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

671–680 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#671

Post by Henchman21 »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #261

They tell us over and over again that we should have no expectation of privacy or not being filmed in public. Well, IMO they should not have any expectation of privacy or not being filmed when on private property and conducting the work _that we pay for_. They work for us.

> They work for us.

Who are you trying to kid? Sorry this obviously got under my skin a bit, but it is standing legal doctrine that the police don't even have to protect us. Work for us? They extort money from municipalities all over the nation and call it a "budget". They straight up steal from us through "civil forfeiture". They are assumed innocent in court, even when demonstrably guilty of breaking our laws. They most certainly do not "work for us" unless you specifically are one of the 0.01%

Edit: I see this is discussed further down. I absolutely get the point being made, I just cannot let it slide. Enough internet for today.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#672

Post by phainopepla2 »

morserer wrote: post #566
stuffn wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I thought this was interesting, so I checked your sources > Insane take truly. First, CCW carriers are statistically the least likely to be involved in any kind of "violent life ending incident". Sure, you could argue this, with the exception of suicide, found guns (usually by kids in the home), and stolen guns. It's not just the person certified, it's everyone around them who can obtain access to the gun they now ow…

> It's the #1 cause of death for children since 2020.

This is only true because they include 18 and 19 year-olds as children. So while it's still awful, that stat is a bit misleading

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#673

Post by VHRanger »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #661
VHRanger wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, some egregious misuse of statistics! Murder is a byproduct of crime. Crime is, largely, downstream of economic conditions with some obvious caveats. New Hampshire has the 2nd lowest crime rate of the USA states. You could make the same argument for, say, Switzerland (high gun ownership but no crime/murder). But no one would be surprised if you had high gun ownership in Monaco. Similarly for the ethnic argument yo…

I don't think it's good to hold a misunderstand of the statistics against someone when (as in this case) they're so easy to read in a certain way. > the reason y'all have a bunch of shootings is that you have a bunch of guns to do shootings with Yet by your own admission poverty and inequality appear to account for the bulk of the effect. Actually I think you'll find that plenty of Americans will acknowledge the link…

Sure poverty explains crime, and murder is the ultimate crime.

That said, my point was that a place like Rio, where you feel alertness at a physiological level by the constant lack of security, still has a murder rate around Houston, a vastly richer and safer city.

And Brazil really is a good comparison in my opinion: the economic inequality is actually worse than in the USA, and they both have the slave holding history leading to concentrated poverty areas with high ethnic segregation

I don't personally think that the upsides of the US gun laws are worth anything near the downsides being paid.

Regarding the police, American police is notoriously prone to violence compared to other developed countries.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#674

Post by VHRanger »

mothballed wrote: post #655
VHRanger wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, some egregious misuse of statistics! Murder is a byproduct of crime. Crime is, largely, downstream of economic conditions with some obvious caveats. New Hampshire has the 2nd lowest crime rate of the USA states. You could make the same argument for, say, Switzerland (high gun ownership but no crime/murder). But no one would be surprised if you had high gun ownership in Monaco. Similarly for the ethnic argument yo…

Ah it seems you finally understand the point. Blaming the skin pigment is as silly as blaming the gun. Murder rates in US have very little to do with gun law, and they have very little to do with skin color, even though they're heavily correlated to the latter and weakly correlated to the former.

Of course within the USA the state levels laws will do little. There's free movement between states!

Compare the USA to Canada, where you can't bring a gun easily. You'll see Canadian murder rates being very low. Even controlling for similar factors at the city or neighborhood level.

Of course I'm blaming the gun: it's pretty hard to kill someone with other weapons. Stabbings are often survived, even.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#675

Post by tt24 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #221
tt24 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> This study seems unconvincing. We see that black drivers are pulled over more during the day - why does that necessarily mean that it’s due to their race? Because on the day time shifted an hour artificially due to daylight savings, the racial discrepancy moved by an hour, even though the sun physically didn't. (The alternative explanation is that black people all decide collectively to drive worse/better when dayl…

Neither your comment nor the article answers my question. There’s no evidence here that the discrepancy is due to race.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#676

Post by markdown »

embedding-shape wrote: post #644
markdown wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like swatting.

