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 seem to keep them drawn and hair triggered throughout the search? :O<p>(on aside, I do enjoy watching British crime procedural shows as contrast, where seemingly nobody has guns and they have to call in a special unit if they actually need somebody with a handgun)
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_the_Warrior_Cop" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_the_Warrior_Cop</a><p>Watch the short clip in <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/rcgkis/us_delegates_discuss_police_scotland_deescalation/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/rcgkis/u...</a> - American cops get shown Scottish cops' deescalation procedures, and they scoff at it.<p>"When you say preservation of life, it is… everybody's life. Ours has a pecking order. I'm just being honest."
> > I'm just being honest.<p>Just a salt of the earth officer telling it like it dog-gamn is. :|
I mean the key point there I think is the one where they point out that Brits simply wouldn’t accept police regularly shooting people. Policing for the people by the people.*<p>* and pretend Northern Ireland doesn’t exist, or course
It's rare even in NI.<p>PSNI had one single firearm discharge in the two year period covering October 2023 - September 2025.<p>Plus 948 uses of irritant spray, 496 uses of their baton, and 38 taser discharges in the same period. And 23,489 uses of "unarmed physical tactics".<p>That's for a population of around 2 million. By comparison, SFPD had 10 "officer involved shootings" in the past year for a population of 800k, a rate fifty times higher than that in NI.
[flagged]
So are we all just oblivious to the fact that in the US, civilians practically have access to military gear? How can you police that type of population with sticks and stones?
I can see the argument how you would treat a suspect with a gun differently than you would if they have a knife.<p>However, American cops also use guns against suspects with knives or other weapons that they also use in places like Scotland. Why couldn’t American police use these techniques when the suspect doesn’t have a gun?<p>I know the standard response is, “well, they COULD have a gun!”, but I don’t think that is a good enough reason to always go straight to extreme response. If a suspect is brandishing a knife, he probably doesn’t also have a gun.
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?
> Personally I’ve had encounters with LE and have not had a gun drawn yet, so it’s obviously not the default.<p>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.<p>> And why would someone threatening people with a knife deserve benefit of the doubt?<p>Several reasons, which would be obvious if you tried to think of them. Most knife-wielding maniacs are, well, maniacs, and aren't fully in control of their actions. Innocent bystanders are regularly killed by police discharging guns accidentally or inappropriately (in fact, even police are frequently killed this way). People are routinely misidentified by police as carrying weapons when they aren't. Police often give misleading or unclear instructions while trying to de-escalate, and with a gun drawn, failure to comply can and does result in the suspect being shot.<p>Bear in mind that what you are excusing is essentially a (substantially increased likelihood of) extrajudicial execution. It <i>should</i> be a last resort. It's not enough to say "well he's clearly a bad guy, why give him the benefit of the doubt?".
> Innocent bystanders are regularly killed by police discharging guns<p>False. Innocent bystanders are killed by police discharging guns, but rarely. And, while the goal should be zero, it will never be zero
Let's aim for a max of once every year, then, over the entire USA. And once that's achieved, let's aim for once every few years. Once a decade should be good enough, you probably won't get better than that.<p>The EU has a much bigger population than the USA, in a smaller space, and I'd bet they're already around this number.
Why is it not zero? This strikes me as the exact sort of calculus they used way back when they stopped chasing fleeing suspects in vehicles: the danger to the public is too high to justify the use of force. If you can't hit your suspect without hitting other civilians, then don't fucking fire! And no I don't particularly care if the LEO's life might be in danger either, that's literally the job they signed up for: to put themselves in danger to enforce the law. It's ridiculous that cops just get complete power of life and death every time they feel a spot of stress, and have to be handled with kid gloves by the general public less they be murdered in the streets.
I will never be zero because perfection is impossible. It's like saying there should be zero car fatalities. We should work to get them down (enforcement against drunk driving, maybe checkpoints, stronger driving tests), but asking for zero accidents just isn't reality.
> It's like saying there should be zero car fatalities.<p><a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/helsinki-no-traffic-death-roads-eu-accident-finland-driving-transport/" rel="nofollow">https://www.politico.eu/article/helsinki-no-traffic-death-ro...</a><p>"Helsinki hasn’t registered a single traffic-related fatality in the past year, municipal officials revealed this week."<p>"The limits were enforced with 70 new speed cameras and a policing strategy based on the national “Vision Zero” policy, with the goal of achieving zero traffic injuries or deaths. Data collected by Liikenneturva, Finland’s traffic safety entity, shows Helsinki’s traffic fatalities have been declining ever since."
That's not analogous at all. <i>Everyone</i> drives, and so everyone is a possible source of a car crash. Police are not (in theory) just whoever wanders into the goddamn precinct. They're (in theory) trained professionals, educated in what they do, and therefore entrusted with both the force of law, and the deadly force they wear on their belts.<p>And no we probably can't make it ZERO, but we could surely get it under 1,300!?
Has anyone done a study on correlation between no-chase policy and increase in robbery or retail theft? Would be pretty interesting
Personally as a teenager I’ve been met with a group of cops all pointing guns at me when I was just walking around at night with no weapons whatsoever. They got a call from a paranoid homeowner nearby.
They’re trained to shoot first and ask questions later.
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 grabbing my ID too quickly.
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.<p>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.
I had a gun drawn on me and was told “I’m going to blow your f** brains out” because I was a stupid teenager toilet papering a house when I was young. That’s when fight or flight kicks in and logic goes out the window. Needless to say I didn’t fight.
In most civilized societies, there's an extremely high chance that somebody wielding a knife doesn't have a gun.
> Personally I’ve had encounters with LE and have not had a gun drawn yet, so it’s obviously not the default.<p>How police respond to you is very dependent on a lot of factors, including your age, race, what you are wearing, where you are, and what time it is. I don’t think you should use your own personal experience as a universal template.<p>> And why would someone threatening people with a knife deserve benefit of the doubt?<p>Because, as a society, we should do everything we can to prevent harm to everyone, even people who are acting erratically. There could be all sorts of reasons for the behavior. Anyone can have a psychotic episode, and that shouldn’t immediately earn a death sentence. Of course, I understand that even an innocent person having a psychotic episode can be very dangerous, and I don’t think they should be allowed to hurt others, and it may be necessary to use force, and potentially deadly force, to protect other people.<p>However, I think that is very different than saying “we shouldn’t worry about the perpetrators well being at all”, or that it is preferable to kill the person rather than take ANY risk that they could hurt someone. The answer lies somewhere in between.
Most of the other places I'm aware of with such penetration of arms but no police basically rely on monetary bonds through family ties and intertribal appeals rather than trying to capture and imprison them. If the family won't accept the bonds and the criminal refuses to pay then they become an outlaw of sorts and have no recognition in society. A bit brutal, but then again so is mass imprisonment and a heavily armed police state. I make no claim whether it is better or worse.
I'm amazed at the number of people who are answering "this is just the way that it is in America".<p>I don't live in Adams County, but they are our direct neighbors here in rural southwest Ohio. We like Afroman over here. :)<p>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 surface, but an informant apparently testified to this and a judge approved it, so that's the warrant they were serving.<p>If one reads the warrant and considers the possibility that the testimony of the witness might have been true, then their show of force seems much less unreasonable.<p>Disconnecting his cameras? Stealing his money? That's absolutely not reasonable in any case. Afroman has a lot of support in our rural Ohio community, and we're all cheering for him. :)
American police are trained to be afraid. They escalate situations constantly. They're trained that every traffic stop is LIKELY their last.<p>I've had a gun pulled on me twice for traffic stops when I went to grab something. I'm white.
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'.
Roofing, I think, tends to be the most dangerous.
Depends on how you look at the numbers. But construction, logging, garbage collection and truck driving tend to be the most deadly depending on the specific metric (absolute, per capita, by industry, etc).<p>Expanding that, the deadliest part of being a police officer is almost certainly the driving component. No gun will save you from smashing your SUV into a pole. And the aftermarket modifications made to the vehicles aren't crash tested. A police cruiser is full of potential projectiles.
Curious how much this varies among police. Some jobs are by their nature always dangerous.<p>But there are a lot of cops in the USA, and plenty I'm sure have nice, cozy jobs, and then there are some who spend thee majority of their career policing areas that more closely resemble warzones or 3rd world nations but this isn't the majority by any means.
Its more dangerous being a spouse to a cop than it is to be a cop.
Probably the most dangerous aspect of the job in the US is driving.
Neither working as a 7 eleven worker nor a cop is a sacrifice, it's a free labor market.
I have seen some shit go down in 7/11's at 1am. You are not kidding.
If only your country operated on the Peelian principles of policing: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles</a><p>Relevant fictional quote:<p>There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people. - William Adama
> I've had a gun pulled on me twice for traffic stops when I went to grab something. I'm white.<p>Something I learned from a friend is to ask permission for every movement or at the very least narrate and move slowly.<p>"I'm going to reach in the glovebox for my registration. Is that ok?"<p>I think it's the only way to protect yourself from their hyper-nervousness.<p>Edit: friend and I are also white.
A famous case of this is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Philando_Castile" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Philando_Castile</a> where the man identitified he had a concealed carry, the cop told him not reach for it, he started to say he wasn't, he was getting his license the officer asked for, with the officer cutting him off repeatedly and the officer shot him because he 'feared for his life'.<p>All they have to prove is that they fear for their life. It does not have to make sense, does not have to be 'justified', etc.
"All they have to prove is that they fear for their life. It does not have to make sense, does not have to be 'justified', etc."<p>That's not really true. The standard is a <i>reasonable</i> fear for your life. That's reasonable standard is evaluated in court by how a reasonable person would have reacted. Yes, they do give some deference to the individual who was actually there (police or civilian). The real problems happen because the DA and the courts tend to have bias when it comes to subjecting members of the system to the same process that others face.
Police officers in court cases don't have to meet that standard until it established that they do not have qualified immunity. In vastly more than 9 out of 10 cases, they do, and thus that standard is completely irrelevant.
> All they have to prove is that they fear for their life.<p>In which case, they should spend the rest of their life in a high-security psychiatric hospital.<p>They're obviously too mentally fragile to be allowed out in the world.
A black friend of mine did exactly this, asked for a permission to get a pen from his pocket. The cop laughed “sure” and the moment he put his hand inside his pocket they jumped him and arrested him.
> I think it's the only way to protect yourself from their hyper-nervousness.<p>“the only way” puts me in mind of The Onion headline “‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens”
It started after the Iraq war. They got Hummers and vets.
