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

281–290 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#281

Post by fc417fc802 »

LPisGood wrote: post #241
fc417fc802 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#282

Post by EQmWgw87pw »

LPisGood wrote: post #241
fc417fc802 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#283

Post by underlipton »

SaltyBackendGuy wrote: post #103
ryandrake wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea it’s as simple and stupid as that. This (black) peasant isn’t respecting our authority and higher status. If we let one slide then everyone is going to think we are equal to them. In their logic, they have to fight in court.

This is a common archetype when people get challenged (escalation of commitment), they effectively double down. I don't necessarily think it was racially motivated (but also don't doubt that it could have been).

American institutions were set-up prima facie to be racially-motivated. Explicit references have been removed, but a lot of the structural elements that supported those explicit references remain. I know many people recoil at the idea, because it seems like an affront to their personal self-image and the national ethos (or at least its marketing), but I generally hold that if an institution acts in a way that's consistent with historically-aligned racial prejudice, it's actually on the institution to show that it wasn't a racially-motivated outcome, not the other way around.

And there is some evidence that the institutions themselves recognize this (or they did, until we elected an openly-corrupt white supremacist to the highest office): https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/us-doj-res...

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#284

Post by defrost »

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.

Not the claim made.

> Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption.

was the claim, ie. quite likely, tending toward more often than not.

Versus your phrasing that any given cop is

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#285

Post by cortesoft »

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?

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 good enough reason to always go straight to extreme response. If a suspect is brandishing a knife, he probably doesn’t also have a gun.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#286

Post by zmb_ »

alsetmusic wrote: post #256
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.

> 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.

A black friend of mine did exactly this, asked for a permission to get a pen from his pocket. The cop laughed “sure” and the moment he put his hand inside his pocket they jumped him and arrested him.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#287

Post by mpweiher »

chneu wrote: post #159
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…

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.

Could also be that this is at least partially justified due to the incredible pervasiveness of guns in the US.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#288

Post by bobsh »

chneu wrote: post #159
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…

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.

It started after the Iraq war. They got Hummers and vets.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#289

Post by BurningFrog »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #214
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.

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…

If you're there to arrest people, that seems reasonable. But if the goal is to collect evidence, you can't give them time to destroy it.

I do have the presumption that when professionals do things that seem weird, they probably have reasons that I as an amateur don't immediately understand.

I've also read enough Radley Balko to know cops often get away with doing awful and stupid things...

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#290

Post by EQmWgw87pw »

pizlonator wrote: post #242
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.

> Police do regularly get shot at when raiding. Got any data? It happens daily? Weekly? Monthly? What is "regularly"?

Doing quick research says about 1 shot at per day, 1-2 fatalities per week, and about 26,000 assaults per year
Post reply on HN