Afroman found not liable in defamation case

Post by ToucanLoucan » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 5:40 PM UTC

socalgal2 wrote: post #508

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I will never be zero because perfection is impossible. It's like saying there should be zero car fatalities. We should work to get them down (enforcement against drunk driving, maybe checkpoints, stronger driving tests), but asking for zero accidents just isn't reality.

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 5:41 PM UTC

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?

Post by jbenner-radham » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 5:43 PM UTC

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?

Post by john_strinlai » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 5:45 PM UTC

qup wrote: post #499

john_strinlai wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

abduct: to seize and take away (a person) by force https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abduct sounds like what happened to me.

Law enforcement arrests people every day. It's their primary job. You're not confused about the term. We all know the difference.

Post by roryirvine » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 5:48 PM UTC

Anthony-G wrote: post #506

roryirvine wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ra…

True. The PSNI have had an excellent record – particularly given the difficult context they work in. I guess the above poster is thinking of the shoot-to-kill era of the 80s (still well within living memory): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northe...