A childhood friend's dad was a cop for 25 years; retired in the mid-90s. He never shot his gun, and only unholstered <i>once</i> in his entire cop career. My friend followed his dad, also became a cop in the exact same district; he's getting ready to retire. He's unholstered his gun <i>countless</i> times. He says he's shot at numerous people in his career, and even killed one dude. I once asked him what the difference was between his career and his dad's. He said crime was actually worse when his dad was a cop, a lot worse. But the big difference was the public's attitude and his training. He said the public had accepted the "tough on crime" narrative; that wasn't the case in his dad's days. But also, the training was straight-up military. He said that if he didn't use the military-style tactics, he would be sunned by his peers and even reprimanded. He said the training repeated one narrative, over and over: "It's us versus them."<p>He told me a story about a noise complaint. He said him and his partner banged on the front door of the house, but there was no response. He said they called in the status, but were told to wait. About 10 minutes later multiple SWAT vehicles arrived. He said one of the vehicles literally drove into the side of the house, making a huge hole in the house. About a dozen SWAT officers ran into the house, multiple shots were fired, the tear gas started a fire. The house was absolutely destroyed. ... No one was home; the house was empty. A kid left the TV on really loud when he left for school. A neighbor called it in, hoping the cops could just go into the house and turn off the TV. Worse, there was no punishment to anyone involved; the cops were doing as they were trained.
Are you sure about that? Police brutality has been reported as a huge issue in the US since at least the 60s. If anything, from the outside it looks like it's got <i>better</i> since Iraq.
The MOVE bombing was well before the Iraq war.
not only trained that way, the justice system upholds this by not prosecuting police violence in any meaningful way
Could also be that this is at least partially justified due to the incredible pervasiveness of guns in the US.
No, treating people with hostility and escalating the situation only makes it more likely that someone will snap and attack a cop.<p>People generally do not shoot at cops, because whether or not they hit the target doing so is pretty much signing their own death sentence. All cops have to do to protect themselves is to not provoke people to fight-or-flight reactions.
“Warrior mindset”. When you’re trained to assume that everyone you interact with is a lethal threat, you tend to react as such.
They go around barking orders at people who haven’t done anything wrong because they look “suspicious,” escalate what could otherwise be calm encounters by showing up to everything armed to the gills, make it clear they can’t wait to use force against persons and property, demonstrate a consistent us-vs-them mentality that looks the other way for clear cases of corruption, commit brazen armed robberies under euphemisms like “civil asset forfeiture,” bypass policymakers wherever possible and lie to them when they can’t, and then wonder why some people don’t like them very much.
[flagged]
The Snopes article is useful. For those who don’t want to read it, here is what Grossman says about that quotation:<p>> That clip took my entire, full day presentation, and took it completely out of context.<p>-They left out the part where I say that this is a normal biological, hormonal backlash from fight-or-flight (sympathetic nervous system arousal) to feed-and-breed (parasympathetic nervous system arousal) that can happen to anyone in a traumatic event.<p>-They left out the part where I say that there is nothing wrong if it doesn’t happen, and absolutely nothing wrong if it does happen.<p>-They left out the part where I say it happens to fire, EMS and even victims of violent crime.<p>-They left out where I say that it scares the hell out of people.<p>-They left out where I talk about it (and remember it is common in survivors of violent crime), as kind of a beautiful affirmation of life in the face of death; a grasping for closeness and intimate reassurance in the face of tragedy.
I'm not sure that's at all a defense. That context in no way absolves him of bragging about how he's gets the best sex in his life EVERY TIME HE KILLS SOMEONE.
There are a million ways to express the fact of the hormonal backlash without including a quote that makes it sound like killing will improve your sex life.<p>In context, its <i>correct</i>, that's not up for dispute. The question is "does it add anything to the context?" and more importantly "could a student misconstrue its inclusion as something else?"<p>You'd think that, being so educated on the hormonal backlash from experiencing trauma, that cops and the greater judicial system would be more forgiving of e.g. emergent hypersexuality in rape victims after experiencing a rape that Grossman calls out there. But you would be wrong, because even if Grossman wants his students to understand that concept for their own health, he wildly misunderstands the culture <i>he helped create</i> where the police view themselves as a thin blue line holding back the manifold forces of Chaos Undivided.
I don’t see why any of those should be exonerating?<p>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.
I really have to wonder what part of that he thinks makes it OK to call it a <i>perk of the job</i> that you get to have awesome sex after murdering somebody for work.
Yeah, shitty people often claim the context is exonerating.<p>> They left out where I say that it scares the hell out of people.<p>People literally <i>pay money</i> to do things that feel that way. Haunted houses, bungee jumping, skydiving.<p>Context: Grossman's employed to train cops to overcome relutance to shoot.
Damn, hoss, didn't think I'd wake up and have to read someone normalizing police violence.<p>Like, they could just not, you know, go around creating the conditions for their own trauma.... that's a much more legit strategy. That's why folks aren't having this discussion about, say, "fire, EMS and even victims of violent crime".<p>I know that violence creates traumatic responses, I've been getting a lot out of therapy after being illegally pepper sprayed by DHS last year. Real fuckin' hard for me to feel super sad that those officers probably had big feelings about that violence themselves when they could just, like, not go around assaulting folks.
This will be a controversial opinion but I think some escalation by police is warranted.<p>The reality is there are aggressive people in society that have a tendency to escalate things. If police are trained to only de-escalate, it removes a powerful check on aggressive escalation.<p>The second order effect is an increase in events like people being pushed onto train tracks, glass bottles being thrown if you glance the wrong direction, etc.<p>I think optimally you have a police force that is trained in de-escalation but also escalates things slightly more than the average citizen and thereby provides a service to society as a buffer.
#1 - He's Black.<p>#2 - That's how the police in America operate now; even for the most common interactions w/the public.<p>I know this may sound like I'm being an asshole, but I'm not.
> That's how the police in America operate now; even for the most common interactions w/the public.<p>You cannot generalize police forces across the entire country that way. I've <i>never</i> had such an interaction with a police officer, presumably because the police department in my city is run better than that.
They did the same when they raided Roger Stone.
If you were to take a positive intent approach:<p>- the warrant was for distribution of narcotics and kiddnapping.<p>If I were to guess what a list of most dangerous warrants to execute, those two would be up there.<p>If you note in the video, he jokingly plays around the drugs part. I am not sure where the kidnapping part comes from, but Afroman is not necessarily a household name amongst middle-aged white police officers, so I imagine they just saw "drugs and kidnapping" and went for it.
Situational training is a joke (based in part on tactics developed in Israel/Occupied Palestine, i.e., for a literal military occupation), load-outs aren't designed around need but as a hand-out to our arms manufacturing industry (laundered through the military), and the cops involved in these sorts of raids are literally chosen to not be intellectually curious enough to question it.<p>I used to operate a firearms training system. To this day, I wish I'd stolen the videos that they use so that I can prove how ridiculously unprofessional and biased they are.
It's a country with a lot of guns. Police do regularly get shot at when raiding.<p>And police departments get sent videos of every officer death from around the country and regularly watch them for "training purposes". So it makes sense that they are in a constant state of paranoia.
> Police do regularly get shot at when raiding.<p>I wonder what the ratio of police deaths during no knock raids vs peacefully served search warrants.<p>I certainly believe that bursting through someone’s door with guns drawn is a high risk activity. It seems like maybe no one needed to do that in this case, though.
> police deaths during no knock raids vs peacefully served search warrants<p>Would have to be a randomized trial because right now obviously police only peacefully serve warrants in situations that are already very unlikely to be violent.
I think the traffic stop paranoia stems from a couple high profile incidents like<p>(1) Brannan in Georgia<p>(2) Darian Jarrott executed after the feds/HSI setup a drug sting but use NMSP trooper as a sacrificial lamb and then mosie their way on over after for the aftermath.<p>[1] <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Police_Shootout_-_Deputy_Kyle_Dinkheller_-_Laurens_County,_GA.webm" rel="nofollow">https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Police_Shootout_-_De...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://youtu.be/NqxTf-Vz12o?t=475" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/NqxTf-Vz12o?t=475</a><p>I've seen police in online forums reference these a lot when any talks come up of toning down their immediate instinct to draw their guns.<p>Basically in the US the feds will use local/state police as a sacrifice and not tell them that they're part of a sting of armed violent criminals so they're basically getting set up by HSI etc on purpose for surprises.
I’m not sure there’s a general trend of federal officers using state/local officers sacrificially, but no doubt these cases are hammered into officers’ minds over and over.
It's worth pointing out that, while being a cop is a somewhat dangerous profession, it doesn't even crack the top 10. It's much more dangerous to be a tree trimmer, non-airline pilot, logger, roofer, etc. than it is to be a cop.<p>What's more, a significant portion of that danger comes from the fact that they're driving around a lot and spend a lot of time by the side of the road and that means they end up the victim of crashes while on the job. The biggest risk when conducting a traffic stop isn't the risk that the people you're stopping might decide to kill you, it's that some dumbass thinks his texting is more important than looking at the road, drifts onto the shoulder, and plows into you.
Policing isn't in the top ten most dangerous jobs. It's usually listed around the 15-25th most dangerous job in the US. Many Americans including myself are regularly in more danger.<p>Also around 40% of police deaths are accidents.
It's also interesting to note that while violent crime and homicide in the United States have been declining for many years interpersonal violence has overtaken accidents as the leading cause of police on the job deaths.<p>It seems unlikely the cause of this is more violence among Americans. Since the overall rate is going down. It seems like changes in policing and attitudes and tactics have resulted in more officer deaths from interpersonal violence. Perhaps more de-escalation would save more police officers lives.
To really emphasize this, car crashes are the top source of police deaths. Yet less than 50% of police use their seat belts.<p>The justification most give is that they may need to be able to quickly get out of a car and pull their gun in a confrontation.<p>The only way this makes sense is that<p>A) Police aren't being properly trained based on data<p>B) People have an irrational psychological fear of murder <i>over</i> other types of death
A is the likely part.<p>B isn't necessarily irrational. Many other types of death are at your own actions. Things like drinking alcohol, eating whatever you feel like, not exercising, doing drug, even driving, etc provide some self-identified "benefit" to the individual that they choose to partake. It's rationale that someone is more afraid of dying from an activity they recieve no benefit from than an activity they do.
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?
