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

581–590 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#581

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#582

Post by singleshot_ »

horacemorace wrote: post #466
EQmWgw87pw wrote: post #301

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. 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.

> They’re trained to shoot first and ask questions later.

If this was true, would you have survived?

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#583

Post by efreak »

hedora wrote: post #129
smt88 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

He’s willing to publicly criticize government corruption and child abuse, so there’s no way MAGA would accept him. (Both these stances came up in the defamation lawsuit and in the music video.) When he ran for president in 2024, he registered as an independent, “citing inflation, the housing market, law enforcement corruption, and legalizing marijuana as key campaign issues”. Even if he is ultra right wing on seconda…

The problem isn't finding people who will publicly criticize child abuse and government corruption. The problem is finding people who actually will do something about those specific problems and not find some way to enrich themselves (or their supporters) in their name instead.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#584

Post by adrr »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #528
adrr wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Roofing, I think, tends to be the most dangerous.

Depends how you define dangerous. If we look injury rates and not deaths, meat processing/packing is the most dangerous.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#585

Post by gwbas1c »

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.

The bits I watched were so captivating I had to take them off, otherwise I wouldn't be getting anything done this afternoon.

Honestly, someone could adapt it to a script and run it in a live theater.

Now I know what I'm watching tonight!

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#586

Post by watwut »

petesergeant wrote: post #268
ceejayoz wrote: post #137

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

In Britain, there is independent civilian investigation when cops kill a person. It creates pressure to not kill, because you wont be judged by buddies.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#587

Post by realo »

socalgal2 wrote: post #552
tsimionescu wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's aim for a max of once every year, then, over the entire USA. And once that's achieved, let's aim for once every few years. Once a decade should be good enough, you probably won't get better than that. The EU has a much bigger population than the USA, in a smaller space, and I'd bet they're already around this number.

The EU doesn't have armed criminals like the USA. The EU also doesn't have police being killed by criminals. It's close to 50 to 1.

Well... the sicilian mafia comes to mind... the french can be quite violent too... Western Europe is not so bad either, with guns.

I guess you mean "normal" non-criminal people in the EU are not allowed to have AR-15 assault rifles in their homes, that they can use if they have mental health issues.

I personally believe that is one of the reasons the USA has so much gun violence. Get rid of the guns in people's homes and things will change for the better.

I mean ... look at this ... Only in the USA!

https://dimages2.corriereobjects.it/files/image_572_429/uplo...

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#588

Post by fireflash38 »

giantg2 wrote: post #439
briffle wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

Oh good. So you'll still be dead, and they might get a reprimand. If you're lucky they'll lose their job.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#589

Post by watwut »

singleshot_ wrote: post #582
horacemorace wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> They’re trained to shoot first and ask questions later. If this was true, would you have survived?

They should not have guns out at all. Also, expectation on cops are super weirdly low.

Untrained random civilians encountering cops are supposed to have perfect sefl control. Supposedly trained professionals can be irresponsible, escalate for no reasom, risk others and shoot if they merely feel afraid - regardles of actual danger.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#590

Post by cucumber3732842 »

malfist wrote: post #440
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just tear the wall off a relevant party's house and then return it to the rental place.
Post reply on HN