"an informant apparently testified to this and a judge approved it" sounds very far away from what I understand "swatting" to mean normally.

AFAIK we have no idea if an informant testified to it, or even if there was an informant. Cops claimed that someone had told them about it, and the judge signed the warrant.

Swatting is the action or practice of making a hoax call in an attempt to bring about the dispatch of a large number of armed police officers to a particular address"

Either there was an informant, and the false claim was made to a police officer, or there was not informant, and the cop made a false claim to the judge. Either way, the intent was to get cops to show up and screw with Afroman, and that goal was achieved.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#677

Post by SanjayMehta »

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…

Positive reinforcement from Hollywood movies and TV shows.

Maybe 50 years ago Dirty Harry was an exaggeration but now you have several generations of wannabe cops, cops and their bosses who grew up watching those stereotypes.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#678

Post by defrost »

markdown wrote: post #641
defrost wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia has more guns now, and more guns per capita, than it did at the time it almost unified all gun laws. It didn't "de-arm" - it brought all states and territories into near alignment on gun regulation. If you're interested I can link to good footage of my actual IRL neighbour shooting 24x24 inch targets at 5,000 yards, here in Australia. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE Alternatively you might be…

It significantly de-armed. Most importantly, Australia removed "self-defence" as a reason to own firearms. You have to be a farmer, hunter, or belong to a shooting club. While the number of guns increased, the number of gun owners dropped. And the new regulations enacted this year drop the number of guns one can own even more. There was a near-total ban on "military style" guns. See how the terrorists at the massacre…

> It significantly de-armed

In the sense that there are more private registered guns than ever before in Australia, sure.

> Most importantly, Australia removed "self-defence" as a reason to own firearms.

More importantly, it unified gun laws - before the Port Arthur shooting, Queensland, Tasmania, the Northern Territory, probably the Australian Capital Territory were all unregulated.

Unregulated states with no border control effectively made the entire Federation of States unregulated.

Regulated states, at least the ones that I lived in prior to Port Arthur, didn't have "self defence" as a reason for owning gun - it was always about hunting, feral control, specific security (regularly carrying money) etc.

The last I checked, the emphasis was more on where you intended to use / carry a gun; shooting club (common), carry for security in street (rare), rural (property owner or have letter of authority to shoot from a property owner).

> There was a near-total ban on "military style" guns.

Sure .. they serve no real purpose, the only activity that requires high fire rates and larger magazines is pig shooting, maybe camel control, and rat shooting.

Rats can be shot with professional BB guns .. a better choice when shooting in sheds, silos, etc - no spark or risk of punching holes in tin walls.

If you're pig shooting in bulk, that's a contract shooting licence.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#679

Post by tantalor »

snackbroken wrote: post #637
tantalor wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think comment was alleging perjury. They do know the statement is true (and this is provable). Pretending like they "don't know" is a lie under oath.

That wasn't actually what I was implying. Just that if the plaintiff isn't even willing to assert that the statements were false, what are you wasting the court's time for? > He falsely claimed my wife is cheating on me! > So you assert that your wife didn't cheat on you? > No. > ???

Technically, the burden of proof is on the defendant.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#680

Post by tt24 »

defrost wrote: post #615
tt24 wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there evidence to support the claim that, more often than not, a given cop is a white supremacist?

> more often than not, Again, that's _not_ the upthread claim made by somebody other than myself, a non-US read along. Still, IIRC the US UCLA has written much on the matter, so perhaps start there if you're interested.

What has the UCLA written that agrees with this claim?

> They also falsely stated that the officers are “white supremacists,”

> Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption.

Post reply on HN