It's a common argument because police and their supporters regularly claim they need to roll up in tactical gear and treat every encounter with civilians like it's a life-and-death struggle because they have one of the most dangerous jobs, yet the truth is they have about an order of magnitude fewer workplace fatalities than roofers and loggers.<p>This is despite the fact that police regularly escalate their encounters, making them more dangerous for everyone, police included.<p>Maybe loggers need to start doing their jobs with miniguns like that scene in Predator.
> So it’s funny<p>They didn’t say it’s funny.<p>If you have something meaningful to say, then say it. Don’t twist someone else’s words instead.<p>> human error<p>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.
> It's a country with a lot of guns. Police do regularly get shot at when raiding.<p>Call me naive, but I think this could be solved by stricter gun laws. Yes, bad guys might have guns, but that's the case everywhere around the world.<p>But being afraid that everybody could have a gun and use it against you while doing your work must clearly change something in your behaviour as a police officer... Why not calm down the whole situation by reducing the number of guns then...
You can hardly make stricter gun laws; we have a right to them in this country.<p>It's hard to limit the guns without infringing on the right of the people.
Maybe that right is not worth the trade off
Unless you change the culture it will be just like the drug war. Firearms familiarity and possession are a cultural rite of passage for ~most males in the USA and there is no way to regulate that in a way that meaningfully stops it short of perhaps large-scale death penalty.<p>Pretty much everyone in Europe that wants a gun can have one within a couple weeks, the reason they don't only has a little to do with the law.
But not all States' gun laws are equally strict? So if the state with the stricted gun laws is acting in a constitutional manner then other states could also implement those laws but choose not to.<p>So a lot of this stuff is truly self inflicted and the result of poor policy choices -- not because of governments reluctantly but dutifully obeying the 2nd amendment.
> Yes, bad guys might have guns, but that's the case everywhere around the world.<p>The number of guns in the hands of bad guys caries drastically around the world.<p>You can’t reduce this to “it’s the same everywhere” because it’s not.
True!<p>What I meant is that I think German police, for example, are probably less worried that a traffic stop is likely to get them killed or have them escalate a situation to the use of lethal force.<p>I think this might be different in the US because guns are just much more common there.
That's like observing that we could probably solve the issue of people saying mean things on the internet by requiring ID to access it. You have to consider any expected negative consequences as well as if you'd be violating any rights.
Youre aware that the rest of the planet have stricter gun laws and the American problems are fairly unique?<p>This is even after controlling for things that exacerbate crime like high economic inequality.<p>For instance, Brazil [1] (a much poorer and more unequal country than the USA) has lower murder rate than a lot of cities now than the USA. The murder rate of Rio seems to be about on the level of Houston (17/100k), or about a third of Detroit (47).<p>But Rio clearly has __a lot more crime__ than Houston. It's palpable when you're in either city. Even with the Favelas and heavily armed gangs, the murder rate is comparatively low because *normal people dont have guns at nearly the same rate*.<p>And it shouldn't take a leap of faith to figure out that higher gun ownership leads to more deaths. Guns are the one tool we have intentionally made to cause death.<p>1. I'm aware that Brazil has a higher murder rate, but comparing cities is a better pick. The northeast of Brazil is in another league than anywhere in the USA in economic conditions; it's not comparable. The only city I can think of with USA levels of economic development would be Florianopolis (murder rate 7/100k) or maybe Balneario Camboriu, or some parts of Sao Paulo like Vila Olimpia.
We’ve seen other highly developed countries operate just fine without arming their citizenry to the teeth.
We've also seen it go wrong plenty of times. They can do them and we can do us I figure; I'm quite happy with my gun rights thanks.<p>There are highly developed countries that tightly regulate speech and network access relative to most of the west. Does that mean adopting an ID requirement to post on Twitter coupled with anti hate speech laws would be an obviously good thing?
I don’t know if there is any precedent from taking away hundreds of millions of guns from an armed country actually
> We’ve seen other highly developed countries operate just fine without arming their citizenry to the teeth.<p>Good for them. As an American, I'm quite happy with our Second Amendment rights, I'm not looking to roll that back in the slightest. And if anything, with the recent rise of the fascist authoritarian regime that we've seen, I'd think that maybe a whole lot of "anti gun" people here would be well on their way to becoming "formerly anti gun" people.
All my life I've heard that an armed populace is to protect us from authoritarian government. Now that we have creeping authoritarians running the country, where are all of those "second amendment solution" people? What trigger are they waiting for, exactly?
Realistically, it's more to protect from unhinged supporters of the current regime than the regime itself.
Recall that this authoritarian won the popular vote ~18 months ago.<p>The protection is against a minority authoritarian government. If half the populace supports the guy in charge then taking up arms is effectively a declaration of civil war. That's a case of the cure being worse than the affliction.<p>Fast forward a year or so, suppose popularity has hit single or low double digits, imagine a blatant attempt at subverting the election process, that's where an armed populace comes in.
> What trigger are they waiting for, exactly?<p>Critical mass.<p>Look, I could pick up a rifle tomorrow, and march on DC by myself with the intention of toppling the fascist regime. And what would result? I'd be quickly arrested or killed and nothing would change. So what's the point?<p>But if I was part of a group of 1,000,000 like-minded people, then I might still be arrested or killed, but at least there's a much higher likelihood that some actual change would take place.<p>Now, as a lifelong believer in the "an armed populace is to protect us from authoritarian government" mindset myself, I have to say, I am <i>extremely</i> disappointed in a lot of people right now. People that I grew up with, that I've always trusted, respected, and maybe even admired. Because while fascism metastasizes and spreads through our country nearly completely unchecked, they all seem unwilling to even speak up against what's going on. And I can't defend their choices, but I can say that I still believe that there is a tipping point, some event, or sequence of events, that would kick things into into gear if needed[1].<p>[1]: I say "if needed" because it's not <i>100</i>% clear to me that the only possible way out of this mess is an armed uprising. We <i>might</i> still be able to "vote our way out of this" and the optimistic take is that many Americans are sitting on their hands as long as they hold a shred of hope that that is still possible.<p>The more pessimistic take is that a majority of the "second amendment to protect us from authoritarianism" crowd are hypocritical ass-clowns, who are actually OK with authoritarianism as long as "their guy" is the one in power. :-(
But you won't get that critical mass without a spark.<p>People need to see action and see it work without repercussions to the actor.<p>People will take notice when someone like Thiel, Bannon, or Miller are taken down with a drone and the drone operator escapes arrest.<p>They'll think to themselves "Wait a minute, if someone can take out a billionaire I can take out that cop who raped my cousin and got a paid vacation as punishment for it."<p>What comes after that is anybody's guess but I predict an impending moment where individual citizens realize that they're not as helpless as they have been lead to believe and that technology can help them eliminate long-standing criminals operating in positions of power with immunity in theiry local communities.
They either voted for the authoritarian or they don't care as long as the authoritarian doesn't touch their guns. Womp womp.
Can you tell me more?<p>As an individual person, having right to bear guns doesn't seem to have any impact or saving powers against the authoritarian regime. What scenarios relating to authoritarian regimes (be specific) do you find having a gun at home would help with?
> As an individual person, having right to bear guns doesn't seem to have any impact or saving powers against the authoritarian regime.<p>See my reply above. But loosely speaking, you are correct when looking at things from a purely individual point of view. No one of us is going to topple an authoritarian regime by ourselves. But I don't think that was ever the point. It's an assemblage of large numbers of like-minded armed individuals who can effect change.<p>And just to be clear... I'm a peaceful person at heart (but not a pacifist). I don't want blood-shed, and I don't want to see an armed uprising or a civil war on many levels. But I'd at least like to see many of my fellow #2A advocates being more vocal and visible about stating our displeasure with the current environment, and our <i>willingness in principle</i> to take action if/when it becomes clear that it is necessary. That, ideally, in and of itself reduces the need for <i>actual</i> violence, by acting as a strong deterrent.
Aside from the obvious (being ready and able to form an armed resistance) there's the deterrent. When you know that your populace has certain options available to them that will inform your actions.
You are naive for assuming that the government aren't the bad guys with guns. Just ask the 30,000 Iranian protesters that were slaughtered if you don't believe me.
They should stop "raiding" people's homes.<p>They don't raid schools when there's someone actively killing children. They can just hold off a bit and get people when they're on the move.
> Police do regularly get shot at when raiding.<p>Got any data?<p>It happens daily? Weekly? Monthly?<p>What is "regularly"?
Doing quick research says about 1 shot at per day, 1-2 fatalities per week, and about 26,000 assaults per year
That’s total officers shot, not specifically for raids.<p>A NYT investigation indicated there were “at least 13” officer deaths tied to forced entry raids from 2010-2016, so around 2/year. It’s unclear how many other fatalities happen in no knock raids. Given that there are only 50-60 total fatalities/year it’s surprising there isn’t comprehensive data for this.<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/18/us/forced-entry-warrant-drug-raid.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/18/us/forced-ent...</a><p>There are an estimated 20k-80k no-knock warrants in the US every year for context.
Not a silly question. If you go back to the 2000s, you'll see the growing militarization of local police. This is partially an economic prop-up where the military can now sell police departments materials/arms/etc. and police departments can buy them. Thus the military needs more. Nice little situation they found.<p>At the same time as these departments getting more funding, it feels like most departments have decided its better to use taxpayer funds to settle court cases rather than train and be more selective.
One of my favourite little details in Jeeves and Wooster is that British cops are shown as bumbling fools who fit right in with the cast.<p>Meanwhile American police are consistently depicted as trigger happy, shooting at any minor provocation.
There's a reason we had a few years of heavy anti police protest across the US.
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?
In Europe there's a maybe 0.1% chance that any random adult is carrying a firearm. And the vast majority of those are going to be rifles for hunting. In the US, it's more like a 3% chance. And firearms in the US tend to have higher capacity and higher rates of fire. Hence the default militaristic response from law enforcement. Or at least that's one of several reasons.
Yes. Kind of. Anything involving home invasion I’ve usually seen them go in like an occupying force. Including the time i called them because a small group was going around the neighborhood trying to break into houses. They show up with bullet proof vests and assault rifles at the ready and pull everyone out of their houses.
