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

421–430 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#421

Post by danlitt »

malfist wrote: post #258
tacitusarc wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Snopes article is useful. For those who don’t want to read it, here is what Grossman says about that quotation: > That clip took my entire, full day presentation, and took it completely out of context. -They left out the part where I say that this is a normal biological, hormonal backlash from fight-or-flight (sympathetic nervous system arousal) to feed-and-breed (parasympathetic nervous system arousal) that can…

I'm not sure that's at all a defense. That context in no way absolves him of bragging about how he's gets the best sex in his life EVERY TIME HE KILLS SOMEONE.

The quoted text describes separate comments from different police officers. It's also reported by a third party, is a paraphrase rather than a quote, and isn't bragging.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#422

Post by avs733 »

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.

and I imagine that if the INVERSE of this case had come up, the police suing for defamation would have been protected by qualified immunity so no lawsuit would have been possible.

The police being able to leverage civil law against citizens to control their behavior in ways that citizens cannot leverage against cannot to comment on the abuse of power is entirely unacceptable no matter what our laws and judiciary chose to allow.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#423

Post by amanaplanacanal »

qup wrote: post #307
notepad0x90 wrote: post #294

Is there anyone who isn't super rich who feels safe in america anymore? Is it the same in other countries, can cops just raid you for no reason, or abduct people (ICE) and that's not the biggest story in the country?

[flagged]

If they have a warrant maybe. If they don't, abduction seems right.

In addition, you're not a criminal until you are convicted.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#424

Post by wat10000 »

breakyerself wrote: post #343
kej wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Upon closer inspection it seems it's more a result of decreasing accident rates than increasing homicide rates although that is a factor lately. https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-police-officers-die-i...

That gives a homicide rate for cops of about 7.5 per 100,000. That's a bit less than twice the US national average, and about on par with the overall murder rate in the Carolinas or Mississippi. Seems pretty good for a profession that would logically bring a substantially increased exposure to murderers.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#425

Post by x0x0 »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #329
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.

If you were to take a positive intent approach: - the warrant was for distribution of narcotics and kiddnapping. If I were to guess what a list of most dangerous warrants to execute, those two would be up there. If you note in the video, he jokingly plays around the drugs part. I am not sure where the kidnapping part comes from, but Afroman is not necessarily a household name amongst middle-aged white police officers…

And that's part of the issue.

The kidnapping claim was there was a sex dungeon in the house. The house does not have a basement.

And all of this was obviously pretextual, unless you believe drugs and women were hidden between cds or in whatever pieces of the kitchen they destroyed.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#426

Post by legitster »

breakyerself wrote: post #250
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.

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.

To really emphasize this, car crashes are the top source of police deaths. Yet less than 50% of police use their seat belts.

The justification most give is that they may need to be able to quickly get out of a car and pull their gun in a confrontation.

The only way this makes sense is that

A) Police aren't being properly trained based on data

B) People have an irrational psychological fear of murder over other types of death

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#427

Post by tolerance »

Reubachi wrote: post #34

"Mr. Foreman was not at home during the 2002 police raid, but a security camera system and his wife, using her cellphone, recorded the “faces and bodies” of the officers while they were on the property, according to the lawsuit" "2002" New York Times, everyone. Props to afroman for his perfect demeanor/attitude during all this.

There used to be a Twitter account that pointed out typos like this—I think exclusively—in the NYT.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#429

Post by ceejayoz »

danlitt wrote: post #421
malfist wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that's at all a defense. That context in no way absolves him of bragging about how he's gets the best sex in his life EVERY TIME HE KILLS SOMEONE.

The quoted text describes separate comments from different police officers. It's also reported by a third party, is a paraphrase rather than a quote, and isn't bragging.

The bit where he calls it a perk of the job is Grossman himself.

There's plenty of video of the guy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETf7NJOMS6Y

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#430

Post by t-3 »

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?

I got pulled over in Cleveland and had a cop point a gun at me and threaten to shoot - I was apparently wearing the wrong color on the wrong side of town with out-of-state plates and reached for my ID instead of waiting for the cop to tell me to get it. In later stops I've been admonished many times for not preemptively getting out my ID, but I really can't help thinking about almost getting my brains blown out for grabbing my ID too quickly.
Post reply on HN