> Foreman was sued by the Adams County Sheriff’s Office over a drug search at his home in August 2022 that resulted in no criminal charges.
This is a mad sentence.
Afroman found not liable in defamation case
761–770 of 798 posts
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#762Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they serve no real purpose, the only activity that requires high fire rates and larger magazines ... Did the Australian ban of "military style" rifles include a blanket clause that covers all semi-automatic fire? Or is it an almost entirely aesthetic category as it tends to be whenever such measures are proposed in the US? When it comes to automatic fire there's a rather famous US case where someone was ultimately…
From what I understand most semi-auto guns are banned in Australia, but of course they never had a ton of those to start with. But there are still plenty of pump action, lever action, bolt action, etc guns which aren't meaningfully less capable. Shooting twice as fast doesn't mean you can kill twice as fast because you can't aim twice as fast. Like the majority of guns Afgan insurgents had were 60 year old bolt-actio…
> but of course they never had a ton of those to start with.
Really? The vast majority of weapons in the US are semi-auto so I find this difficult to believe.
> the majority of guns Afgan insurgents had were 60 year old bolt-actions
Were they? I would expect they were AK-47 and similar although I've never looked into it.
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#763Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not even the most dangerous job in the US. Forest workers, commercial fishermen, pilots etc are more dangerous. If we're talking about gun violence, your corner market cashier is more likely to get shot, Has anyone thanked a 7 eleven worker for their sacrifice thas you can get a slurpee at 2am?
I don't think you can use this datapoint for this purpose. Cops are employing the paranoid strategies already, so there's no way to discern between 'these strategies are needless' and 'these strategies are effective'.
You could probably do a comparison between jurisdictions where police homicides are common and jurisdictions where they aren't common. Assuming that there are cultural factors anyway.
Like sure, areas with higher rates of criminal violence will probably have more police homicides, but it's likely enough that you can pair things up based on rates of criminal violence.
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#764Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I understand most semi-auto guns are banned in Australia, but of course they never had a ton of those to start with. But there are still plenty of pump action, lever action, bolt action, etc guns which aren't meaningfully less capable. Shooting twice as fast doesn't mean you can kill twice as fast because you can't aim twice as fast. Like the majority of guns Afgan insurgents had were 60 year old bolt-actio…
> but of course they never had a ton of those to start with. Really? The vast majority of weapons in the US are semi-auto so I find this difficult to believe. > the majority of guns Afgan insurgents had were 60 year old bolt-actions Were they? I would expect they were AK-47 and similar although I've never looked into it.
> so I find this difficult to believe.
Extrapolating from experience in the USofA to other countries in the world is generally not a good move.
The actual numbers, from the time, suggest maybe 10-15% of guns in Australia were "self loading"
( 20% of guns purchased back, not all were semi-automatic, a good many were old unwanted guns that now faced a registration fee if kept )
From a US academic type study that looked at the Australian (and other) gun buyback scheme post Port Arthur.
Between 1996 and 1997,643,726 prohibited firearms were handed in.
Prices were set to reflect "fair value" (market value). Individuals with permits could also turn in firearms that they had failed to register.
Total public expenditures were about $A320 million ($U.S. 230 million33), approximately $A500 ($U.S. 359) per gun. The buyback program was financed by an additional 0.2 percent levy on national health insurance.
Estimates of the total stock of guns were few and drew on limited survey data.
Estimates ranged as high as 11 million, but the high figures had no known provenance. Gun Control Australia cited a figure of about 4.25 million, building on the only academic estimate, then roughly twenty years old.
The most targeted population survey of gun ownership was conducted by Newspoll; the resulting estimate was approximately 2.5 million firearms in 1997, after the gun buyback.
If that is approximately correct, it suggests that there were about 3.2 million firearms in 1996 and that the buyback led to the removal of approximately 20 percent of the total stock.
In U.S. terms that would be equivalent to the removal of 40 million firearms
( Note: I skimmed it, it looks more or less okay, several things caught my eye as problematic but the above passage looks pretty ballpark.
Further: I'm having busy days ATM - if I can claw out the time I might loop back to give a longer comment / reply to your upthread question(s) )
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#765Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
While this is certainly pragmatic advice, we should not normalize it for "what ought" to be. It should not be an individual's job to act perfectly (while being assaulted!) to compensate for police officers' (supposed professionals!) inability to remain in control of their emotions and properly judge what is going on. A police officer who is unable to remain in control in such situations should not be doing traffic stops (or really any interaction with the public) in the first place.
(Also there are some mistakes in your framing. For a regular motorist who isn't planning on attacking the police officer, putting your hands on the steering wheel does nothing to effect the officer's safety. We're talking about a point before they've given you any orders beyond signalling you to pull over, so there is nothing to follow. Furthermore they're also generally pointing a bright spot light directly at you, destroying your awareness and ruining your judgement, so it's reasonable to expect that orders are going to be followed sluggishly and imperfectly)
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#766Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[deleted]
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#767Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I had a look around and there is very little actual ecidence for detrimental effects. Most things seems to be exaggerations by politicians who want to be tough on crime.
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#768Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Uvalde was the moment my hopes for the future of this country died. The parents there voted to reelect the same people who stood around and let a solitary madman murder their children just a little while later.
To be fair, OK is rock bottom in things like literacy rankings and likely income as well. Something like that would not have gone over will in New Jersey. US is a patchwork quilt of very different places.
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#769Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a common argument that’s basically a fallacy. Many of those dangerous jobs are dangerous because of human error. So it’s funny that you think 60% of deaths being on purpose is normal, what other job in the dangerous top 10 has 60% intentional deaths? Like seriously?
> So it’s funny They didn’t say it’s funny. If you have something meaningful to say, then say it. Don’t twist someone else’s words instead. > human error Choosing to train police to act with an “warrior mindset” instead of training for de-escalation seems like it could be classified as human error, too.
I didn’t say that they said it’s funny. I was saying it’s funny. You just twisted my words.
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#770Earlier quoted context omitted.
The relevance is that you don’t need to assume that the knife wielding person can hit you from a distance. One way or the other, this doesn’t seem to be a problem in other countries.
Pulling a percentage out of my ass that can't be terribly inaccurate, 99% of police encounters with guns drawn the police are under 21 ft away, at which distance a knife is as dangerous as a gun. If someone is less than 21 ft from you and they are going to be using a knifes against you, then you should still draw a gun just as often as if they had a gun. So at <21 ft you think guns should be drawn less because they h…
I'm glad you're making this point. It's something that only people trained in combat would know, and it's very non-intuitive. But it has to do with reaction times, how quickly the person wielding the gun can pull the trigger, and how quickly the person wielding the knife can move. That 21 feet can close blindingly fast.