Let me outline how broken policing is an institution in the US:<p>1. Cops are generally stupid and untrained. You just had to watch them testify in the Afroman trial and you might think "geez these guys aren't the brightest bulbs". No, theyre not. But they are also the most average cops;<p>2. Cops are corrupt. They steal things all the time. "We miscounted the money". Yeah, right. You got got caught stealing;<p>3. Cops lie all the time. They'll lie on the stand. This happens so often there's a term for it: testilying [1];<p>4. Cops never go after other cops. In fact, you're generally punished <i>or even killed</i> for going after other cops. It's career suicide;<p>5. If, somehow, you get charged with a crime, you as a cop have rights the rest of us can only dream about. You're not allowed to interview the suspect for 24 hours. Their union rep must be there and so on. Enough time to get their story straight. Why don't we all have those same rights?<p>6. Cops aren't trained to de-escalate. They're only trained to escalate, lethally. Cops kill over 1000 people a year [2]. A pretty famous example is the murder of Sonya Massey [3]. Sonya was lethally shot for being near a pot of boiling water. This case was also quite rare because somebody went to jail;<p>7. Some departments go so far to essentially be gangs. One of the most famous examples is the LA Sheriff's Department [4];<p>8. Should a prosecutor actually go after a cop, it's typically career suicide. Prosecutors live and die by conviction stats. It's how they get promoted and seek judgeships and higher office. Why? Because for there other cases, their cop witnesses will start missing court dates or even changing their testimony so your cases get dismissed or found not guilty.<p>A lot of TV is what's called "copaganda". It typically paints police as competent, not corrupt, honorable and not at all the job most likely to commit domestic violence [5].<p>One exception to this is <i>The Wire</i>, which is a portrayal of institutional failure at virtually every level of American society. For bonus points, <i>We Built This City</i> [6].<p>It's a much deeper topic why it is this way but unsurprisingly the answer can be overly reduced to "racism" eg the origins of American law enforcement are in slave-catching.<p>[1]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_perjury" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_perjury</a><p>[2]: <a href="https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/policekillings_total.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/policekillings_total.htm...</a><p>[3]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sonya_Massey" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sonya_Massey</a><p>[4]: <a href="https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history/" rel="nofollow">https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history...</a><p>[5]: <a href="https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd/1862/" rel="nofollow">https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd/1862/</a><p>[6]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Built_This_City" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Built_This_City</a>
I'm not saying what they did was correct, but they were allegedly told that he had a drug operation and a kidnapping dungeon.
Considering this was a no-knock warrant, one of the probably causes being kidnapping (shady & possibly corrupt warrant in itself) where they broke down the doors, I'd say they expected some sort of gang activity or something.
A big part of being police is the cosplay of being in the army. Why do you think airsoft is so popular?
When you break into someone's home you want to be ready for people with guns shooting at you.<p>Politely giving them a few seconds of free shooting before you draw your guns is not a great survival strategy.
If you break in with little to no notice or with a lack of manpower or if the occupant has nothing to lose, sure. This is why no knock raids are incredibly dangerous for all involved and generally a terrible practice.<p>With the number of officers they often have in most cases it would make more sense to start off slowly and unarmed, making an earnest attempt to communicate with the target. People won't usually choose to fight a suicidal battle. Even if they're extremely upset and disagreeable almost everyone will go along with it if calmly presented with a warrant and given some time to think things through.
and I would argue no knock is unconstitutional, the whole point of a warrant is to prove you’re allowed to search me and the law was written in a time where everything was on paper, we’re suppose to be secure in our papers short of a warrant, if you can’t show a warrant how do I know I’m not being robbed and need to defend myself? it’s totally bonkers
If you're there to arrest people, that seems reasonable. But if the goal is to collect evidence, you can't give them time to destroy it.<p>I do have the presumption that when professionals do things that seem weird, they probably have reasons that I as an amateur don't immediately understand.<p>I've also read enough Radley Balko to know cops often get away with doing awful and stupid things...
> But if the goal is to collect evidence, you can't give them time to destroy it.<p>Unless it's proven someone is on imminent harm, then they should find another way to collect evidence, or just not do it.
I'm aware, but there seem to be an awful lot of instances where "high stakes high priority evidence collection" doesn't apply.
> When you break into someone's home…<p>So we're starting right off the bat with the false premise that this is the only approach cops can take in these scenarios.
Best to kill anything that moves; it's the only way to survive.
They tell us over and over again that we should have no expectation of privacy or not being filmed in public. Well, IMO they should not have any expectation of privacy or not being filmed when on private property and conducting the work _that we pay for_. They work for us.
That is not just your opinion, that is the opinion of multiple United States Court of Appeals circuits in many many cases, and by its declining to overturn these cases, that is also the opinion of the United States Supreme Court. The United States is a common law country, so really what that means is that your opinion is actually not an opinion at all; you have simply stated the established law of the land.
That is, in fact, what the law says and what the courts have agreed with multiple times.
and I imagine that if the INVERSE of this case had come up, the police suing for defamation would have been protected by qualified immunity so no lawsuit would have been possible.<p>The police being able to leverage civil law against citizens to control their behavior in ways that citizens cannot leverage against cannot to comment on the abuse of power is entirely unacceptable no matter what our laws and judiciary chose to allow.
> They work for us.<p>Ooh sweet summer child.
Cynicism is very cooler-than-thou, but it's not because we don't know better.<p>It's because we <i>do</i> know how the system fails, and holding power accountable to those high aspirations is the only thing that pushes back the equilibrium.
well, to be fair, there are a higher-than-average number of business owners on here, so they really might work for them
Only insofar as those business interests align with the government's interests.<p>The police get paid by and do the bidding of the government. They work for the government.<p>While you can screech about the degree of overlap between government interests and big business interests, and it absolutely is something worth screeching about, acting as though they are one in the same is counterproductive to understanding either.
yes.<p>It is also worth noting that in some cases, government and business owners have diametrically opposed interests - namely governments can nationalize companies (and if I'm not mistaken, some governments, like the Nazis, did, or would use the threat of nationalization to make business owners do their bidding with no regard for the interest of the business owner)
It's logistically a fact. Their paycheck comes from taxpayers. If you believe they're doing a bad job it's unrelated.
er... if you'll excuse me confirming the "HN is the 'well actually capital of the internet' stereotype"...<p>If you look throughout history, you'll see that before the advent of what we'd call 'modern states', most people who got their paycheck from 'taxpayers' did not see themselves as working for said 'taxpayers'.<p>Example: Pharaonic Egypt. Alexander's Empire, Bourbon France, Tsarist Russia, or more generally <i>any</i> kingdom, empire or any sort of duchy/earldom/county/etc where you have someone (the King, Tsar, Emperor, Duke, etc), whose job it is to lord over the peasants and take a cut of their work, not because they are an elected public servant doing the will of The People, but because they believe God Almighty has decreed that living off the wealth of others, and occasionally wasting large amounts of that wealth on building palaces or waging costly wars is what they were born to do.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings</a><p>as such, if you view the modern state as "basically an oligarchy masquerading as a democracy", then the police are not in fact working for 'Joe Taxpayer', but are just playing the same role that medival knights played for the Kings of France - they are the armed force of the extractive state, whose job it is to keep the peasants in line via violence so that they can continue to live off the fruits of peasant labor.
I understand what you're saying, but I was speaking in the ideal or purpose, rather than the defacto/pragmatic.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y</a><p>This is the video in question, police again falling trap to the Streisand effect.
Also probably a rare case where there are a few Streisand effect's all packed together, where the cops at each step made it worse for themselves.<p>If they never did the raid in the first place, no music video, no "embarrassment". They could have cut their losses, and not made a big deal about it and probably way less people (including myself) would have ever heard about it.<p>Instead they decided to sue, which made even bigger news. Here they could again have chosen "You know what, maybe this is counter-productive, lets settle/cancel it", and again probably people would have cared way less about it.<p>Instead, they go to court, make a bunch of exaggerated and outrageous claims, one officer apparently cried as well, all in a public court room that is being recorded, again making it a bigger thing.<p>Finally, Afroman wins the case, leading to this now seemingly making international news, and the videos continue racking up views.<p>I know cops aren't known for being smart, but I have to wonder who made them act like this, don't cops have lawyers who can inform them about what is a smart move vs not? Seems they almost purposefully and intentionally tried to help Afroman, since they basically made the "wrong move" at every chance they got.
I suspect it was less about the legal merits and more about punishing (whether or not they won) through the lawsuit itself.
Of course. Questioning their authority is a status challenge, and they're accustomed to having their status go unchallenged. Hence, punitive punishment.<p>One of many aspects of improving law enforcement would be pointedly training <i>out</i> and averting any perception of being "above" people. "Public servant" is a phrase for a reason.
There’s a name for that, SLAPP: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...</a><p>Many states in the US have laws to try to limit them by making them easier to dismiss etc.
Yeah, the only reason I'm not quite sure SLAPP is right is that he's a fairly prominent and well-off figure and they're a pretty small department. So I guess it's an <i>attempted</i> SLAPP suit, but they aimed too high (poor aim not being unfamiliar to cops).
That was what I was thinking at first too, but if I was sitting on their side, my mind would still go for "Wait, if we sue him, won't this make the news and make things better for him?" immediately, rather than "Yeah, this will suck for him". I'm not sure how they thought this would be bad for him, legal costs?
You're assuming a rational, reasoned process, rather than an instinctive punishment of a perceived status challenge.<p>When you observe someone acting in a way that seems obviously against their self-interest, it <i>is</i> always worth considering the possibility that there's some interest you don't understand...but it's also worth considering the possibility that they're doing a <i>bad job</i> of considering their own interests.
This is an event that took course over 3 years! I could understand the initial actions, statements and whatnot from the department to maybe be instinctual and emotional reaction to events/messages, but during these 3 years, at least one of them must have had some still time to reflect on what they're doing.
It's very easy to double down and reinforce your own past thinking rather than re-examining it. It's also very easy to "play a role", even as consequences play out; "reasoning" like "I will do X, then they will do Y which I don't want", rather than stepping back and thinking "if I do X, Y is likely to happen, I don't want Y to happen, so <i>what should I do differently</i>".<p>They assumed they were going to <i>win</i>, and thus enact punishment for questioning their authority.
They thought they were going to get a payday at the end. That tells you how d much they actually cared about their privacy/the privacy of their families, they were willing to sell it for a couple hundred thousand dollars.
This is a key insight.<p>Most "rational actor" theories of human behavior actually only work in the large (where the average can dominate outlier behavior) and in systems where rational action is a positive feedback loop ("a fool and his money are soon parted").<p>If those assumptions break down (<i>especially</i> the second, i.e. if foolish use of money results in more money accruing, not less), what we perceive as rational behavior should <i>not</i> be expected.
Billed to the public, too.
"The process is the punishment"
This may be true in many cases.<p>In this case however the story currently is two times(!) on the front page of haackernews (which isn't a music celebrity gossip site), bringing a musician into spotlight who's career was far from its peak. Hardly any better Marketing campaign one could imagine.
