Serious question: how come the police have not paid for the damage they caused?
Serious answer: cops are not accountable for their behavior, in the vast majority of cases.
Afroman found not liable in defamation case
251–260 of 798 posts
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#252[flagged]
Feels like some unfair downvotes, so I'll ask again. In what other countries could one publicly shame the authorities this severely? I think that's what was meant here. And yes, it's great .
Exactly what I meant. For example, in Germany one would have a hard time for much less.
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#253I 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…
There's a reason we had a few years of heavy anti police protest across the US.
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#254How come so many cctv’s inside his house?
It's a small county with an extreme minority of black people, like a couple hundred or less. It's quite likely he had personally encountered some of these officers before, and almost certain they knew who he was. Within the realm of possibility he saw something like this coming. Small rural sheriff depts are astoundingly corrupt.
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
He’s willing to publicly criticize government corruption and child abuse, so there’s no way MAGA would accept him. (Both these stances came up in the defamation lawsuit and in the music video.) When he ran for president in 2024, he registered as an independent, “citing inflation, the housing market, law enforcement corruption, and legalizing marijuana as key campaign issues”. Even if he is ultra right wing on seconda…
> citing inflation, the housing market, law enforcement corruption, and legalizing marijuana as key campaign issues
The first two of those issues were Trump issues in his campaign and Trump rescheduled marijuana to schedule 2.
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#256I 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…
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.
> I've had a gun pulled on me twice for traffic stops when I went to grab something. I'm white.
Something I learned from a friend is to ask permission for every movement or at the very least narrate and move slowly.
"I'm going to reach in the glovebox for my registration. Is that ok?"
I think it's the only way to protect yourself from their hyper-nervousness.
Edit: friend and I are also white.
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feels like some unfair downvotes, so I'll ask again. In what other countries could one publicly shame the authorities this severely? I think that's what was meant here. And yes, it's great .
I'd work the same in pretty much any European country, as in you'd record them, you'd publish that, they'd make up some lame excuse why that's not allowed, it'd go to a court, and a judge would decide who was right case-by-case? Not quite sure which part of this process do you think is even remotely unique to the US.
100% of those cases would be favorable to cops. Defamation laws are quite restrictive in Europe, much more so when it involves public officials (take a look at the Strafgesetzbuch)
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The Snopes article is useful. For those who don’t want to read it, here is what Grossman says about that quotation: > That clip took my entire, full day presentation, and took it completely out of context. -They left out the part where I say that this is a normal biological, hormonal backlash from fight-or-flight (sympathetic nervous system arousal) to feed-and-breed (parasympathetic nervous system arousal) that can…
I'm not sure that's at all a defense. That context in no way absolves him of bragging about how he's gets the best sex in his life EVERY TIME HE KILLS SOMEONE.
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#259Earlier 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.
If you break in with little to no notice or with a lack of manpower or if the occupant has nothing to lose, sure. This is why no knock raids are incredibly dangerous for all involved and generally a terrible practice. With the number of officers they often have in most cases it would make more sense to start off slowly and unarmed, making an earnest attempt to communicate with the target. People won't usually choose…
and I would argue no knock is unconstitutional, the whole point of a warrant is to prove you’re allowed to search me and the law was written in a time where everything was on paper, we’re suppose to be secure in our papers short of a warrant, if you can’t show a warrant how do I know I’m not being robbed and need to defend myself? it’s totally bonkers
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#260They tell us over and over again that we should have no expectation of privacy or not being filmed in public. Well, IMO they should not have any expectation of privacy or not being filmed when on private property.