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

431–440 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#431

Post by cucumber3732842 »

gonnagetbanned wrote: post #404
bestouff wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Only insofar as those business interests align with the government's interests.

The police get paid by and do the bidding of the government. They work for the government.

While you can screech about the degree of overlap between government interests and big business interests, and it absolutely is something worth screeching about, acting as though they are one in the same is counterproductive to understanding either.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#432

Post by themaninthedark »

coryrc wrote: post #406
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.

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.

They are supposed to. That was the lesson learned from Columbine.

That is also why the police response in Uvalde is highly criticized.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#433

Post by schiffern »

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.

Cynicism is very cooler-than-thou, but it's not because we don't know better.

It's because we do know how the system fails, and holding power accountable to those high aspirations is the only thing that pushes back the equilibrium.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#435

Post by tokai »

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?

Its more dangerous being a spouse to a cop than it is to be a cop.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#436

Post by dmix »

duxup wrote: post #337

> In one of the music videos, “Will You Help Me Repair My Door,” surveillance footage shows officers swinging open a gate, kicking down a door, and roaming armed around a living room and a kitchen. >The other, “Lemon Pound Cake,” shows one of the officers, gun in hand, pausing briefly in Mr. Foreman’s kitchen by a cake inside a glass cloche. “It made the sheriff want to put down his gun and cut him a slice,” Mr. Fore…

He's also a savvy businessman, this will be great for his career

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#437

Post by tokai »

bobsh wrote: post #288
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.

It started after the Iraq war. They got Hummers and vets.

The MOVE bombing was well before the Iraq war.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#438

Post by cucumber3732842 »

malfist wrote: post #318
quickthrowman wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

His mistake was stopping when the lawsuit failed. Anyone can rent a backhoe. People forget that there is also a court of public opinion you can appeal to.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#439

Post by giantg2 »

briffle wrote: post #398
alsetmusic wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've had a gun pulled on me twice for traffic stops when I went to grab something. I'm white. Something I learned from a friend is to ask permission for every movement or at the very least narrate and move slowly. "I'm going to reach in the glovebox for my registration. Is that ok?" I think it's the only way to protect yourself from their hyper-nervousness. Edit: friend and I are also white.

A famous case of this is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Philando_Castile where the man identitified he had a concealed carry, the cop told him not reach for it, he started to say he wasn't, he was getting his license the officer asked for, with the officer cutting him off repeatedly and the officer shot him because he 'feared for his life'. All they have to prove is that they fear for their life. It does no…

"All they have to prove is that they fear for their life. It does not have to make sense, does not have to be 'justified', etc."

That's not really true. The standard is a reasonable fear for your life. That's reasonable standard is evaluated in court by how a reasonable person would have reacted. Yes, they do give some deference to the individual who was actually there (police or civilian). The real problems happen because the DA and the courts tend to have bias when it comes to subjecting members of the system to the same process that others face.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#440

Post by malfist »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #438
malfist wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

His mistake was stopping when the lawsuit failed. Anyone can rent a backhoe. People forget that there is also a court of public opinion you can appeal to.

Are you suggesting a killdozer v2? I'm not sure what you're implying.
Post reply on HN