If the police possessed the self-control and critical thinking to not drag this whole thing into a lawsuit, I think the raid would likely have never happened in the first place.
They would have individually gotten lots of money in compensation if they would have won. So maybe the motives on their side are a bit more materialistic.
> I know cops aren't known for being smart<p>Not only aren't they known for being smart, but they're known for explicitly filtering out smart people.<p>The 2nd court of appeals ruled in favor of a city (New London, Connecticut) which rejects police applicants for having too high a score on intelligence tests.<p>See: <a href="https://abcnews.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836" rel="nofollow">https://abcnews.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story...</a><p>See: <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-smart-to-be-a-cop/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-smart-to-be-a-cop/</a>
In my view it's because the city or locality which those cops protect has been remiss, the community has been remiss in making sure that their police actually police in the way that the community wants them to police.<p>So obviously the community is getting exactly what it deserves by having its police force be legally liable for incompetent malfeasance behavior. Ultimately it will cost the community, Afroman himself, in tax used to fund the police, And then route that money back to afroman and his attorney for his legal fees.<p>An embarrassment. Humiliation of the community. Reinforcement and debasement of the community. Suppressed business attractiveness of the community for its plain lack of oversight.
US Police are trained such that their first impression in any situation is to see how people are reacting to their authority, and if it's not acquiesced to go on high alert.<p>It's not that they couldn't understand; It's that it's a faux pas to question this way of thinking so nobody does.<p>Play that out long enough and you get clown shows like these.
I had never even heard of Afroman until 3 days ago when I saw some lawyers livestream the trial on YouTube. The whole thing seemed so bizarre and I was surprised why the case wasn't even summary dismissed by the judge in the first place.<p>Now Afroman has even more material to make YouTube videos of and humiliate these cops for eternity.
> don't cops have lawyers who can inform them about what is a smart move vs not?<p>Generally, municipalities have at least some sort of attorney on retainer for this sort of thing.<p>Generally. I don't know if that's the case where he lives.<p>Either way, the police have to be smart enough to listen to that attorney, and <i>have to be given a consequence for not doing so</i>. If you can brush off everything as qualified immunity and say you were acting under color of law while a part of a union that would raise absolute hell for any sort of corrective action taken against you, you might not be introduced to said consequence.
I have no evidence besides my own experience, but I think that the "back the blue" mentality might skew their support staff's objectivity a bit. Especially in smaller cities and towns where cops aren't just law enforcement, they are foundational pillars of morality and governance. The point I hope I'm making is that they are getting bad advice not because they are stupid, or the people around them are, but rather because it's inevitable due to complex social and psychological reasons.
> The point I hope I'm making is that they are getting bad advice not because they are stupid, or the people around them are, but rather because it's inevitable due to complex social and psychological reasons.<p>Which basically boils down to when the men with the guns and the violence (or their string pullers) set down a dumb path nobody is going to say "that's fucking stupid, you're stupid, good luck with that". It's gonna be a bunch of tepid "well the odds are long but here's how you could prevail" type criticism that lets them think their path of action is fine right up until it hits reality.
This. The cops don't care if they "look bad" because looking bad doesn't cost them anything. They don't lose any money. The populace is no more entitled to resist them so their jobs are no harder, their KPIs are not imperiled. Etc. etc. At best the municipality will scold them because the municipality cares very little, but not zero about police optics because it impacts their ability to do things that are unpopular.
This has curbed somewhat in small cities because of the insurance industry. Turns out that small towns need insurance to cover police malpractice, and those insurers don't like high-risk or overly aggressive police tactics. Turns out the police can be reasonable, if only they are even slightly accountable.<p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2022/police-misconduct-insurance-settlements-reform/" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/20...</a>
AIUI they sued him in their personal capacities, not as the police department. Any taxpayer funded lawyer to defend the PD from such a thing would presumably not be authorized to work a civil suit for a person who happened to be employed by his client.
>I know cops aren't known for being smart<p>Even worse. Police departments can actively reject you for being smart.<p><a href="https://abcnews.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836" rel="nofollow">https://abcnews.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story...</a><p>(granted this is a one off case, but it is astonishing and speaks to the larger issue)
Tin foil hat version is that they’re looking for a payday where they can and if this didn’t work they can always check whether the police department failed them as an employer.
Mega-streisand effect ... they stacked together so many of em
I hope he makes another song with additional material from the court case.
> Also probably a rare case where there are a few Streisand effect's all packed together, where the cops at each step made it worse for themselves.<p>It is not even that rare; some cases covered by Audit the Audit or Lackluster (same guy), or the civil lawyer. The amount of incompetence among many cops is surprising. They really literally don't even know the law or constitution. Just about anyone is hired. Quality standards are mega-low.
If I were in a gang such that I routinely committed theft and violence without consequence from the government, I'd probably have internalized that I am superior to the plebs. So I would expect what is obviously SLAPP to actually come out in my favor.
[flagged]
> Not very smart itself. How sad to reduce the whole thing to ignorant stereotypes<p>It's hard to call it an ignorant stereotype when it is the explicit policy of some police departments not to hire smart people. And to go to court to defend that policy.<p><a href="https://abcnews.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836" rel="nofollow">https://abcnews.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story...</a>
To be fair, there is legal precedent for cops not being too smart.<p><a href="https://ny.prelawland.com/post/719662253773832192/too-smart-for-the-job-jordan-v-the-city-of-new" rel="nofollow">https://ny.prelawland.com/post/719662253773832192/too-smart-...</a><p>They're allowed to not hire someone if their IQ is too high. The stereotype is at the very least based on truth, and has been affirmed legally.
People keep saying this and this case from 2000 is the one instance anybody has been able to cite. Most police agencies use standardized domain-specific written exams --- the PELLETB, NTN, IOS --- that are both not general cognitive exams and have no ceiling score.<p>This really seems like one of those too-perfect Internet myths that just isn't ever going to die. I think the balance of evidence is that if you picked any police department in the US out at random, it would have the opposite of the incentive claimed in your comment, and no ceiling on general cognitive ability whatsoever.
Have you watched any of the video from the raid, depositions, or the trial? They are not smart people.
> <i>way less people (including myself) would have never heard about it</i><p>I think the never here is a typo.
Yes, but not limited to just that one. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/@ogafroman/videos" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/@ogafroman/videos</a><p>He also has other videos where he calls one of them a pedofile, questioning their gender (Licc'm low lisa) and more.
> pedofile<p>apparently, the deputy in question has a brother who was a deputy as well but was fired and charged with a sexual misdemeanor against minors.<p>Afroman also said he steals money during traffic stops and he was accused of that multiple times.<p>Of course that's not bulletproof evidence but a reasonable person might assume these rumours are not completely unfounded<p>EDIT: also the deputy of course didn't steal the money. He miscounted - when seizing the money he put 4630$ in the envelope but wrote 5000$ on it (which is the amount Afroman thought he had there)
> but a reasonable person might assume these rumours to be true<p>From all the claims Afroman made, it seems the cop sued because of the whole "He claimed he had sex with my wife, which reflects poorly on me", presumably because he only has a chance to win the suit if there is actual lies. The same video seems to have texts about how he crashed into civilians, stealing pills/money and more, but none of that was brought up in the suit, only the cheating part.
Although funnily enough, when one of the questioned about if his wife had an affair with afroman he was like "I dunno". If he doesn't <i>know</i> it's a lie, kinda defeats the point of the defamation suit
We are, of course, not privy to the jury's reasoning unless they choose to divulge it.<p>Which is unfortunate, because we may never know if they concluded "Given who you've demonstrated yourself to be, your wife is justified in seeking other lovers whether or not this allegation is true" or if there were other factors involved.
I thought it was big time defamation risk for Afroman to call him a pedofile.. but maybe the cop is afraid of discovery in this case..
"Of course?"<p>Where is <i>that</i> coming from?<p>Do you seriously not believe (well, know) that sadly, many cops do this ALL THE TIME?
This all feels extremely mild next to what these people did to Afroman.
I think you're confusing gender and sexual orientation. He's calling her a lesbian
So, in the music video, the cops pretty clearly steal something (probably money, as alleged), and attempt to destroy evidence.<p>They’re facing charges too, right?<p>Right?
Yes and as a result they will give taxpayer money in a deal and, officer will be moved to nearby county.
No, no way they could have known stealing money and destroying evidence is illegal. So the Post-It note on the old court case gives them qualified (absolute) immunity.
[dead]
here appears to be his celebration of his victory, pretty catchy <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM8Ee6pcXvQ" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM8Ee6pcXvQ</a>
Almost too good to be true. They didn't find large quantities of weed, and afroman had cameras set up and caught it on camera. I mean, talk about landing with your bum in the butter. His career just caught a major reboot.
This might be <i>peak</i> Streisand effect.
It gives me immeasurable delight seeing afroman at the top of HN.<p>Love me some freedom, sweet soulful music, and pie in the face of bad cops.<p>Dang/Tom, please don't downrank this. America needs this win.
I think this all started with cake in the face of a cop not pie!
I love the Afroman story so much. Everything about it.<p>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.<p>Compare this to policing in Japan [1]:<p>> Koban cops go to extraordinary lengths to learn their beats. They're required to regularly visit every business and household in their districts twice a year, ostensibly to hand out anti-crime flyers or ask about their security cameras. The owner of a coffee shop told Craft, "With Officer Sota, we can say what's on our mind. He's really like a neighbor. Instead of dialing emergency when we need help, we just call him."<p>American cops are a gang, by and large.<p>Cops have absolutely massive budgets, from small towns to big cities. Let's not forget Uvalde, where the police department budget was ~40% of the city budget and it resulted in <i>19</i> cops standing outside scared while one shooter kept shooting literal children for an hour. <i>Because they were scared</i>.<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/walking-the-beat-in-japan-a-heaven-for-cops/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/walking-the-beat-in-japan-a-hea...</a>
> Let's not forget Uvalde, where the police department budget was ~40% of the city budget and it resulted in 19 cops standing outside scared while one shooter kept shooting literal children for an hour. Because they were scared.<p>Not only did they not stop the shooter, but they actively prevented parents—who were willing to risk their lives—from intervening. They didn't just not help, they proactively ran interference for the shooter.
I wasn't gonna run from the cops...
[flagged]
Unfortunately Afroman is not particularly pro-freedom (big MAGA supporter). He seems to support certain rights for himself and not for others.
