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

401–410 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#401

Post by giraffe_lady »

fsckboy wrote: post #175
snackbroken wrote: post #17

Going on the stand and stating that you "don't know" whether the allegedly defamatory statements you are suing over are true or not is a... bold legal strategy.

> Going on the stand and stating that you "don't know" whether the allegedly defamatory statements you are suing over are true or not is a... bold legal strategy. if the statement is true, that's a defense against defamation. if the statement is not believable, that is also a defense against defamation. it actually was legal strategy designed to dance around the legal strategy behind those questions being asked, taki…

Are you saying you believe the cop who said, under oath, he "doesn't know" whether his wife could be having an affair with afroman chose to do that as part of a deliberate legal strategy? And that you think this casts him in a more positive light than merely being clueless?

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#402

Post by malcolmgreaves »

maest wrote: post #360
ryukoposting wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot imagine living in a place where I can't tell someone what I think of them once in a while.

You can tell them they are doing a shameful job or that you disagree with their actions or whatever. You just can't _insult_ them like a 6 year old on a playground. Why is the ability to do so valuable to you?

The first thing you described is an insult.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#403

Post by janalsncm »

alpha_squared wrote: post #236
tt24 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They also falsely stated that the officers are “white supremacists,” > Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption. Interesting, is there a source or some data you’re aware of that suggests that it’s a statistically safe assumption?

The American police force originally started as a formalized slave patrol to capture runaway slaves [0]. It's well-documented [1]. We can try to argue whether modern policing carries that tradition, but case [2] after documented case [3] keeps bearing out more of the same. It's been the topic of research [4] and pop culture [5]. [0] https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/36/3/did-american-pol... [1] https://time.com/…

Pretty clear issues with this line of reasoning.

One, even if all police in the U.S. did start as slave patrols it is a textbook case of a genetic fallacy.

Two, your article discusses several origins of police forces in the US. In Boston it had nothing to do with slaves because Massachusetts was not a slave state when they created a police system in the 1830s. And since Afroman was raided in Ohio, also never a slave state, it does not make sense to carry over southern slave-catching history into modern police culture.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#404

Post by gonnagetbanned »

bestouff wrote: post #382
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.

well, to be fair, there are a higher-than-average number of business owners on here, so they really might work for them

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#405

Post by mindcrime »

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?

> What trigger are they waiting for, exactly?

Critical mass.

Look, I could pick up a rifle tomorrow, and march on DC by myself with the intention of toppling the fascist regime. And what would result? I'd be quickly arrested or killed and nothing would change. So what's the point?

But if I was part of a group of 1,000,000 like-minded people, then I might still be arrested or killed, but at least there's a much higher likelihood that some actual change would take place.

Now, as a lifelong believer in the "an armed populace is to protect us from authoritarian government" mindset myself, I have to say, I am extremely disappointed in a lot of people right now. People that I grew up with, that I've always trusted, respected, and maybe even admired. Because while fascism metastasizes and spreads through our country nearly completely unchecked, they all seem unwilling to even speak up against what's going on. And I can't defend their choices, but I can say that I still believe that there is a tipping point, some event, or sequence of events, that would kick things into into gear if needed[1].

[1]: I say "if needed" because it's not 100% clear to me that the only possible way out of this mess is an armed uprising. We might still be able to "vote our way out of this" and the optimistic take is that many Americans are sitting on their hands as long as they hold a shred of hope that that is still possible.

The more pessimistic take is that a majority of the "second amendment to protect us from authoritarianism" crowd are hypocritical ass-clowns, who are actually OK with authoritarianism as long as "their guy" is the one in power. :-(

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#406

Post by coryrc »

legitster wrote: post #160
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…

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.

They should stop "raiding" people's homes.

They don't raid schools when there's someone actively killing children. They can just hold off a bit and get people when they're on the move.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#407

Post by danlitt »

EQmWgw87pw wrote: post #301
cortesoft wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Personally I’ve had encounters with LE and have not had a gun drawn yet, so it’s obviously not the default. But I disagree, I think brandishing a knife is already extreme behavior, I don’t think it’s logical to think “because he has a weapon he probably doesn’t have another!”. And why would someone threatening people with a knife deserve benefit of the doubt?

> Personally I’ve had encounters with LE and have not had a gun drawn yet, so it’s obviously not the default.

What does the default have to do with it? We are already not in the default situation. Interacting with police at all is not the default! If you mean to say something like "it's not likely" or "they're not doing it in unreasonable cases" then your anecdote is not relevant.

> And why would someone threatening people with a knife deserve benefit of the doubt?

Several reasons, which would be obvious if you tried to think of them. Most knife-wielding maniacs are, well, maniacs, and aren't fully in control of their actions. Innocent bystanders are regularly killed by police discharging guns accidentally or inappropriately (in fact, even police are frequently killed this way). People are routinely misidentified by police as carrying weapons when they aren't. Police often give misleading or unclear instructions while trying to de-escalate, and with a gun drawn, failure to comply can and does result in the suspect being shot.

Bear in mind that what you are excusing is essentially a (substantially increased likelihood of) extrajudicial execution. It should be a last resort. It's not enough to say "well he's clearly a bad guy, why give him the benefit of the doubt?".

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#408

Post by atmavatar »

embedding-shape wrote: post #26
looofooo0 wrote: post #2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y This is the video in question, police again falling trap to the Streisand effect.

Also probably a rare case where there are a few Streisand effect's all packed together, where the cops at each step made it worse for themselves. If they never did the raid in the first place, no music video, no "embarrassment". They could have cut their losses, and not made a big deal about it and probably way less people (including myself) would have ever heard about it. Instead they decided to sue, which made even…

> I know cops aren't known for being smart

Not only aren't they known for being smart, but they're known for explicitly filtering out smart people.

The 2nd court of appeals ruled in favor of a city (New London, Connecticut) which rejects police applicants for having too high a score on intelligence tests.

See: https://abcnews.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story...

See: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-smart-to-be-a-cop/

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#409

Post by coryrc »

BurningFrog wrote: post #289
fc417fc802 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> But if the goal is to collect evidence, you can't give them time to destroy it.

Unless it's proven someone is on imminent harm, then they should find another way to collect evidence, or just not do it.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#410

Post by Capricorn2481 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #179
Capricorn2481 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is great for him. The point being this happens to other people who aren't famous, and maybe don't want to spend their time asymmetrically fighting for themselves on social media.

That's fine, but "There is no justice here " is incorrect.

How so? The positives you described had nothing to do with the courts. That's just an outcome of his own savvy. If he didn't make the video or the song, he would be out a lot of money. That's not justice, that's an entertaining person using their virality to claw back some of what was taken from them. How would that go for Joe Average?

This is the story of a guy who got sued for being harassed and had to waste years of their time and money fighting it.

Post reply on HN