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

781–790 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#781

Post by bean469 »

akimbostrawman wrote: post #725
bean469 wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 instru…

You can but you absolutely should not try just because you can in training, its a last resort when it too late and all other options are not possible.

> You can but you absolutely should not try just because you can in training

For incapable civilians like me - absolutely. But I expect more from police officers than from myself when it comes to non-lethal disarming capabilities

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#782

Post by akimbostrawman »

mindslight wrote: post #765
akimbostrawman wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

>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.

It very much does. Cops are humans if they see you know how to behave instead of making there job harder they will notice and appreciate that.

>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)

Only if it's too dark to see, so once again help them to help yourself and turn on the light inside the car. If these simple instructions are too hard to follow you shouldn't be driving in the first place.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#783

Post by akimbostrawman »

bean469 wrote: post #781
akimbostrawman wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can but you absolutely should not try just because you can in training, its a last resort when it too late and all other options are not possible.

> You can but you absolutely should not try just because you can in training For incapable civilians like me - absolutely. But I expect more from police officers than from myself when it comes to non-lethal disarming capabilities

>But I expect more from police officers than from myself when it comes to non-lethal disarming capabilities

It's asinine to expect someone to put there life in danger for little to no benefit just because they are trained for it and there is a chance it might go well instead of certain death.

If someone comes at someone with a knife (which is deadly force), they should expect to be met with equal or more force, this isn't some game with retries. Others don't have to go along your stupid games just because you drag them into them. Play stupid games win stupid prices.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#784

Post by bean469 »

akimbostrawman wrote: post #783
bean469 wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can but you absolutely should not try just because you can in training For incapable civilians like me - absolutely. But I expect more from police officers than from myself when it comes to non-lethal disarming capabilities

>But I expect more from police officers than from myself when it comes to non-lethal disarming capabilities It's asinine to expect someone to put there life in danger for little to no benefit just because they are trained for it and there is a chance it might go well instead of certain death. If someone comes at someone with a knife (which is deadly force), they should expect to be met with equal or more force, this…

> It's asinine to expect someone to put there life in danger for little to no benefit just because they are trained for it and there is a chance it might go well instead of certain death.

Whether it's asinine or not depends on context. Where I live, it is expected for police officers to protect you with their lives from a lethal threat if necessary, both legally and socially, and failure to commit to that means that you shouldn't be a cop

For the US, I think that the Uvalde shooting revealed a lot about what people actually expect from cops in life threatening situations, never mind what they are legally obligated to do

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#785

Post by mindslight »

akimbostrawman wrote: post #782
mindslight wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

>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. It very much does. Cops are humans if they see you know how to behave instead of making there job harder they will notice and appreciate that. >Furthermore they're also generally pointing a bright spot light directly at you, destroying your awareness and rui…

> making there job harder they will notice and appreciate that

Their comfort is not safety. Your original claim was that this had something to do with safety.

> these simple instructions

What "instructions" ? You have no authority to issue instructions that others must [0] follow. And if the cop hasn't gotten to the vehicle yet, then they haven't credibly given instructions (orders). So there are no relevant "instructions" here.

The reality is that the police officer is the party aggressing to create a confrontational situation. Therefore they are responsible for managing that situation. This includes not capriciously harming individuals who are acting reasonably but perhaps inconveniently. As I said, if they cannot handle their job of being public servants, then they have no business being in a position of authority over the public in the first place.

[0] "must" being implied by your general position of "[then] you shouldn't be driving in the first place" and the fact that similar "instructions" are often trotted out as a justification after the police kill somebody.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#786

Post by johnnyanmac »

lIl-IIIl wrote: post #649
ceejayoz wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let’s bring data: > Source: ChatGPT Please tell me this is a joke?

I agree and have the same reaction, but I also wonder how long before we accept "ChatGPT" source like we do Wikipedia. For ChatGpt answers we reasonably expect to cite actual sources rather than "Source: ChatGPT". For Wikipedia, most of us just stop at "Source: Wikipedia".

I'm not most people. You spend enough time in the "talk" section and you realize that Wikipedia is every bit as vulnerable to propaganda as Facebook or Twitter.

It's decent enough for high level technical explanation, but anything opinionistic needs to follow the source trails.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#787

Post by johnnyanmac »

watwut wrote: post #589
singleshot_ wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They’re trained to shoot first and ask questions later. If this was true, would you have survived?

They should not have guns out at all. Also, expectation on cops are super weirdly low. Untrained random civilians encountering cops are supposed to have perfect sefl control. Supposedly trained professionals can be irresponsible, escalate for no reasom, risk others and shoot if they merely feel afraid - regardles of actual danger.

As that woman said out loud in the video: "preservation of the pecking order" .

You start asking questions like this and it becomes clear how we voted in the current administration. We spent generations structuring around such buly mentality.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#788

Post by johnnyanmac »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #471
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 had a rifle pointed at me about a week after I got my first car, because I accidentally drove on the wrong side of the median. Guns are definitely pulled way more often by the police than they should be. but to your point I am okay with cops shooting anyone brandishing a knife or any other deadly weapon.

Was the couch brandishing a weapon?

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#789

Post by johnnyanmac »

HanClinto wrote: post #535
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…

I'm amazed at the number of people who are answering "this is just the way that it is in America". I don't live in Adams County, but they are our direct neighbors here in rural southwest Ohio. We like Afroman over here. :) I think the answer to your question is the warrant that they were serving involved kidnapping and an alleged torture dungeon along with drug trafficking charges. Yes, it may sound ridiculous on the…

>but an informant apparently testified to this and a judge approved it, so that's the warrant they were serving.

And will they face repercussions for such an obviously false lead? You need a lot more than an "informant" to verify a search warrant. Especially under a local celebrity who has all kinds of people out there who want to harass them.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#790

Post by johnnyanmac »

Tostino wrote: post #389
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's how the police in America operate now; even for the most common interactions w/the public. You cannot generalize police forces across the entire country that way. I've never had such an interaction with a police officer, presumably because the police department in my city is run better than that.

That's lucky. My county sheriff implemented predictive policing [1] until they were forced to stop because of many constitutional violations. 1. https://ij.org/press-release/case-closed-pasco-sheriff-admit...

Wow. I know people are talking about how they are using 1984 as an instruction manual. But I'd hope we wouldn't be stupid enough to try and re=enact The Minority Report , especially without the Sci fi psychic humans.
Post reply on HN