Even if this were true, are we really so far gone in the political discourse that we can't appreciate a win as Americans because of the perceived political orientation of the recipient?<p>I think the answer is yes, but I still naively hold out hope that we can eventually move beyond this.
Not sure he's "big MAGA" but I assume this is where the idea stems from - <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/afroman-explains-his-new-song-hunter-got-high-1895392" rel="nofollow">https://www.newsweek.com/afroman-explains-his-new-song-hunte...</a>
I see he celebrated anti-ICE protests in some videos on his YouTube channel. Where does his MAGA support you claim come from?
I think he tried to be the Libertarian presidential candidate and made a song about Hunter Biden, so people just assume he's full MAGA and doesn't deserve 1st amendment rights
I mean, both him and Trump have similar approach to opponents or those who wronged them. In this case, the opponents are deeply unsympathetic to most, so it is harder to see.<p>I do see how someone whose reaction to being wronged is "I fucked his wife doggy style" could be attracted to the Donald Trump personality.
I’m not at all convinced, because that would mean N A S is a Trumper because:<p>> “When these streets keep callin’, heard it when I was asleep/That Gay Z and C*ck-A-Fella Records wanted beef”<p>JayZ responded in kind insinuating it back on N A S.<p>And Drake is also a Trumpist because he told Chris Brown that he fu*ked Chris’s girl.<p>Tupac also, for some reason:<p>> ”… You claim to be a player, but I f*cked your wife/We bust on Bad Boys, n*g*as fu*ked for life.”<p>2Pac in hit-em-up:<p>> "That's why I fuc*ed your bitch"<p>Eminem:<p>> "I f*cked your mother and made her my bitch,"<p>You know what? Maybe it’s a rapper thing and not an indication of MAGA alignment?
Yes, it's unfortunate that this good thing happened to a person not aligned to my political worldview.
He’s willing to publicly criticize government corruption and child abuse, so there’s no way MAGA would accept him. (Both these stances came up in the defamation lawsuit and in the music video.)<p>When he ran for president in 2024, he registered as an independent, “citing inflation, the housing market, law enforcement corruption, and legalizing marijuana as key campaign issues”.<p>Even if he is ultra right wing on secondary issues (I have no idea) those are all anti-MAGA or bipartisan stances.<p><a href="https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/664027-afroman-2024-presidential-campaign" rel="nofollow">https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/664027-afroman-2024-presidentia...</a><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroman" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroman</a>
> citing inflation, the housing market, law enforcement corruption, and legalizing marijuana as key campaign issues<p>The first two of those issues were Trump issues in his campaign and Trump rescheduled marijuana to schedule 2.
That's good to know. The second sentence you gave was superfluous because the first one told us that -- I add this not to dismiss your efforts but to highlight them.
> In one of the music videos, “Will You Help Me Repair My Door,” surveillance footage shows officers swinging open a gate, kicking down a door, and roaming armed around a living room and a kitchen.<p>>The other, “Lemon Pound Cake,” shows one of the officers, gun in hand, pausing briefly in Mr. Foreman’s kitchen by a cake inside a glass cloche. “It made the sheriff want to put down his gun and cut him a slice,” Mr. Foreman sings in the song.<p>The man has a sense of humor.
Seems like the Streisand effect to me. Suing him over this calls attention to the inappropriateness of police raiding his house. I hadn't heard this story and now I took away from it some embarrassing stories about the cops.
The lemon pound cake first features in the first video, "Will You Help Me Repair My Door" and seems to have become popular (a chubby sheriff deputy glancing at a lemon pound cake, gun in hand is a viral godsend!) so he made that second video about it [1] and it completely took off. I have watched videos outside the courthouse after the verdict and supporters were even handing free lemon pound cakes [2]. Has the apple pie got competition?<p>[1] <a href="https://youtu.be/9xxK5yyecRo?si=rnz34IxCeFPRKQ4M" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/9xxK5yyecRo?si=rnz34IxCeFPRKQ4M</a><p>[2] <a href="https://youtu.be/pSEOiu0RvLk?si=xx2ZrN1rzEg3n1Ve" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/pSEOiu0RvLk?si=xx2ZrN1rzEg3n1Ve</a>
He's also a savvy businessman, this will be great for his career
Pretty funny, worth seeing at least once to be able to reference it at appropriate times.<p>Having had my house raided, I love this. Police incompetence should be exposed at all opportunities with the hope that it makes some small amount of difference to future competence.
"Mr. Foreman was not at home during the 2002 police raid, but a security camera system and his wife, using her cellphone, recorded the “faces and bodies” of the officers while they were on the property, according to the lawsuit"<p>"2002"
New York Times, everyone.<p>Props to afroman for his perfect demeanor/attitude during all this.
2022. I'm not sure phones recorded useful video in 2002.
There used to be a Twitter account that pointed out typos like this—I think exclusively—in the NYT.
Surprised they didn't write 2ÖÖ2, knowing the Times' predilections
I <i>highly</i> recommend people watch video from the trial--specifically the officer testimonies. It's absurd this lawsuit was even fit for trial.
Do you have a link? There are plenty of snippets that are easy to find, is there one canonical full video?
> It's absurd this lawsuit was even fit for trial<p>Is it just me or did the judge seemed biased towards the cops? He also dismissed Afroman's counter-suit.
Going on the stand and stating that you "don't know" whether the allegedly defamatory statements you are suing over are true or not is a... bold legal strategy.
Or claiming you don't know what crime <i>your brother</i> was charged with that led him to resign from <i>the same police department</i>.
The ACLU called it a SLAPP lawsuit. If true, they probably didn't care if they won or not.<p>That said, going on stand when your opponent has proven they can and will use your words and actions against you in the court of public opinion is a... bold strategy.
><i>Going on the stand and stating that you "don't know" whether the allegedly defamatory statements you are suing over are true or not is a... bold legal strategy.</i><p>if the statement is true, that's a defense against defamation.<p>if the statement is not believable, that is also a defense against defamation.<p>it actually was legal strategy designed to dance around the legal strategy behind those questions being asked, taking the air out of your insult
I think comment was alleging perjury.<p>They do know the statement is true (and this is provable). Pretending like they "don't know" is a lie under oath.
Are you saying you believe the cop who said, under oath, he "doesn't know" whether his wife could be having an affair with afroman chose to do that as part of a deliberate legal strategy? And that you think this casts him in a more positive light than merely being clueless?
The thing I don't understand is why it isn't a felony for the police the disable the surveillance cameras! That alone should be a crime. I get that you need search warrants and protections, but you shouldn't be able to suppress the evidence of your work, since it's common for police to steal, plant evidence, or destroy property.
It is a crime, obviously. Things don't magically become crimes depending on the employer of the perpetrator - that's the whole point of "a nation of laws and not of men."<p>It's legal for you to arrest someone if you see them commit a felony. It's legal for you to arrest someone under a warrant if you are deputized by a Sheriff of the court (almost never happens, but legal). It's not legal for you, whether you are employed at a police agency or not, to vandalize someone's camera.
Those cops embarrassed themselves. Especially that one lady that was faux crying. Shameful behavior from the largest gang in the US.
That didn't seem like faux crying. Making fun of her in that way is the hardest to defend IMO, since it had nothing to do with her job performance or relevant character attributes. (E.g. how the other officer had been accused of stealing before, or had a brother resign from the force after being charged with a crime involving a minor).<p>That said, I don't disagree with outcome.
Aren't cops by default public figures? They're the de facto face of the police for the ordinary citizen, not sure they should be the type of individual who cries because someone calls them fat, lesbian or whatever. These people have the legal right to essentially execute you in public, I think we should set the bar a bit higher on who should be allowed to be a police officer in the first place.
I was raised by LEOs. My mother and all four of her husbands were career long LEOs in the South.<p>Of course this is just based on my anecdotes, but LEOs have some of the thinnest skin imaginable. The first time I fought a grown man was when I was 13 and I had to fight my mother's fourth husband. He was a Deputy Sheriff and combat veteran and that dude had the emotional strength of a 12 year old girl who didn't get asked to the winter dance.
This is a career that quite literally selects for "not too smart" [1]<p>1 - <a href="https://www.wirthlawoffice.com/tulsa-attorney-blog/2013/07/court-okd-citys-too-smart-to-be-a-cop-rule" rel="nofollow">https://www.wirthlawoffice.com/tulsa-attorney-blog/2013/07/c...</a>
These people carry guns and can kill you on the street and they can't take getting called some bad names?
Yes, exactly. Try calling a cop a “pig” to their face. Or breaking up with a cop. Or just say no to something they’re asking you to do.<p>“Not all cops” and all that, but enough of them are like that that you have to be really careful how you engage with them.
I do agree with you and the other comment in this vein. I have very little sympathy for these officers.<p>However, there are different situations. For example, I imagine this person is not very surprised or upset to be called "dyke" in a verbal altercation. That is different from sitting in a quiet courtroom, knowing it is being filmed, watching a popular video where your gender identity and expression is repeatedly insulted.<p>Let's say the officer was black, the defendant was white, and made a video with lots of racist stereotypes. Would we think that was funny and cool? Would we be surprised if the black man had a breakdown in the courtroom watching it? We wouldn't even be having this conversation.<p>By all means, call cops pigs, liars, thieves, idiots. If you want to be racist, sexist, or call them pedophiles, I'll defend your right to do so but not be as sympathetic.<p>Otherwise we're just the hypocritical liberals as the right wingers accuse...
> say the officer was black, the defendant was white, and made a video with lots of racist stereotypes. Would we think that was funny and cool? Would we be surprised if the black man had a breakdown in the courtroom watching it?<p>This is very common in the US? Common enough to be a minor plot point in a current cop show (Cross), which is to say the audience will be familiar with the material. Also explored in e.g. True Detective. No, the Black cop does not get to break down in court while being racially taunted. Either on TV or real life. This is expected by all to be a part of doing his job.
So? Even if the officer doesn't live up to our emotionally resilient ideal, it doesn't mean the stereotyped insults are any more acceptable.<p>And to the genesis of this thread, it doesn't mean I must believe the tears are fake.
I agree with you on the sentiment—I don't think it's cool to use racially charged terms or otherwise in degrading ways. That isn't to say my sympathy is lost. When you feel powerless you reach for power in any way that you can and trying to make someone feel bad for who they are is low-hanging fruit.
[flagged]
Serious question: how come the police have not paid for the damage they caused?
They chose not to do so. And the courts are no help, because generally speaking, you can't sue the government unless there's a specific law allowing you to do so (sovereign immunity). The police as individuals are generally immune from civil suits unless they violated some clearly established right (qualified immunity).
