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

591–600 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#591

Post by smt88 »

nazgulsenpai wrote: post #227
smt88 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Even if this were true, are we really so far gone in the political discourse that we can't appreciate a win as Americans because of the perceived political orientation of the recipient? I think the answer is yes, but I still naively hold out hope that we can eventually move beyond this.

I didn't say I don't appreciate a win. I was saying that Afroman isn't a crusader for freedom or anything of the sort. We can appreciate the win without glorifying the victim of the case beyond the scope of the case.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#592

Post by ToucanLoucan »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #575
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

> That's not the definition of 'innocent'

No, it's the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and even if you'd like to craft a scenario next where we're going to talk about Officer Friendly stopping a rape-in-progress, yes, that person is almost certainly guilty, AND the punishment for that crime is usually not death, AND the cornerstone of our justice system says that the officer in question, no matter how pure of heart he might be, cannot exact a death sentence on a clearly guilty person because that is not how justice works.

A cop killing ANYONE, be they a bystander, or a suspect, or an assailant, should be RARE. It should be notable.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#593

Post by BobaFloutist »

roryirvine wrote: post #487
petesergeant wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ra…

The one thing I'll say in defense of American cops is that they are police a population that's vastly more likely to have their own guns, too.

Of course it's not like American cops have recognized the danger that poses and politically aligned themselves with reducing or restricting access to guns, so they lose a lot of credit there, but they are genuinely facing a better armed and therefore more dangerous population.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#594

Post by lovich »

jimt1234 wrote: post #397
bobsh wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It started after the Iraq war. They got Hummers and vets.

A childhood friend's dad was a cop for 25 years; retired in the mid-90s. He never shot his gun, and only unholstered once in his entire cop career. My friend followed his dad, also became a cop in the exact same district; he's getting ready to retire. He's unholstered his gun countless times. He says he's shot at numerous people in his career, and even killed one dude. I once asked him what the difference was between…

Your friends a liar or has fallen for the propaganda if he tells you crime has gotten worse. Other than a brief blip during Covid it’s been trending steadily down for decades.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#595

Post by throwaway27448 »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #462
throwaway27448 wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Billed to the public, too.

Adams County paid for their civil suit???

> Foreman was sued by the Adams County Sheriff’s Office

I presume this isn't coming out of the officers' paychecks....

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#596

Post by gus_massa »

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?

"Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to kill"

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#597

Post by aeternum »

wffurr wrote: post #500
aeternum wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will be a controversial opinion but I think some escalation by police is warranted. The reality is there are aggressive people in society that have a tendency to escalate things. If police are trained to only de-escalate, it removes a powerful check on aggressive escalation. The second order effect is an increase in events like people being pushed onto train tracks, glass bottles being thrown if you glance the w…

I don't think you understand what "de-escalation" is. It's not ignoring antisocial behavior or failing to confront people.

I'm not claiming that de-escalation implies ignoring antisocial behavior or failing to confront.

I'm claiming that some antisocial behavior is only triggered by some degree of escalation.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#598

Post by skupig »

GiorgioG wrote: post #309
hliyan wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only your country operated on the Peelian principles of policing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles Relevant fictional quote: There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people. - William Adama

In the US police have no obligation to protect the people.

This was downvoted so I'm not sure people realize that no, literally, the police have no obligation to help you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzale... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree#L...

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#599

Post by michaelmrose »

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…

The stereotype is probably if anything less horrible than the reality. There was a notable situation where police were called because 12 year old Tamir Rice was walking whilst black with a bb gun. The officer exited the passenger side of the cop car so fast it was still moving when he jumped out. He immediately fired and executed the little kid. Despite the horror of the situation this is what would be colloquially termed a "good shoot" and officers faced no legal consequences.

Despite officer being 25th on the list of most dangerous professions falling below construction helper and farmer officers are trained as if they are going to war and equipped with many of the same toys. They are taught to prioritize preserving their lives over those they are supposed to protect.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#600

Post by parineum »

ceejayoz wrote: post #574
parineum wrote: post #543

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 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.

It's safe to assume you won't get in an accident.

You _should_ buckle your seatbelt anyway because it's low effort, high reward in the unlikely case you get in an accident.

Post reply on HN