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

311–320 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#311

Post by ddellacosta »

amiga386 wrote: post #270
netsharc wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what he's implying. "The NYT has a typo, it's all garbage!"

They're implying "An establishment calling itself a 'newspaper of record' can be expected to have high standards, such as correctly reporting dates, and I'll hold them to that" If you can spot a typo in the first few seconds of reading a piece, so can the editor and sub-editor before it's published.

Myself and most other programmers I know have at least once (more like 100 times) had the experience where you can't figure something out in some code you've been staring at for an hour, then another person comes along and immediately sees an obvious glaring error that you missed.

I can only imagine the same thing happens in newsrooms with text, especially when it is visibly very similar, like "2002" and "2022."

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#312

Post by advisedwang »

dpark wrote: post #195
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. I wonder what the ratio of police deaths during no knock raids vs peacefully served search warrants. I certainly believe that bursting through someone’s door with guns drawn is a high risk activity. It seems like maybe no one needed to do that in this case, though.

> police deaths during no knock raids vs peacefully served search warrants

Would have to be a randomized trial because right now obviously police only peacefully serve warrants in situations that are already very unlikely to be violent.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#313

Post by kej »

breakyerself wrote: post #263
breakyerself wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Policing isn't in the top ten most dangerous jobs. It's usually listed around the 15-25th most dangerous job in the US. Many Americans including myself are regularly in more danger. Also around 40% of police deaths are accidents.

It's also interesting to note that while violent crime and homicide in the United States have been declining for many years interpersonal violence has overtaken accidents as the leading cause of police on the job deaths. It seems unlikely the cause of this is more violence among Americans. Since the overall rate is going down. It seems like changes in policing and attitudes and tactics have resulted in more officer d…

>interpersonal violence has overtaken accidents as the leading cause of police on the job deaths.

Do you have a source for this? Not trying to argue, I would genuinely like to read more.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#314

Post by cobbzilla »

lightedman wrote: post #138
Drakim wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the damaged party tries to sue the police for the damage they caused, the police can get the case instantly dismissed underqualified immunity.

Stealing things out of a person's fridge and eating it is not covered under qualified immunity.

um it probably is. Wasn’t there a case a few years ago where a dispensary was raided and the cops stole marijuana, and got away with it due to QI.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#315

Post by ahhhhnoooo »

defrost wrote: post #284
tt24 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Your post is essential. No one is claiming 100% of cops are white supremacists. One is claiming that it's sensible to assume they are.

If 20% of cops were white supremacists, and I was a minority, it would be sensible to behave as if every encounter had a significant chance of being with someone is looking to ruin my day.

The majority do not need to be unsafe for me to feel unsafe around the community. You have to factor in the potential power they wield (to kill you or take your freedom or seize your assets), combined with the odds that one will do it because they have wrong headed ideas about race.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#316

Post by dpark »

EQmWgw87pw wrote: post #280
breakyerself wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Policing isn't in the top ten most dangerous jobs. It's usually listed around the 15-25th most dangerous job in the US. Many Americans including myself are regularly in more danger. Also around 40% of police deaths are accidents.

This is such a common argument that’s basically a fallacy. Many of those dangerous jobs are dangerous because of human error. So it’s funny that you think 60% of deaths being on purpose is normal, what other job in the dangerous top 10 has 60% intentional deaths? Like seriously?

> So it’s funny

They didn’t say it’s funny.

If you have something meaningful to say, then say it. Don’t twist someone else’s words instead.

> human error

Choosing to train police to act with an “warrior mindset” instead of training for de-escalation seems like it could be classified as human error, too.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#318

Post by malfist »

quickthrowman wrote: post #300
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.

There's even a legal case where police took a backhoe to a building and tore one wall completely out instead of negotiating during a hostage situation. The homeowner was unable to get compensation for their destroyed home.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#320

Post by rocqua »

advisedwang wrote: post #312
dpark wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Police do regularly get shot at when raiding. I wonder what the ratio of police deaths during no knock raids vs peacefully served search warrants. I certainly believe that bursting through someone’s door with guns drawn is a high risk activity. It seems like maybe no one needed to do that in this case, though.

> police deaths during no knock raids vs peacefully served search warrants Would have to be a randomized trial because right now obviously police only peacefully serve warrants in situations that are already very unlikely to be violent.

There's likely natural experiments in cases where police was misinformed either way about the danger of the suspects being arrested.
Post reply on HN