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

711–720 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#711

Post by cwillu »

socalgal2 wrote: post #473
danlitt wrote: post #407

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. What does the default have to do with it? We are already not in the default situation. Interacting with police at all is not the default! If you mean to say something like "it's not likely" or "they're not doing it in unreasonable cases" then your anecdote is not relevant. > And why would someone threatening…

> Innocent bystanders are regularly killed by police discharging guns False. Innocent bystanders are killed by police discharging guns, but rarely. And, while the goal should be zero, it will never be zero

> And, while the goal should be zero, it will never be zero

Why the fuck not?

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#712

Post by bean469 »

Henchman21 wrote: post #669
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."

That should be immediately disqualifying for an law enforcement officer. Saying that on the record should end their career immediately. Alas, we don't live in a just world and they will likely be continuously promoted.

Although just anecdata, I have heard the exact same point from US cops numerous times in private conversations

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#713

Post by dogemaster2025 »

Anvoker wrote: post #698
dogemaster2025 wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

By accepting that valuing the life of a cop over a criminal is a good reason for American cops to behave the way they do, what you end up encouraging instead is cops valuing their own lives over those of citizens to a shocking extent.

But this is not unreasonable. You value your life more than you value mine. And we are equal. But criminals are not equal to us.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#714

Post by dogemaster2025 »

snakeboy wrote: post #646
dogemaster2025 wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Do you have different data or you just don’t like the numbers? - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts... - https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/guns-an... - https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2025001/article...

I fail to understand why you cited ChatGPT in the first comment instead of just linking the sources in the first place. That was obviously the critique of your comment, and it seems bad-faith to claim it was because they "just don't like the numbers".

[flagged]

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#715

Post by bean469 »

mothballed wrote: post #658
tverbeure wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And one way or the other, none of that is a problem is other countries.

I don't dispute that. But in most those 'other countries' literally anyone could be hiding a knife as easily as someone in US could be hiding a gun. So it appears in the vast majority of the cases where people are already right next to each other where both a knife or gun could kill someone, whether it is a knife or a gun is almost a moot point. It's only at a distance that you can treat a knife as a less lethal thre…

A knife is not equivalent to a gun. One is a kitchen appliance that can be used as a rather ineffective weapon, the other is a tool literally designed for eliminating life as efficiently as possible

Disarming someone who poses a threat with a knife (especially via the use of modern equipment) is absolutely possible and can be performed in most cases with training, even with just one officer. Meanwhile, disarming someone with a gun is a much more complex task, often requiring a coordinated effort from multiple officers

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#716

Post by akimbostrawman »

bean469 wrote: post #715
mothballed wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't dispute that. But in most those 'other countries' literally anyone could be hiding a knife as easily as someone in US could be hiding a gun. So it appears in the vast majority of the cases where people are already right next to each other where both a knife or gun could kill someone, whether it is a knife or a gun is almost a moot point. It's only at a distance that you can treat a knife as a less lethal thre…

A knife is not equivalent to a gun. One is a kitchen appliance that can be used as a rather ineffective weapon, the other is a tool literally designed for eliminating life as efficiently as possible Disarming someone who poses a threat with a knife (especially via the use of modern equipment) is absolutely possible and can be performed in most cases with training, even with just one officer. Meanwhile, disarming some…

>a knife (especially via the use of modern equipment) is absolutely possible and can be performed in most cases with training

I want to see you attempt that in real life when someone is within 21 feet. If you watched enough training videos and the literal flood of body camera videos that show even tasers are more often than not infective you would not speak so conveniently about a split second life or death situation.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#717

Post by akimbostrawman »

t-3 wrote: post #430
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?

I got pulled over in Cleveland and had a cop point a gun at me and threaten to shoot - I was apparently wearing the wrong color on the wrong side of town with out-of-state plates and reached for my ID instead of waiting for the cop to tell me to get it. In later stops I've been admonished many times for not preemptively getting out my ID, but I really can't help thinking about almost getting my brains blown out for g…

Hands on the steering wheel for your and the officers safety until they ask you to do something. It really is not that difficult you can always just ask. Legally speaking a traffic stop means you are detained = follow orders.

They don't know you or what you could be capable off.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#718

Post by tomhow »

drsalt wrote: post #697
Henchman21 wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That should be immediately disqualifying for an law enforcement officer. Saying that on the record should end their career immediately. Alas, we don't live in a just world and they will likely be continuously promoted.

[flagged]

This kind of comment is unacceptable on HN. It breaches these guidelines...

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

Please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them in future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#719

Post by bjoli »

aeternum wrote: post #597
wffurr wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wonder what you base this on. What would statistics backing this up look like?

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#720

Post by bean469 »

akimbostrawman wrote: post #716
bean469 wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A knife is not equivalent to a gun. One is a kitchen appliance that can be used as a rather ineffective weapon, the other is a tool literally designed for eliminating life as efficiently as possible Disarming someone who poses a threat with a knife (especially via the use of modern equipment) is absolutely possible and can be performed in most cases with training, even with just one officer. Meanwhile, disarming some…

>a knife (especially via the use of modern equipment) is absolutely possible and can be performed in most cases with training I want to see you attempt that in real life when someone is within 21 feet. If you watched enough training videos and the literal flood of body camera videos that show even tasers are more often than not infective you would not speak so conveniently about a split second life or death situation…

> I want to see you attempt that in real life when someone is within 21 feet

Sadly I did not film it, but you could have been! I have attended multiple classes during which I had to disarm people with knives and other weird objects. It is absolutely possible with the right circumstances and training, but it's a completely different story when it comes to guns - the element of luck is much more meaningful, as a instructor who was shot quite a few times in their career has pointed out

Post reply on HN