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

681–690 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#681

Post by dehrmann »

wnoise wrote: post #666
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If he had used bodycam footage, then you get into interesting copyright laws Not that interesting. The US government cannot create copyrighted works. Works created by the government are public domain. This is why Ghidra (made by the NSA), for example, has a really odd license, where the parts written by the government are "not subject to U.S. copyright protections under 17 U.S.C.", whereas future contributions by t…

I knew that about the feds, but does it also apply to the states?

I think most states don't consider it public domain.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#682

Post by dogemaster2025 »

cortesoft wrote: post #664
dogemaster2025 wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Then you shouldn't be a police officer. We can't have a society where police shoot first and ask questions later just because they want to make sure there is zero risk to them.

[flagged]

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#683

Post by dogemaster2025 »

cortesoft wrote: post #664
dogemaster2025 wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Then you shouldn't be a police officer. We can't have a society where police shoot first and ask questions later just because they want to make sure there is zero risk to them.

[flagged]

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#684

Post by dogemaster2025 »

cortesoft wrote: post #664
dogemaster2025 wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Then you shouldn't be a police officer. We can't have a society where police shoot first and ask questions later just because they want to make sure there is zero risk to them.

[flagged]

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#685

Post by dogemaster2025 »

cortesoft wrote: post #664
dogemaster2025 wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Then you shouldn't be a police officer. We can't have a society where police shoot first and ask questions later just because they want to make sure there is zero risk to them.

[flagged]

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#686

Post by dogemaster2025 »

cortesoft wrote: post #664
dogemaster2025 wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Then you shouldn't be a police officer. We can't have a society where police shoot first and ask questions later just because they want to make sure there is zero risk to them.

[flagged]

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#687

Post by therobots927 »

jmyeet wrote: post #453
postalcoder wrote: post #41

It gives me immeasurable delight seeing afroman at the top of HN. Love me some freedom, sweet soulful music, and pie in the face of bad cops. Dang/Tom, please don't downrank this. America needs this win.

I love the Afroman story so much. Everything about it. It does more to expose just how incompetent, entitled and corrupt the average cop really is, something I wish was better known. The cops who brought this suit are basically the biggest crybabies, are too dumb to realize it and too entitled to realize that others wouldn't see it that way. It's fantastic. Compare this to policing in Japan [1]: > Koban cops go to ex…

Uvalde should’ve been the nail in the coffin for the thin blue liners. Turns out, not only do they not have a problem with cops murdering black people, they also have no problem with them standing by while their own kids are shot inside a school.

Hell of a death cult this country has turned into.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#688

Post by phatskat »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #505
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. In which case, they should spend the rest of their life in a high-security psychiatric hospital. They're obviously too mentally fragile to be allowed out in the world.

To some degree this is how they’re trained, and imo the people doing the training also need some form of repercussions - if you haven’t before, check out some information on the courses that are (were?) taught to precincts across the country: Killology. Yes, that’s the literal name.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#689

Post by gnerd00 »

underlipton wrote: post #283
SaltyBackendGuy wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common archetype when people get challenged (escalation of commitment), they effectively double down. I don't necessarily think it was racially motivated (but also don't doubt that it could have been).

American institutions were set-up prima facie to be racially-motivated. Explicit references have been removed, but a lot of the structural elements that supported those explicit references remain. I know many people recoil at the idea, because it seems like an affront to their personal self-image and the national ethos (or at least its marketing), but I generally hold that if an institution acts in a way that's consi…

> American institutions were set-up prima facie to be racially-motivated

the history of the United States is a collection of States and territories, forming under very different legal conditions over 100+ years or so.. that blanket statement is without context or detail aka insufficient.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#690

Post by giantg2 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #468
giantg2 wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the outcome of the lawsuits against the agencies? You don't have to win a suit against an individual. Most of the big payouts have to come from the cities. Here are a bunch going the other way. https://policefundingdatabase.org/explore-the-database/settl... I never said that qualified immunity wasn't an issue, just that there tends to be more protections when use of force is involved than with property.

> Most of the big payouts have to come from the cities. In other words, from the victimized populace . I think a cop who steals seized evidence should be personally liable to the person they stole from. (…and I'd note "v. City of Wichita" is clearly responsive to your question.)

"In other words, from the victimized populace."

Sadly, yes. They're also the populace that voted for that leadership. There are many leaders of major cities that continually push policies that are highly probably to result in legal action due to their conflict with existing law and case law. I don't like it, but its true.

Post reply on HN