5 ms·

This is not some footage issue, there apparently was a smear campaign online. FTFA: > After making the music video, Foreman allegedly continued putting up soc

by junaru 7mo ago

This is not some footage issue, there apparently was a smear campaign online. FTFA: > After making the music video, Foreman allegedly continued putting up social media posts with names of the officers involved, the lawsuit states. > Several of the posts allegedly falsely claimed that the cops “stole my money” and were “criminals disguised as law enforcement,” according to the suit. > They also falsely stated that the officers are “white supremacists,” that Officer Brian Newman “used to do hard drugs” before “snitching” on his friends, and that Officer Lisa Phillips is “biologically male,” according to the lawsuit.

ceejayoz 7mo ago
> falsely claimed that the cops “stole my money” That appears to have happened; they're claiming it was a miscount. > were “criminals disguised as law enforcement,” Seems fair. (And opinion, which can't be defamation.) > They also falsely stated that the officers are “white supremacists,” Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption. I'd note that the jury found Afroman not liable on all these.
- tt24 7mo ago
  > They also falsely stated that the officers are “white supremacists,” > Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption. Interesting, is there a source or some data you’re aware of that suggests that it’s a statistically safe assumption?
  - ceejayoz 7mo ago
    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-i...
    - tt24 7mo ago
      Where in this article does it suggest that it’s a statistically safe assumption that most cops are white supremacists?
      - kstrauser 7mo ago
        Behold, the sea lion in its native habitat.
        tt24 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        Retric 7mo ago
        No, you ignored evidence presented while failing to provide any of your own. Evidence has no minimum standard in debate, you can only provide more compelling evidence to the contrary.
        tt24 7mo ago
        Sorry, that's not how this works. Claims must be supported by evidence. I didn't ignore it, I reviewed it and explained how it doesn't support the claim. I have no obligation to provide evidence to the contrary. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
        Retric 7mo ago
        Court cases look at things like when someone arrives in a city as evidence, that alone doesn’t make someone more likely to have done whatever than a million other people, but it’s still evidence. So you dismissed it, but it is in fact evidence that there were white supremests just as your post is evidence you are a serial killer. It’s not poof after all you could be a bot. But out off all humans who ever lived 95% of them can’t be a serial killer because they are dead, that post is evidence you where alive recently therefore it is evidence that you are vastly more likely than the average person who have ever lived to be a serial killer. Again as apposed to a dead person who at most could be a former serial killer. Thus demonstrating that evidence isn’t the same thing as strong evidence just something that increases the likelihood of something being true.
        7mo ago
    - parineum 7mo ago
      You understand that white supremacist groups existing as cops doesn't make the majority of cops white supremacists, right? I'd hate to see someone use this kind of bad logic when deciding who is a criminal.
      - ceejayoz 7mo ago
        > I'd hate to see someone use this kind of bad logic when deciding who is a criminal. Oh dear. I have bad news about cops.
        parineum 7mo ago
        Which is, apparently, a strategy you wholly endorse.
        pear01 7mo ago