Serious answer: cops are not accountable for their behavior, in the vast majority of cases.
If the damaged party tries to sue the police for the damage they caused, the police can get the case instantly dismissed underqualified immunity.
Qualified immunity just protects the police, and other government officials personally. If there is grounds for a lawsuit then he could still sue the government that employs the police department.<p>I think in general, if it is a legit warrant, it is very difficult to win a lawsuit for damage. Though with that video, and how high profile this has been, he might be able to win something. though IANAL, and I'm just going off my gut.
Stealing things out of a person's fridge and eating it is not covered under qualified immunity.
Making up details of the incident doesn't help either. They didn't eat anything, a cop just did a double-take at the lemon pound cake, and Afroman wrote a song about how they wanted to eat it.
um it probably is. Wasn’t there a case a few years ago where a dispensary was raided and the cops stole marijuana, and got away with it due to QI.
Qualified immunity.
which is double genius on afroman, because they forfeited qualified immunity to start this trial. now he can even sue further damages.<p>distrack as legal maneuver.
He is a seasoned professional at this. He was respected in the diss track game in his day, he definitely understands the boundaries of defamation. And what has long been known in rap in newspapers: even if you're right it's not worth it to be on the stand defending defamation. "It's average size your honor."
I'm going to keep this one... underqualified immunity :)
They’re not liable to repair damage incurred from a raid or any other action. If the fire department has to chop your door open with an axe to gain entry to your home, they don’t pay for that either, you do.<p>If the police execute a search warrant on your home and kill your pet or a person, guess who is responsible for cleaning up the blood and mess? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not the police.
Interestingly enough this is not the first time cops have invaded a famous rapper's house and the rapper proceeded to make a music video out of the footage<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nfVWiXY3WY" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nfVWiXY3WY</a><p>Neighbors by J. Cole
> <i>"On March 14, 2023, seven Adams County police officers sued Foreman, alleging that his use of the video of the raid invaded their privacy."</i><p>THEIR privacy?!?!? Their privacy ... in his home? This is the most ridiculous claim I have ever heard.
The term I learned for this yesterday is “crybully”.
This is not some footage issue, there apparently was a smear campaign online.<p>FTFA:<p>> After making the music video, Foreman allegedly continued putting up social media posts with names of the officers involved, the lawsuit states.<p>> Several of the posts allegedly falsely claimed that the cops “stole my money” and were “criminals disguised as law enforcement,” according to the suit.<p>> 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.
> falsely claimed that the cops “stole my money”<p>That appears to have happened; they're claiming it was a miscount.<p>> were “criminals disguised as law enforcement,”<p>Seems fair. (And opinion, which can't be defamation.)<p>> They also falsely stated that the officers are “white supremacists,”<p>Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption.<p>I'd note that the jury found Afroman not liable on all these.
> They also falsely stated that the officers are “white supremacists,”<p>> Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption.<p>Interesting, is there a source or some data you’re aware of that suggests that it’s a statistically safe assumption?
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].<p>[0] <a href="https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/36/3/did-american-police-originate-from-slave-patrols" rel="nofollow">https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/36/3/did-american-pol...</a><p>[1] <a href="https://time.com/4779112/police-history-origins/" rel="nofollow">https://time.com/4779112/police-history-origins/</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rodney-King" rel="nofollow">https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rodney-King</a><p>[3] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd</a><p>[4] <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7331505/" rel="nofollow">https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7331505/</a><p>[5] <a href="https://genius.com/123154" rel="nofollow">https://genius.com/123154</a>
Pretty clear issues with this line of reasoning.<p>One, even if all police in the U.S. did start as slave patrols it is a textbook case of a genetic fallacy.<p>Two, your article discusses several origins of police forces in the US. In Boston it had nothing to do with slaves because Massachusetts was not a slave state when they created a police system in the 1830s. And since Afroman was raided in Ohio, also never a slave state, it does not make sense to carry over southern slave-catching history into modern police culture.
> In Boston it had nothing to do with slaves because Massachusetts was not a slave state when they created a police system in the 1830s.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1793" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1793</a><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850</a><p>"It required that all escaped slaves, upon capture, be returned to the slave-owner and that <i>officials and citizens of free states had to cooperate</i>."<p>Boston's police department was founded in 1854.
> The first publicly funded, organized police force with officers on duty full-time was created in Boston in 1838.<p>This is from your Time.com article.<p>Second, fugitive slave extradition was controversial in northern states and from your Wikipedia article several northern states even passed legislation to protect fugitive slaves.<p>And why would northern states spend their own tax dollars to fund police forces to capture slaves? It doesn’t make sense. They created police for public safety reasons in cities.<p>And even if none of that were true it still does not address the genetic fallacy. Just because some police forces started as slave patrols does not imply that all police today are inherently white supremacist.
> The American police force originally started as a formalized slave patrol to capture runaway slaves<p>I don't see how this supports the claim
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.<p>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 <i>sensible</i> to treat every interaction as if that were the case.<p>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.
<a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement" rel="nofollow">https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-i...</a>
Where in this article does it suggest that it’s a statistically safe assumption that most cops are white supremacists?
It's one data point in a pretty large body of evidence; the FBI thinks they're infiltrating law enforcement in a widespread fashion.<p>A fascinating study from Stanford looked at police traffic stops nationally around the daylight savings switch (as a natural experimental control) and found pretty hard evidence cops treat black drivers very differently during the day (i.e. when they can see their skin color).<p><a href="https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2020/05/veil-darkness-reduces-racial-bias-traffic-stops" rel="nofollow">https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2020/05/veil-darkness-redu...</a><p>Additional aspect of this: "you're a white supremacist" is almost certainly a First Amendment protected statement of <i>opinion</i> that can't be defamatory.
Behold, the sea lion in its native habitat.
You understand that white supremacist groups existing as cops doesn't make the majority of cops white supremacists, right?<p>I'd hate to see someone use this kind of bad logic when deciding who is a criminal.
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.
This phenomenon happens with more than just police too—I've seen it happen with medical
professionals, firefighters and EMTs as well.<p>0. Be a white person who has little to no interaction with non-white people in your day to day life.<p>1. Get a job where you interact with some of the dumbest people in the general public on the regular.<p>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.<p>3. Because you have no other association with that group your brain pattern matches and draws the connection.<p>4. Boom racism.<p>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.
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.
Won't someone think of those who falsely accuse someone of kidnapping when they get a similarly ridiculous accusation against them?<p>This is part of why we have juries. The letter of the law must be nullified sometimes in the interest of justice.
Statistically speaking "murderer is black" is a sensible assumption in US [1], but I'd prefer it wouldn't be made<p>[1] <a href="https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls" rel="nofollow">https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...</a>
> Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption.<p>Also, you know, protected opinion.
[flagged]
> I claim that Afroman is a criminal.<p>At 1:44 his own video (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y</a>) says "well, I know why narcotics" regarding the warrant. So I think he'd be OK with that statement of <i>opinion</i>.<p>If that was defamation, <i>warrants</i> like the one in this case are defamatory, having asserted he kidnapped someone.
The bar for defamation is much higher for public officials like police than it is for private citizens.<p>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.
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.
Honestly, "actual malice" part probably the thing both parties here agree on existing. It's a series of diss tracks, they're inherently malicious.<p>You're just allowed to be maliciously <i>right</i> about things, if you like.
It's a NY Post article. Expect some slant, and find a second opinion.
It's not smears when it's (mostly) true or opinion.
Civilians, in the middle of the forest: We want our privacy.<p>This flavor of police: You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.<p>Afroman: Here’s a video of cops inside my home.<p>This flavor of police: Stop being mean!
I was gonnna click the link, but then I got high.
They tell us over and over again that we should have no expectation of privacy or not being filmed in public. Well, IMO they should not have any expectation of privacy or not being filmed when on private property.
Police, and government agents in general, should have no expectation of privacy when doing their job, period. If you have to hide your face then I don't trust you. And yes, that applies to all of ICE.
Is the NY Post some kind of National Enquirer analogue? This article reads like it was written by a grade school child trying to emulate the voice of an villainous news reporter.
Yes. Here's an AP article:<p><a href="https://apnews.com/article/afroman-police-raid-lawsuit-ohio-first-amendment-309accc1ce068620e19cfd7d0f70dae1" rel="nofollow">https://apnews.com/article/afroman-police-raid-lawsuit-ohio-...</a>
Yes, it's a pretty over the top paper. Feels like you're reading TMZ for stuff that didn't happen.
Yes, it's a right-wing tabloid. Our equivalent of the Daily Mail.
I don't understand how they found nothing in the raid, wouldn't they normally bring drugs with them to plant? If they forgot those that's a whole new level of police incompetence.
> wouldn't they normally bring drugs with them to plant?<p>Why do you think they were so annoyed at all the cameras?
I guess they assumed that a musician whose whole persona is built around weed would supply the evidence.
> Common enough to be a minor plot point in a current cop show...<p>You've reversed cause and effect. Cop shows don't base their plots on what is real, they base them on what people will believe is plausible.
[dead]
Related. Others?<p><i>Do the cops suing Afroman after raiding his home have a case?</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36827566">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36827566</a> - July 2023 (19 comments)<p><i>Police sue rapper Afroman for using footage of home raid in his music videos</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35284187">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35284187</a> - March 2023 (551 comments)<p><i>US Police raids home; sues homeowner over CCTV footage of raid</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35281258">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35281258</a> - March 2023 (53 comments)
I haven’t found any information about what cause the police had, why a warrant was issued, etc.<p>I’m not suggesting suspicion has merit, but given all the idiocy I’m wondering what other forms of chicanery may have taken place to get a warrant.
Tip from a “confidential informant”, I believe I read somewhere.
Nah its just that simple. Racism is still alive and well. Don't overthink this.
I’ve had “lemon pound cake” stuck in my head all morning thanks to this
I've heard "Randy Walters is a son of a bitch, ooooh oooooh, uuh!" the entire day today after hearing the song yesterday, probably the most catchy one to come out of this whole story: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4AiuqQpB1U" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4AiuqQpB1U</a>
My mind went to K&P rap confession skit :
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14WE3A0PwVs" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14WE3A0PwVs</a>
Gotta say I love Afroman's choice of courtroom atire.
Damn, that case took a long time to resolve. You know what they say about justice delayed...
Suing for invasion of privacy over a music video demonstrating how they invaded his privacy is wild!!
Never thuoght i'd see Afroman at the top of the Hackernews articles haha
Okay at first I was like this music is not my style, but the humor was so good.
