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

461–470 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#461

Post by gadders »

garciasn wrote: post #142
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…

#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.

They did the same when they raided Roger Stone.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#462

Post by Rebelgecko »

throwaway27448 wrote: post #335
delecti wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect it was less about the legal merits and more about punishing (whether or not they won) through the lawsuit itself.

Billed to the public, too.

Adams County paid for their civil suit???

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#463

Post by NohatCoder »

mpweiher wrote: post #287
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.

Could also be that this is at least partially justified due to the incredible pervasiveness of guns in the US.

No, treating people with hostility and escalating the situation only makes it more likely that someone will snap and attack a cop.

People generally do not shoot at cops, because whether or not they hit the target doing so is pretty much signing their own death sentence. All cops have to do to protect themselves is to not provoke people to fight-or-flight reactions.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#464

Post by Rebelgecko »

embedding-shape wrote: post #72
yread wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pedofile apparently, the deputy in question has a brother who was a deputy as well but was fired and charged with a sexual misdemeanor against minors. Afroman also said he steals money during traffic stops and he was accused of that multiple times. Of course that's not bulletproof evidence but a reasonable person might assume these rumours are not completely unfounded EDIT: also the deputy of course didn't steal th…

> but a reasonable person might assume these rumours to be true From all the claims Afroman made, it seems the cop sued because of the whole "He claimed he had sex with my wife, which reflects poorly on me", presumably because he only has a chance to win the suit if there is actual lies. The same video seems to have texts about how he crashed into civilians, stealing pills/money and more, but none of that was brought…

Although funnily enough, when one of the questioned about if his wife had an affair with afroman he was like "I dunno". If he doesn't know it's a lie, kinda defeats the point of the defamation suit

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#465

Post by maerF0x0 »

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.

I understand what you're saying, but I was speaking in the ideal or purpose, rather than the defacto/pragmatic.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#466

Post by horacemorace »

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 as a teenager I’ve been met with a group of cops all pointing guns at me when I was just walking around at night with no weapons whatsoever. They got a call from a paranoid homeowner nearby. They’re trained to shoot first and ask questions later.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#467

Post by giantg2 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #450
giantg2 wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not exactly consistent with the given scenario. Use of force issues tend to have much better case law at both the federal and state levels than property related issues.

https://www.generalservices.state.nm.us/wp-content/uploads/9... > Corbitt v. Vickers, 929 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2019): Qualified immunity granted for officer who, hunting a fugitive, ended up at the wrong house and forced six children, including two children under the age of three, to lie on the ground at gunpoint. The officer tried to shoot the family dog, but missed and shot a 10-year-old child that was lying face d…

What was the outcome of the lawsuits against the agencies? You don't have to win a suit against an individual. Most of the big payouts have to come from the cities.

Here are a bunch going the other way. https://policefundingdatabase.org/explore-the-database/settl...

I never said that qualified immunity wasn't an issue, just that there tends to be more protections when use of force is involved than with property.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#468

Post by ceejayoz »

giantg2 wrote: post #467
ceejayoz wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.generalservices.state.nm.us/wp-content/uploads/9... > Corbitt v. Vickers, 929 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2019): Qualified immunity granted for officer who, hunting a fugitive, ended up at the wrong house and forced six children, including two children under the age of three, to lie on the ground at gunpoint. The officer tried to shoot the family dog, but missed and shot a 10-year-old child that was lying face d…

What was the outcome of the lawsuits against the agencies? You don't have to win a suit against an individual. Most of the big payouts have to come from the cities. Here are a bunch going the other way. https://policefundingdatabase.org/explore-the-database/settl... I never said that qualified immunity wasn't an issue, just that there tends to be more protections when use of force is involved than with property.

> Most of the big payouts have to come from the cities.

In other words, from the victimized populace.

I think a cop who steals seized evidence should be personally liable to the person they stole from.

(…and I'd note "v. City of Wichita" is clearly responsive to your question.)

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#469

Post by superxpro12 »

subpixel wrote: post #73

I haven’t found any information about what cause the police had, why a warrant was issued, etc. I’m not suggesting suspicion has merit, but given all the idiocy I’m wondering what other forms of chicanery may have taken place to get a warrant.

Nah its just that simple. Racism is still alive and well. Don't overthink this.
Post reply on HN