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

361–370 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#361

Post by adrr »

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.

Not even the most dangerous job in the US. Forest workers, commercial fishermen, pilots etc are more dangerous. If we're talking about gun violence, your corner market cashier is more likely to get shot, Has anyone thanked a 7 eleven worker for their sacrifice thas you can get a slurpee at 2am?

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#362

Post by wl »

delfinom wrote: post #336
wl wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They chose not to do so. And the courts are no help, because generally speaking, you can't sue the government unless there's a specific law allowing you to do so (sovereign immunity). The police as individuals are generally immune from civil suits unless they violated some clearly established right (qualified immunity).

Eh? This falls under tort law for damages caused by the government.

The laws that provide a right of action against the government generally don’t cover damages caused by police in the lawful exercise of their duties.

So yeah, sovereign immunity.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#363

Post by madaxe_again »

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.

The process these days is more like publish then do editorial review. See it on major outlets all the time - break the story as early as possible, get the eyeballs and ad revenue, then get it cleaned up for posterity.

Sometimes this results in radical changes to a piece within hours of publication - yesterday for instance the BBC ran a piece headlined something like “I watched my father murder my mother”, and six hours later in slides an editorial correction saying “she did not, in fact, see her father murder her mother. She was asleep in another room at the time.”

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#364

Post by tzs »

voxic11 wrote: post #167
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Qualified immunity just protects the police, and other government officials personally. If there is grounds for a lawsuit then he could still sue the government that employs the police department. I think in general, if it is a legit warrant, it is very difficult to win a lawsuit for damage. Though with that video, and how high profile this has been, he might be able to win something. though IANAL, and I'm just going…

The government has sovereign immunity which is why you usually have to sue the people involved rather than the government directly.

The federal government and a most state governments in the US have laws that waive or partially waive sovereign immunity for tort claims against the government.

This raid was in Ohio. Here's their immunity waiver: https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2743.02

Here's a page that links to a PDF with a table given cites and details for all 50 states: https://www.mwl-law.com/resources/sovereign-immunity-tort-li...

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#365

Post by krapp »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #358
mindcrime wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We’ve seen other highly developed countries operate just fine without arming their citizenry to the teeth. Good for them. As an American, I'm quite happy with our Second Amendment rights, I'm not looking to roll that back in the slightest. And if anything, with the recent rise of the fascist authoritarian regime that we've seen, I'd think that maybe a whole lot of "anti gun" people here would be well on their way t…

All my life I've heard that an armed populace is to protect us from authoritarian government. Now that we have creeping authoritarians running the country, where are all of those "second amendment solution" people? What trigger are they waiting for, exactly?

They either voted for the authoritarian or they don't care as long as the authoritarian doesn't touch their guns. Womp womp.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#366

Post by jkl5xx »

cristoperb wrote: post #308
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-...

Thanks for sharing. Much better source.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#367

Post by dpark »

rocqua wrote: post #324
dpark wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think intentionally and willingly doing something whilst informed of the consequence doesn't count as human error. At least not in this context. Though it would make more sense, since these humans are likely largely erroneous.

I agree. It’s actually systemic error.

Tens of thousands of no-knock raids every year in the us is crazy stuff. In the early 80s the number was ~1500/year. More than an order of magnitude increase in no knock raids while violent crime has fallen.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#368

Post by simonhfrost »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #274
garciasn wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#1 - He's Black. #2 - That's how the police in America operate now; even for the most common interactions w/the public. I know this may sound like I'm being an asshole, but I'm not.

> That's how the police in America operate now; even for the most common interactions w/the public. You cannot generalize police forces across the entire country that way. I've never had such an interaction with a police officer, presumably because the police department in my city is run better than that.

Are you white?

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#369

Post by fc417fc802 »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #358
mindcrime wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We’ve seen other highly developed countries operate just fine without arming their citizenry to the teeth. Good for them. As an American, I'm quite happy with our Second Amendment rights, I'm not looking to roll that back in the slightest. And if anything, with the recent rise of the fascist authoritarian regime that we've seen, I'd think that maybe a whole lot of "anti gun" people here would be well on their way t…

All my life I've heard that an armed populace is to protect us from authoritarian government. Now that we have creeping authoritarians running the country, where are all of those "second amendment solution" people? What trigger are they waiting for, exactly?

Recall that this authoritarian won the popular vote ~18 months ago.

The protection is against a minority authoritarian government. If half the populace supports the guy in charge then taking up arms is effectively a declaration of civil war. That's a case of the cure being worse than the affliction.

Fast forward a year or so, suppose popularity has hit single or low double digits, imagine a blatant attempt at subverting the election process, that's where an armed populace comes in.

Post reply on HN