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

571–580 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#571

Post by throwaway902984 »

ctoth wrote: post #546
malfist wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cops only know how to do one thing: escalate the situation. Even when it doesn't make sense too. Like suing afroman. Like shooting blindly through a house like they did when they killed Breonna Taylor. Like the time they shot Charles Kinsey who was laying on the ground with his hands in the air. Like the deadly game of Simon Says they like to play. Like any of the millions of examples where they shoot someone who was…

Millions? That's... A very big number.

Counting from the dawns of the various police forces in the country maybe? Impossible to know, but even then...

Hyperbole illustrates the point pretty well though

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#572

Post by Dylan16807 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #510
socalgal2 wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It's like saying there should be zero car fatalities. https://www.politico.eu/article/helsinki-no-traffic-death-ro... "Helsinki hasn’t registered a single traffic-related fatality in the past year, municipal officials revealed this week." "The limits were enforced with 70 new speed cameras and a policing strategy based on the national “Vision Zero” policy, with the goal of achieving zero traffic injuries or deaths.…

That's one city, for one year. Their rate of traffic fatalities is still above zero, I guarantee you.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#573

Post by mylies43 »

x0x0 wrote: post #425
dimitrios1 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Gotta check between the slices of cake, never know what it could be hiding

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#574

Post by ceejayoz »

parineum wrote: post #543
pear01 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People walking around with guns and badges should be held to the highest of standards. Suggesting an equivalence between the burden of proof on a hackernews commenter and individuals authorized by the state to detain, arrest, and potentially deprive citizens of a free country of their life, liberty or property is asinine and shameful. Cops want the power to do all this, do it incorrectly, be unable to be held account…

> People walking around with guns and badges should be held to the highest of standards. Suggesting an equivalence between the burden of proof on a hackernews commenter and individuals authorized by the state Let's take a step back. OP, essentially, made a very basic logical error (actually not an error IMO, but a willfully misleading statement). They said, "Statistically, [assuming a cop is a white supremacist] a pr…

> In my mind, what makes something a statistically safe assumption would mean that, more times than not, you'd be right.

I assume I should buckle my seatbelt.

Not every car ride results in an accident. But enough do.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#575

Post by Dylan16807 »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #560
socalgal2 wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1300 is not the rate of innocent bystanders being killed. It's the rate of people killed by police period. Maybe if we didn't have police being killed by criminals in the USA then they wouldn't need to go in armed and scared for their lives.

By definition, every person the police interact with is innocent, because at such time as they are talking to a cop, even being detained by one, they have not been convicted of a crime.

That's not the definition of 'innocent', and that argument extremely falls apart when the word 'bystander' isn't omitted.

Come on, you know what people are talking about when they say "innocent bystander".

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#576

Post by fny »

busymom0 wrote: post #562
fny wrote: post #321

I highly recommend people watch video from the trial--specifically the officer testimonies. It's absurd this lawsuit was even fit for trial.

> It's absurd this lawsuit was even fit for trial Is it just me or did the judge seemed biased towards the cops? He also dismissed Afroman's counter-suit.

Unfortunately, cops have the right to break down your door if the warrant warrants it--like having a sex dungeon.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#577

Post by stevenwoo »

chneu wrote: post #159
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…

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 only that but if they claim they were afraid for their life, that excuse is used to justify any action, which works short of admitting wrongdoing on video and in post incident interviews.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#578

Post by saltyoldman »

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…

Not many people watch them, but there are countless videos of police stops where it's not the police drawing a gun, but the driver of the car pulled over. Often it's not just pulled- it's aimed and fired. Some cops die, thankfully many get hit in the arm and it's non fatal.

It happens so much in the United States that you honestly can't blame the vast majority of at least being ready. That's not saying there aren't cops that are TOO ready and unclip the holster just walking up to the car.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#579

Post by whaleofatw2022 »

cortesoft wrote: post #285
EQmWgw87pw wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are we all just oblivious to the fact that in the US, civilians practically have access to military gear? How can you police that type of population with sticks and stones?

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…

... how do you know if they have a gun?

As a fun example I had a coworker who collected handguns. I once asked him how many he had and he asked for clarification, should he include unregistered?

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#580

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

giantg2 wrote: post #570
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police officers in court cases don't have to meet that standard until it established that they do not have qualified immunity. In vastly more than 9 out of 10 cases, they do, and thus that standard is completely irrelevant.

Qualified immunity only applies to civil cases, not criminal.

Most (not all) cases against police officers for excessive/fatal use of force are civil (typically civil rights violations).
Post reply on HN