Afroman found not liable in defamation case • Hacker News Board

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#741

Post by Shocka1 » Fri, Mar 20, 2026, 2:21 PM UTC

arnonejoe wrote: post #492

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…

It’s disturbing. I sometimes wonder what would happen if I were pulled over and my window and door is closed. If I reach for the door handle will the cop think I’m reaching for gun? Do wait for him to scream at me through the window? How do I keep from things escalating? Is there a place in the US where the cops aren’t totally insane? SF? Santa Barbara? Maybe Marin County?

This place is out of control. It's not sane to think that every police encounter is going to be violent. And yes, there are different areas than California. Do you have a chance to be treated poorly or rudely by a police officer? Of course. Is that going to be all the time? Of course not.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#742

Post by ceejayoz » Fri, Mar 20, 2026, 2:34 PM UTC

tt24 wrote: post #675

ceejayoz wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Sure. The cops just mysteriously act differently across tens of thousands of stops across the country when the sun goes down and they can't see the car's occupants, in a way verfiably tied to the sun and not the clock time.

I do appreciate the proof you're not discussing in good faith.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#743

Post by Henchman21 » Fri, Mar 20, 2026, 2:57 PM UTC

slyall wrote: post #710

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.

So what happens to all the other cops that believe that but don't say it?

The same thing that happens to the folks that say it out loud now. Absolutely nothing.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#744

Post by LightBug1 » Fri, Mar 20, 2026, 3:18 PM UTC

embedding-shape wrote: post #23

quietsegfault wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly recommend watching the video that made the other cop cry.

Licc’em Low Lisa - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wWQxSV8CK8 (NSFW, depending on your workplace)

Oh my ... that is just gold ...

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#745

Post by Shocka1 » Fri, Mar 20, 2026, 3:18 PM UTC

maest wrote: post #418

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first thing you described is an insult.

No, an insult implies insolence, rudeness, condescension, insensitivity. You can communicate a dim view of someone without being rude.

> You can communicate a dim view of someone without being rude.

I would agree in theory, but whom is the judge of whether communicating that dim view is an insult or not?

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#746

Post by Manuel_D » Fri, Mar 20, 2026, 3:28 PM UTC

roryirvine wrote: post #617

BobaFloutist wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To be fair, guns aren't exactly unknown in NI, either! There are 153k people who have legal firearms (so about 10% of the adult population, vs about three times that in the US). That's largely farmers with shotgun licenses (NI is pretty rural by European standards) plus licensed "weapons for personal protection" for people exposed to threats for whatever reason as a legacy of the Troubles. And then there are some unk…

Is it legal to carry firearms concealed in Northern Ireland? It's not the presence of guns in a guns safe that makes policing more dangerous, it's the fact the a sizeable chunk of the American public is actively carrying firearms.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#747

Post by hermanzegerman » Fri, Mar 20, 2026, 3:36 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #704

waysa wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Germany sometimes bans entire political parties You make it sound like Germany bans political parties every other year. Germany formally only ever banned two parties: - Socialist Reich Party (SRP), 1952 - Communist Party of Germany (KPD), 1956 For context: The Federal Republic of Germany was founded in 1949. There are current discussions about banning - or evaluating a potential ban of - the Alternative für Deutsch…

That’s just an example. Germany’s censorship (a violation of human rights to peaceful free expression) doesn’t just stop at political parties. The fact that they are even discussing a ban of AfD shows how ridiculously dangerous such powers are when held by the state. The AfD is disgusting but until and unless they take up arms, speech is speech. “First they came for the racists, and I didn’t speak up because I was no…

Many state AfD Organisations are classified as Right Extremists that want to violate our constitution, that's because they discussed concrete plans of violating constitutional rights of citizens.

We already experienced what happens when you don't stop antidemocratic parties, and we don't want to run the experiment another time.

It astounds me that you don't understand this simple concept.

Also the US Administration currently is a beacon of free speech, threatening senators with the death penalty for reminding officers that they don't have to comply with unlawful orders

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#748

Post by drdeca » Fri, Mar 20, 2026, 3:37 PM UTC

vostrocity wrote: post #559

drdeca wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see why any of those should be exonerating? Also, I feel like “nothing wrong if it does happen” regarding shooting someone, is the wrong perspective. If shooting someone is necessary, then it is necessary, but that doesn’t mean nothing went wrong. Anytime someone gets shot is a time something has gone wrong.

So if someone threatens to kill you and your family, and you shoot them, something has gone wrong? I'd say something has gone right.

Yes, something has gone wrong: someone threatened to kill me and my family, and apparently the only way to stop them from doing so was to kill them. That may be the best option available, but it is still a tragedy.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#749

Post by aeternum » Fri, Mar 20, 2026, 3:38 PM UTC

bjoli wrote: post #719

aeternum wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's a good question.

It would be violent crime trend correlation with de-escalation training. Or even with complaints of police aggression.

Even more useful would be to separate out assault + battery where the victim is random vs. non-random, IE domestic or gang.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#750

Post by roryirvine » Fri, Mar 20, 2026, 4:12 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #746

roryirvine wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, guns aren't exactly unknown in NI, either! There are 153k people who have legal firearms (so about 10% of the adult population, vs about three times that in the US). That's largely farmers with shotgun licenses (NI is pretty rural by European standards) plus licensed "weapons for personal protection" for people exposed to threats for whatever reason as a legacy of the Troubles. And then there are some unk…

Is it legal to carry firearms concealed in Northern Ireland? It's not the presence of guns in a guns safe that makes policing more dangerous, it's the fact the a sizeable chunk of the American public is actively carrying firearms.

Yes, at least for personal protection weapons. And, obviously, the unlicensed users (ie. members of dissident gangs) won't care whether it's legal or not.

PPW holders will be people who have had specific, verifiable threats made against their lives - so will often be people with links to violence, terrorism, or criminality. And, obviously, the unlicensed users are criminals by definition.

So, on balance, the average weapons owner in NI is probably more dangerous than the equivalent in the US. I do agree that it's hard to make anything more than a very general comparison between the two very different situations, however.