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The bar for defamation is much higher for public officials like police than it is for private citizens. Also, while that is a very stupid and racist statement, I don't believe it is defamatory. If you falsely claimed specific crimes, then it might be.

No it's not and neither is Afroman's statement. But the comment I was replying to said it was a fair statement, not merely that it is not defamatory.
Post reply on HN