Live data from Hacker News

Afroman found not liable in defamation case

nypost.com

481–490 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> citing inflation, the housing market, law enforcement corruption, and legalizing marijuana as key campaign issues The first two of those issues were Trump issues in his campaign and Trump rescheduled marijuana to schedule 2.

There was an EO, but that is not law. Cannabis is still schedule I last I checked. The order is to make it schedule III.

A president can not make a law, only sign them into existence. He can also direct enforcement or lessen it.

As far as I understand, the Schedule of Cannabis is written into the US Code. So Congress would need to amend it.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, he seems like a psycho.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#483
post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government has sovereign immunity which is why you usually have to sue the people involved rather than the government directly.

The federal government and a most state governments in the US have laws that waive or partially waive sovereign immunity for tort claims against the government. This raid was in Ohio. Here's their immunity waiver: https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2743.02 Here's a page that links to a PDF with a table given cites and details for all 50 states: https://www.mwl-law.com/resources/sovereign-immunity-tort-l…

But these police don't work for the state government. They worked for the Adams County government. The immunity waiver you linked explicitly only applies to the state government.

> (A)(1) The state hereby waives its immunity from liability,

and then "state" is defined in https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2743.01

> (A) "State" means the state of Ohio, including, but not limited to, the general assembly, the supreme court, the offices of all elected state officers, and all departments, boards, offices, commissions, agencies, institutions, and other instrumentalities of the state. "State" does not include political subdivisions.

> (B) "Political subdivisions" means municipal corporations, townships, counties, school districts, and all other bodies corporate and politic responsible for governmental activities only in geographic areas smaller than that of the state to which the sovereign immunity of the state attaches.

Additionally even if the officers did work for the state, the immunity waiver still would not apply to the action of breaking down a door while executing a search warrant.

> (3)(a) Except as provided in division (A)(3)(b) of this section, the state is immune from liability in any civil action or proceeding involving the performance or nonperformance of a public duty

and Ohio state law specifically authorizes breaking down doors to execute search warrants so this action would be one "involving the performance or nonperformance of a public duty"

> (A) When making an arrest or executing an arrest warrant or summons in lieu of an arrest warrant, or when executing a search warrant, the peace officer, law enforcement officer, or other authorized individual making the arrest or executing the warrant or summons may break down an outer or inner door or window of a dwelling house or other building

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2935.12

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you change the culture it will be just like the drug war. Firearms familiarity and possession are a cultural rite of passage for ~most males in the USA and there is no way to regulate that in a way that meaningfully stops it short of perhaps large-scale death penalty. Pretty much everyone in Europe that wants a gun can have one within a couple weeks, the reason they don't only has a little to do with the law.

To get a gun in Norway i need 6 months in a shooting sports club. And then can only take the gun with me for shooting exercise. Strictly prohibited to have a round chambered when not standing on the shooting lane. And then only after an order from the guy running the training.

[dead]

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#486
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not some footage issue, there apparently was a smear campaign online. FTFA: > After making the music video, Foreman allegedly continued putting up social media posts with names of the officers involved, the lawsuit states. > Several of the posts allegedly falsely claimed that the cops “stole my money” and were “criminals disguised as law enforcement,” according to the suit. > They also falsely stated that the…

> falsely claimed that the cops “stole my money” That appears to have happened; they're claiming it was a miscount. > were “criminals disguised as law enforcement,” Seems fair. (And opinion, which can't be defamation.) > They also falsely stated that the officers are “white supremacists,” Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption. I'd note that the jury found Afroman not liable on all these.

> Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption.

Also, you know, protected opinion.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_the_Warrior_Cop Watch the short clip in https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/rcgkis/u... - American cops get shown Scottish cops' deescalation procedures, and they scoff at it. "When you say preservation of life, it is… everybody's life. Ours has a pecking order. I'm just being honest."

I mean the key point there I think is the one where they point out that Brits simply wouldn’t accept police regularly shooting people. Policing for the people by the people.* * and pretend Northern Ireland doesn’t exist, or course

It's rare even in NI.

PSNI had one single firearm discharge in the two year period covering October 2023 - September 2025.

Plus 948 uses of irritant spray, 496 uses of their baton, and 38 taser discharges in the same period. And 23,489 uses of "unarmed physical tactics".

That's for a population of around 2 million. By comparison, SFPD had 10 "officer involved shootings" in the past year for a population of 800k, a rate fifty times higher than that in NI.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> naming them is perhaps invasion of privacy? No. The President of the United states is Donald Trump. His address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and his phone number is 202-456-1414. > Lying however would be slander and illegal… They couldn't prove he did.

I’d argue that’s rather different than just a cop somewhere. He said they were criminals, and that the woman was actually a man..

My understanding is he said "Adams county sheriff's are crooks because they took my money" (which is not disputed)., and individual officers, who weren't actually mentioned by name, sued because someone else was responsible for taking the money

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Innocent bystanders are regularly killed by police discharging guns False. Innocent bystanders are killed by police discharging guns, but rarely. And, while the goal should be zero, it will never be zero

Why is it not zero? This strikes me as the exact sort of calculus they used way back when they stopped chasing fleeing suspects in vehicles: the danger to the public is too high to justify the use of force. If you can't hit your suspect without hitting other civilians, then don't fucking fire! And no I don't particularly care if the LEO's life might be in danger either, that's literally the job they signed up for: to put themselves in danger to enforce the law. It's ridiculous that cops just get complete power of life and death every time they feel a spot of stress, and have to be handled with kid gloves by the general public less they be murdered in the streets.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was an EO, but that is not law. Cannabis is still schedule I last I checked. The order is to make it schedule III.

A president can not make a law, only sign them into existence. He can also direct enforcement or lessen it. As far as I understand, the Schedule of Cannabis is written into the US Code. So Congress would need to amend it. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...

It's under the purview of the executive branch to determine drug scheduling

> The term "list I chemical" means a chemical specified by regulation of the Attorney General ... until otherwise specified by regulation of the Attorney General

Post reply on HN