        People walking around with guns and badges should be held to the highest of standards. Suggesting an equivalence between the burden of proof on a hackernews commenter and individuals authorized by the state to detain, arrest, and potentially deprive citizens of a free country of their life, liberty or property is asinine and shameful. Cops want the power to do all this, do it incorrectly, be unable to be held accountable, and then cry like babies when someone makes videos and mocks them. He could have just sued them directly to recoup his financial losses from them destroying his house over a bs warrant but cops have qualified immunity. The justice system gives him no recourse. They sued him for videos meanwhile his countersuit was thrown out on this basis. If you support the cops on this I see no reason why one should not conclude you "wholly endorse" the ongoing "law enforcement" assault on free Americans. What principles do you take the nation to be founded on? You realize red coats coming into people's homes under the color of the law is what instigated the war that bought this country its liberty 250 years ago? I fail to see how this is much different, armed goons with guns and badges invading private property that cannot be held accountable. No election he can take part in will reasonably solve this so he can sue in a timely manner, as the unelected justice system has unilaterally decided you cannot sue cops over this. This is anti-American. Go read the bill of rights and tell me it is consistent with the spirit of those hard fought liberties to support the cops on this. I hope if you actually endorse burdens of proof you will at least support local, state and federal representatives who will codify into law a "repeal" of qualified immunity so that cops who fail to meet that burden can be held personally accountable. Note a case on that count would still need to prevail on the merits. That is how justice is supposed to work. Instead a carve out for law enforcement has been created where you can't even take them to court. Your case is going to get thrown out. The justice system should not be creating this special class of people, with great power and depriving them of the responsibilities common between neighbors in a free society. What they have done is really not unlike the British sending armed men into American cities to violate rights and then insisting they cannot be held accountable in colonial courts as a matter of principle. This is criminal. People should be able to sue police officers. If that makes the cost of waving guns in people's faces more expensive then so be it.
  - allan_s 7mo ago
    We can't on one side ask for people to not make judgment based on statistics and on the other side saying that making a shortcut based statistics is valid.
  - mothballed 7mo ago
    Won't someone think of those who falsely accuse someone of kidnapping when they get a similarly ridiculous accusation against them? This is part of why we have juries. The letter of the law must be nullified sometimes in the interest of justice.
  - alpha_squared 7mo ago
    The American police force originally started as a formalized slave patrol to capture runaway slaves [0]. It's well-documented [1]. We can try to argue whether modern policing carries that tradition, but case [2] after documented case [3] keeps bearing out more of the same. It's been the topic of research [4] and pop culture [5]. [0] https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/36/3/did-american-police-originate-from-slave-patrols https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/36/3/did-american-pol... [1] https://time.com/4779112/police-history-origins/ https://time.com/4779112/police-history-origins/ [2] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rodney-King https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rodney-King [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd [4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7331505/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7331505/ [5] https://genius.com/123154 https://genius.com/123154
    - tt24 7mo ago
      > The American police force originally started as a formalized slave patrol to capture runaway slaves I don't see how this supports the claim
      - alpha_squared 7mo ago
        You don't see how an organization founded to enforce a cornerstone of white supremacy may have a statistical likelihood of its members being white supremacists?
        tt24 7mo ago
        No, I don't think that this supports the claim that it's a safe assumption that any given cop is a white supremacist.
        defrost 7mo ago
        Not the claim made. > Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption. was the claim, ie. quite likely, tending toward more often than not. Versus your phrasing that any given cop is
  - ethagnawl 7mo ago
    Do you personally know any police officers? I do and, as a group, I've found them to be more racist than the general population. I don't know what the working definition of "white supremacists" is in this context but it doesn't make me blink.
