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

381–390 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#381

Post by dehrmann »

Defamation is the most boring version of this case. Barring dishonest editing, of course it's fine.

There are hypothetical versions of this that get more interesting. Ohio is a one-party consent state. It's not clear what happens in a two-party consent state. Law enforcement has no expectation of privacy in public spaces. Private is "it depends," think cases where low enforcement is discussing something with one party in a domestic dispute. If he had used bodycam footage, then you get into interesting copyright laws. Is it public domain, and if not, is it sufficiently transformative to qualify as fair use (think April 29, 1992 by Sublime).

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#382

Post by bestouff »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #261

They 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 and conducting the work _that we pay for_. They work for us.

> They work for us.

Ooh sweet summer child.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#383

Post by ceejayoz »

altcognito wrote: post #326
zmb_ wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With body cameras this is a lawsuit.

But is it a winning one?

Qualified immunity tends to chime in.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#384

Post by cool_dude85 »

adrr wrote: post #361
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.

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?

Probably the most dangerous aspect of the job in the US is driving.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#385

Post by ykl »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #261

They 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 and conducting the work _that we pay for_. They work for us.

That is not just your opinion, that is the opinion of multiple United States Court of Appeals circuits in many many cases, and by its declining to overturn these cases, that is also the opinion of the United States Supreme Court. The United States is a common law country, so really what that means is that your opinion is actually not an opinion at all; you have simply stated the established law of the land.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#386

Post by GJim »

petesergeant wrote: post #333
GJim wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If you need some context, you can look up the history of policing in Northern Ireland on Wikipedia, where British police were happily shooting other British people for many years.

[flagged]

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#387

Post by Retric »

tt24 wrote: post #228
Retric wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you ignored evidence presented while failing to provide any of your own. Evidence has no minimum standard in debate, you can only provide more compelling evidence to the contrary.

Sorry, that's not how this works. Claims must be supported by evidence. I didn't ignore it, I reviewed it and explained how it doesn't support the claim. I have no obligation to provide evidence to the contrary. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Court cases look at things like when someone arrives in a city as evidence, that alone doesn’t make someone more likely to have done whatever than a million other people, but it’s still evidence. So you dismissed it, but it is in fact evidence that there were white supremests just as your post is evidence you are a serial killer.

It’s not poof after all you could be a bot. But out off all humans who ever lived 95% of them can’t be a serial killer because they are dead, that post is evidence you where alive recently therefore it is evidence that you are vastly more likely than the average person who have ever lived to be a serial killer. Again as apposed to a dead person who at most could be a former serial killer.

Thus demonstrating that evidence isn’t the same thing as strong evidence just something that increases the likelihood of something being true.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#388

Post by fc417fc802 »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #350
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…

Can you tell me more? As an individual person, having right to bear guns doesn't seem to have any impact or saving powers against the authoritarian regime. What scenarios relating to authoritarian regimes (be specific) do you find having a gun at home would help with?

Aside from the obvious (being ready and able to form an armed resistance) there's the deterrent. When you know that your populace has certain options available to them that will inform your actions.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#389

Post by Tostino »

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.

That's lucky. My county sheriff implemented predictive policing [1] until they were forced to stop because of many constitutional violations.

1. https://ij.org/press-release/case-closed-pasco-sheriff-admit...

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#390

Post by ceejayoz »

sanitycheck wrote: post #146

I don't understand how they found nothing in the raid, wouldn't they normally bring drugs with them to plant? If they forgot those that's a whole new level of police incompetence.

> wouldn't they normally bring drugs with them to plant?

Why do you think they were so annoyed at all the cameras?

Post reply on HN