    - Spivak 7mo ago
      This phenomenon happens with more than just police too—I've seen it happen with medical professionals, firefighters and EMTs as well. 0. Be a white person who has little to no interaction with non-white people in your day to day life. 1. Get a job where you interact with some of the dumbest people in the general public on the regular. 2. Some of those dumb people will invariably be, say, black. And you'll interact with way more black folks than the none you're use to interacting with. 3. Because you have no other association with that group your brain pattern matches and draws the connection. 4. Boom racism. I find it hard to judge these people too hard because I haven't been "tested" in the same way. Like I want to believe I wouldn't fall down this pipeline but everyone says that.
  - ahhhhnoooo 7mo ago
    You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the claim here is "majority of cops are white supremacists". Thats not the claim. The claim is that it is sensible to assume a cop is. A very different bar. A minority of cops can be white supremacists and because of the power they wield it's still sensible to treat them like every interaction is with a a white supremacist. As an example, a cop can legally kill you in many cases (or deny you freedom or seize your assets). If you had, say, a 20% chance of encountering a cop who was a white supremacist it would be sensible to treat every interaction as if that were the case. Consider how unevenly weighted the outcomes depending on whether you assume a cop is racist when factoring how sensible it is to assume they are.
- terminalshort 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ceejayoz 7mo ago
    > I claim that Afroman is a criminal. At 1:44 his own video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y) says "well, I know why narcotics" regarding the warrant. So I think he'd be OK with that statement of opinion. If that was defamation, warrants like the one in this case are defamatory, having asserted he kidnapped someone.
    - terminalshort 7mo ago
      Of course it's not defamation. But that's not what you said. You said "seems fair"
  - TheCoelacanth 7mo ago
    The bar for defamation is much higher for public officials like police than it is for private citizens. Also, while that is a very stupid and racist statement, I don't believe it is defamatory. If you falsely claimed specific crimes, then it might be.
    - terminalshort 7mo ago
      No it's not and neither is Afroman's statement. But the comment I was replying to said it was a fair statement, not merely that it is not defamatory.
- EvgeniyZh 7mo ago
  Statistically speaking "murderer is black" is a sensible assumption in US [1], but I'd prefer it wouldn't be made [1] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
  - ceejayoz 7mo ago
    The chance of a random black person being a murderer is substantially lower than the chance of a random cop being racist.
- loeg 7mo ago
  > Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption. Also, you know, protected opinion.
behringer 7mo ago
It's not smears when it's (mostly) true or opinion.
TheCoelacanth 7mo ago
Doesn't really matter since police officers are public officials. The bar for defaming a public official is actual malice, which is clearly not the case here. They need to prove that he deliberately said facts that he knew were false with the deliberate intention of harming them. It was also obviously a satirical song which further weakens the case. This is such a weak case it should have been thrown out before it ever reached trial.
- ceejayoz 7mo ago
  Honestly, "actual malice" part probably the thing both parties here agree on existing. It's a series of diss tracks, they're inherently malicious. You're just allowed to be maliciously right about things, if you like.
  - snackbroken 7mo ago
    "Actual malice" is confusingly not about if the defendant was acting maliciously. It is specific legal jargon meaning that the defendant knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth made the false statements.
    - ceejayoz 7mo ago
      One of the songs claims he fucked one of the deputies' wives; I presume that, at least, fits it. (Unless it's true.)
ryukoposting 7mo ago
It's a NY Post article. Expect some slant, and find a second opinion.

by junaru 7mo ago

ceejayoz 7mo ago

> falsely claimed that the cops “stole my money” That appears to have happened; they're claiming it was a miscount. > were “criminals disguised as law enforcement,” Seems fair. (And opinion, which can't be defamation.) > They also falsely stated that the officers are “white supremacists,” Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption. I'd note that the jury found Afroman not liable on all these.

tt24 7mo ago
> They also falsely stated that the officers are “white supremacists,” > Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption. Interesting, is there a source or some data you’re aware of that suggests that it’s a statistically safe assumption?
- ceejayoz 7mo ago
  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-i...
  - tt24 7mo ago
    Where in this article does it suggest that it’s a statistically safe assumption that most cops are white supremacists?
    - kstrauser 7mo ago
      Behold, the sea lion in its native habitat.
      - tt24 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        Retric 7mo ago
        No, you ignored evidence presented while failing to provide any of your own. Evidence has no minimum standard in debate, you can only provide more compelling evidence to the contrary.
        tt24 7mo ago
        Sorry, that's not how this works. Claims must be supported by evidence. I didn't ignore it, I reviewed it and explained how it doesn't support the claim. I have no obligation to provide evidence to the contrary. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
        Retric 7mo ago
        Court cases look at things like when someone arrives in a city as evidence, that alone doesn’t make someone more likely to have done whatever than a million other people, but it’s still evidence. So you dismissed it, but it is in fact evidence that there were white supremests just as your post is evidence you are a serial killer. It’s not poof after all you could be a bot. But out off all humans who ever lived 95% of them can’t be a serial killer because they are dead, that post is evidence you where alive recently therefore it is evidence that you are vastly more likely than the average person who have ever lived to be a serial killer. Again as apposed to a dead person who at most could be a former serial killer. Thus demonstrating that evidence isn’t the same thing as strong evidence just something that increases the likelihood of something being true.
        7mo ago
  - parineum 7mo ago
    You understand that white supremacist groups existing as cops doesn't make the majority of cops white supremacists, right? I'd hate to see someone use this kind of bad logic when deciding who is a criminal.
    - ceejayoz 7mo ago
      > I'd hate to see someone use this kind of bad logic when deciding who is a criminal. Oh dear. I have bad news about cops.
      - parineum 7mo ago
        Which is, apparently, a strategy you wholly endorse.
        pear01 7mo ago
        People walking around with guns and badges should be held to the highest of standards. Suggesting an equivalence between the burden of proof on a hackernews commenter and individuals authorized by the state to detain, arrest, and potentially deprive citizens of a free country of their life, liberty or property is asinine and shameful. Cops want the power to do all this, do it incorrectly, be unable to be held accountable, and then cry like babies when someone makes videos and mocks them. He could have just sued them directly to recoup his financial losses from them destroying his house over a bs warrant but cops have qualified immunity. The justice system gives him no recourse. They sued him for videos meanwhile his countersuit was thrown out on this basis. If you support the cops on this I see no reason why one should not conclude you "wholly endorse" the ongoing "law enforcement" assault on free Americans. What principles do you take the nation to be founded on? You realize red coats coming into people's homes under the color of the law is what instigated the war that bought this country its liberty 250 years ago? I fail to see how this is much different, armed goons with guns and badges invading private property that cannot be held accountable. No election he can take part in will reasonably solve this so he can sue in a timely manner, as the unelected justice system has unilaterally decided you cannot sue cops over this. This is anti-American. Go read the bill of rights and tell me it is consistent with the spirit of those hard fought liberties to support the cops on this. I hope if you actually endorse burdens of proof you will at least support local, state and federal representatives who will codify into law a "repeal" of qualified immunity so that cops who fail to meet that burden can be held personally accountable. Note a case on that count would still need to prevail on the merits. That is how justice is supposed to work. Instead a carve out for law enforcement has been created where you can't even take them to court. Your case is going to get thrown out. The justice system should not be creating this special class of people, with great power and depriving them of the responsibilities common between neighbors in a free society. What they have done is really not unlike the British sending armed men into American cities to violate rights and then insisting they cannot be held accountable in colonial courts as a matter of principle. This is criminal. People should be able to sue police officers. If that makes the cost of waving guns in people's faces more expensive then so be it.
- allan_s 7mo ago
  We can't on one side ask for people to not make judgment based on statistics and on the other side saying that making a shortcut based statistics is valid.
- mothballed 7mo ago
  Won't someone think of those who falsely accuse someone of kidnapping when they get a similarly ridiculous accusation against them? This is part of why we have juries. The letter of the law must be nullified sometimes in the interest of justice.
- alpha_squared 7mo ago
  The American police force originally started as a formalized slave patrol to capture runaway slaves [0]. It's well-documented [1]. We can try to argue whether modern policing carries that tradition, but case [2] after documented case [3] keeps bearing out more of the same. It's been the topic of research [4] and pop culture [5]. [0] https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/36/3/did-american-police-originate-from-slave-patrols https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/36/3/did-american-pol... [1] https://time.com/4779112/police-history-origins/ https://time.com/4779112/police-history-origins/ [2] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rodney-King https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rodney-King [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd [4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7331505/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7331505/ [5] https://genius.com/123154 https://genius.com/123154
  - tt24 7mo ago
    > The American police force originally started as a formalized slave patrol to capture runaway slaves I don't see how this supports the claim
    - alpha_squared 7mo ago
      You don't see how an organization founded to enforce a cornerstone of white supremacy may have a statistical likelihood of its members being white supremacists?
      - tt24 7mo ago
        No, I don't think that this supports the claim that it's a safe assumption that any given cop is a white supremacist.
        defrost 7mo ago
        Not the claim made. > Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption. was the claim, ie. quite likely, tending toward more often than not. Versus your phrasing that any given cop is
- ethagnawl 7mo ago
  Do you personally know any police officers? I do and, as a group, I've found them to be more racist than the general population. I don't know what the working definition of "white supremacists" is in this context but it doesn't make me blink.
  - Spivak 7mo ago
    This phenomenon happens with more than just police too—I've seen it happen with medical professionals, firefighters and EMTs as well. 0. Be a white person who has little to no interaction with non-white people in your day to day life. 1. Get a job where you interact with some of the dumbest people in the general public on the regular. 2. Some of those dumb people will invariably be, say, black. And you'll interact with way more black folks than the none you're use to interacting with. 3. Because you have no other association with that group your brain pattern matches and draws the connection. 4. Boom racism. I find it hard to judge these people too hard because I haven't been "tested" in the same way. Like I want to believe I wouldn't fall down this pipeline but everyone says that.
- ahhhhnoooo 7mo ago
  You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the claim here is "majority of cops are white supremacists". Thats not the claim. The claim is that it is sensible to assume a cop is. A very different bar. A minority of cops can be white supremacists and because of the power they wield it's still sensible to treat them like every interaction is with a a white supremacist. As an example, a cop can legally kill you in many cases (or deny you freedom or seize your assets). If you had, say, a 20% chance of encountering a cop who was a white supremacist it would be sensible to treat every interaction as if that were the case. Consider how unevenly weighted the outcomes depending on whether you assume a cop is racist when factoring how sensible it is to assume they are.
terminalshort 7mo ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 7mo ago
  > I claim that Afroman is a criminal. At 1:44 his own video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y) says "well, I know why narcotics" regarding the warrant. So I think he'd be OK with that statement of opinion. If that was defamation, warrants like the one in this case are defamatory, having asserted he kidnapped someone.
  - terminalshort 7mo ago
    Of course it's not defamation. But that's not what you said. You said "seems fair"
- TheCoelacanth 7mo ago
  The bar for defamation is much higher for public officials like police than it is for private citizens. Also, while that is a very stupid and racist statement, I don't believe it is defamatory. If you falsely claimed specific crimes, then it might be.
  - terminalshort 7mo ago
    No it's not and neither is Afroman's statement. But the comment I was replying to said it was a fair statement, not merely that it is not defamatory.
EvgeniyZh 7mo ago
Statistically speaking "murderer is black" is a sensible assumption in US [1], but I'd prefer it wouldn't be made [1] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
- ceejayoz 7mo ago
  The chance of a random black person being a murderer is substantially lower than the chance of a random cop being racist.
loeg 7mo ago
> Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption. Also, you know, protected opinion.

behringer 7mo ago

It's not smears when it's (mostly) true or opinion.

TheCoelacanth 7mo ago

Doesn't really matter since police officers are public officials. The bar for defaming a public official is actual malice, which is clearly not the case here. They need to prove that he deliberately said facts that he knew were false with the deliberate intention of harming them. It was also obviously a satirical song which further weakens the case. This is such a weak case it should have been thrown out before it ever reached trial.

ceejayoz 7mo ago
Honestly, "actual malice" part probably the thing both parties here agree on existing. It's a series of diss tracks, they're inherently malicious. You're just allowed to be maliciously right about things, if you like.
- snackbroken 7mo ago
  "Actual malice" is confusingly not about if the defendant was acting maliciously. It is specific legal jargon meaning that the defendant knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth made the false statements.
  - ceejayoz 7mo ago
    One of the songs claims he fucked one of the deputies' wives; I presume that, at least, fits it. (Unless it's true.)

ryukoposting 7mo ago

It's a NY Post article. Expect some slant, and find a second opinion.