One of my favorite parts is when Afroman is being cross examined about why he brought the media and his lawyer to retrieve his money.<p>He says, well that was for my protection because they came to my house with AR-15's and turned off the cameras. "I didn't want to get beat up or Epstein'd".<p>And the lawyer is trying to make that out to be unreasonable, that a black man in the US shouldn't be scared of the police. Afroman just continues to assert that of course he was scared.
<a href="https://archive.ph/sMpjA" rel="nofollow">https://archive.ph/sMpjA</a>
Cops bust in searching for his drugs, then accuse him of invasion of privacy and humiliation...
Suing for invasion of privacy over a music video demonstrating how they invaded his privacy is wild!!
How come so many cctv’s inside his house?
Maybe he’s justifiably paranoid?<p>He got burglarized before, and got threatened with arrest after demanding police investigate. <a href="https://www.tmz.com/2022/08/22/afroman-home-raided-police-ohio-drugs/" rel="nofollow">https://www.tmz.com/2022/08/22/afroman-home-raided-police-oh...</a>
It's a small county with an extreme minority of black people, like a couple hundred or less. It's quite likely he had personally encountered some of these officers before, and almost certain they knew who he was. Within the realm of possibility he saw something like this coming. Small rural sheriff depts are astoundingly corrupt.
Is there anyone who isn't super rich who feels safe in america anymore?<p>Is it the same in other countries, can cops just raid you for no reason, or abduct people (ICE) and that's not the biggest story in the country?
Those cops are the epitome of the term “cry bully”.
Heh.<p><i>> their constitutional privacy</i><p>Isn't that something that people are always pointing out "is not guaranteed by the Constitution"?
The Constitution guarantees the right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects".<p>Which means what the Supreme Court says that it means. It's easy to imagine that it means something akin to what people mean by "privacy", but interpreting the Constitution is infinitely malleable so I don't have any idea what it means.
Defamation is the most boring version of this case. Barring dishonest editing, of course it's fine.<p>There are hypothetical versions of this that get more interesting. Ohio is a one-party consent state. It's not clear what happens in a two-party consent state. Law enforcement has no expectation of privacy in public spaces. Private is "it depends," think cases where low enforcement is discussing something with one party in a domestic dispute. If he had used bodycam footage, then you get into interesting copyright laws. Is it public domain, and if not, is it sufficiently transformative to qualify as fair use (think April 29, 1992 by Sublime).
> If he had used bodycam footage, then you get into interesting copyright laws<p>Not that interesting. The US government cannot create copyrighted works. Works created by the government are public domain. This is why Ghidra (made by the NSA), for example, has a really odd license, where the parts written by the government are "not subject to U.S. copyright protections under 17 U.S.C.", whereas future contributions by the public are covered under the Apache license.
Y'know, officers, if you'd shown up to his house after the raid and apologized and offered to buy the guy a new door of his choosing and the installation for it, we're probably not having this conversation.
They don't have the emotional intelligence for that.
They got what they wanted.<p>Afroman is the exception that proves the rule.<p>If you aren't a platinum-selling rap star they will abuse you without recourse.
That lemon pound cake did look tempting though.
This was also on youtube - Afroman made his points very clearly. That was an easy case.<p>Makes you wonder why taxpayers have to pay for incompetent cops all the time. I understand that some proection is needed, but the whole system is really defunct if such cases even (have to) come to court.
I know things are bad in the USA right now, but news like these show that you still have your basic rights. This kind of song would not fly in any other country on Earth. No other country has Freedom of Speech laws strong enough to defend against insulting the police. There have been some people abusing their freedom in recent times <i>cough</i> Kanye <i>cough</i>, but for every loud nazi there are ten more excellent people whose right to speak should not be infringed!
> This kind of song would not fly in any other country on Earth. No other country has Freedom of Speech laws strong enough to defend against insulting the police.<p>I'm fairly certain you could do the exact same thing here in Canada. I honestly don't think it's as exceptional as you're making it out to be.
Canada has better defamation laws than most of Europe (as truth is an absolute defense), but the US puts the onus of proving falsehood on the plaintiff, not the defense, in cases concerning public figures. The US's freedom of speech laws are one of the few truly exceptional legal constructs we should be proud of. Most other good legal concepts the US has pioneered have been copied to similar or greater effect abroad, such as the ADA and worker's comp.
> This kind of song would not fly in any other country on Earth. No other country has Freedom of Speech laws strong enough to defend against insulting the police.<p>What? You have no idea what you are talking about.
> This kind of song would not fly in any other country on Earth. No other country has Freedom of Speech laws strong enough to defend against insulting the police.<p>What? There's lots of antifacist/rather left-wing music that heavily critizes the police and their work. Usually not the one police officer himself but rather the institution as being part of a state who behaves injust (is that a word? non-native here...). I think that's fine and is part of a democratic system.
This wasn’t a 1A case, it was a civil defamation suit. He won because they failed to prove defamation, NOT because the judge threw out the lawsuit because of a violation of constitutional rights.<p>Separately: saying something shitty or unpopular that you disagree with isn’t someone abusing their rights to free expression. Expressing unpopular viewpoints that others consider abusive is exactly the point of such rights.<p>There’s a REALLY BIG reason it isn’t “freedom of expression, except for expressing racial hatred”, and it’s not because we like racism. Germany sometimes <i>bans entire political parties</i> that they declare unconstitutional. Now imagine that power in the hands of Trump. You can see what Putin did to Navalny for a preview.
> Germany sometimes bans entire political parties<p>You make it sound like Germany bans political parties every other year.<p>Germany formally only ever banned two parties:<p>- Socialist Reich Party (SRP), 1952
- Communist Party of Germany (KPD), 1956<p>For context: The Federal Republic of Germany was founded in 1949.<p>There are current discussions about banning - or evaluating a potential ban of - the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). If the ban went through (I think it won't), it would be the first in 70 years.
Perhaps interesting here is that some of the things he said were definitely not defensible via "truth is an affirmative defense." But it's ultimately up to the jury, and they can also find him innocent because a reasonable person wouldn't be offended by outlandish accusations.<p>(Ultimately, though, they can find him innocent for any reason. If they decided he should walk because you <i>can't legally offend cops,</i> that's fine too.)
> Now imagine that power in the hands of Trump.<p>The Germans would argue such powers <i>prevent</i> the Trumps.
[flagged]
cowsay "lemon pound cake"
As someone who has never seen that video before, could I respectfully say:<p>LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL<p>Thank you, Ohio cops and lawyers, for bringing this to our attention.
The judge really loved the cops for some reason. So embarrassing for him.
Well, he probably interacts with them on a daily/weekly basis, or at least other people from their department, and probably don't want to end up on their bad side.<p>In the end, justice and freedom of expression seems to have prevailed, so doesn't really matter what the judge think/thought in the end.
If you think "justice and freedom of expression seems to have prevailed", then please consider the people who aren't famous and can't get media attention when this sort of thing happens to them. Justice and freedom of expression fail to prevail on the regular and this is just one win amongst many, many, many losses.
For this one case. He seems to be a horribly biased judge though from what I saw in this case over the three days.
Justice didn’t prevail. Afroman had to spend THOUSANDS defending himself in this bullshit civil lawsuit, and his countersuit got thrown out because police have qualified immunity.<p>This is after they raided his house, bashed in his door, broke his cameras, stole his money, and then didn’t charge him with a single thing (and only returned part of the money).<p>There is no justice here.
One of the more interesting parts of the whole ordeal was officers getting on the witness stand and declaring that the lyrics that insinuated he had had sex with their wife were deeply traumatizing.<p>People keep throwing around 'cuck' as an insult, but if trained officers of the law familiar with application of deadly force when necessary can be severely traumatized by the notion of another man sleeping with their wife... Maybe the cucks have been the brave ones all along?
was this on the regular media? I've been bombarded by this case on tiktok for the last 5 days. and i don't follow police, law, celebrity, or rap.
gotta love some Streisand effect in the morning...
As fellow Ohioan Chrissie Hine and The Pretenders said, "Ay, oh, way to go, Ohio."<p>Yeah, it was from "My City Was Gone," which isn't a pleasant song about the state, but pfft, it works here.
I would argue that using the footage ought to be legal; they are in his home.<p>Posting their names is questionable; as officers they are public servants, but naming them is perhaps invasion of privacy?<p>Lying however would be slander and illegal, in my humble opinion. Not worth 4 million in damages, but at least a cease and desist?
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
You mean the cops. Right?
I’m curious what the alternative is? I’m not aware of anyone, save you and the aggrieved police, who think this went the wrong way.
This is not remotely true. Furthermore, the way people <i>don’t</i> get away with stuff like this is via extralegal/extrajudicial harassment, abuse, violence, and sometimes assassination (see also: MLK, Huey, Leqaa Kordia, Mahmoud Khalil, Barry Cooper, etc), so we aren’t really sure that he <i>has</i> gotten away with it yet.<p>He beat a civil defamation suit; these cops still know where he lives. Do you think the events of today made them <i>less</i> angry at him?
Feels like some unfair downvotes, so I'll ask again.<p>In what other countries could one <i>publicly</i> shame the authorities this severely? I think that's what was meant here.<p>And yes, it's <i>great</i>.
I'd work the same in pretty much any European country, as in you'd record them, you'd publish that, they'd make up some lame excuse why that's not allowed, it'd go to a court, and a judge would decide who was right case-by-case?<p>Not quite sure which part of this process do you think is even remotely unique to the US.
He'd probably actually be guilty of something defamation-adjacent in a lot of European countries.<p>In the US, the plaintiff needs to prove, to a preponderance of evidence, that the statements were <i>false</i>, intended to be perceived as statements of fact, harmful, and that there was negligence or actual malice in the defendant's belief in those statements.<p>A bunch of European countries allow defamation cases despite the statements being true. Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, and The U.K definitely fall into that category (though in some cases like the U.K., truth is a defense <i>if the plaintiff can prove the statements were in the public interest</i>).<p>To people outside of Europe, any category of countries that includes the U.K, France, and Germany can colloquially be referred to as "Europe" pretty comfortably.
100% of those cases would be favorable to cops. Defamation laws are quite restrictive in Europe, much more so when it involves public officials (take a look at the Strafgesetzbuch)
Absolutely not, Germany in general cares more about privacy than any other European country, which of course extends to cops, but you cannot extrapolate <i>anything</i> privacy-related from Germany as a continent-wide rule.<p>If you <i>really</i> want to generalise across the continent, the most common scenario would be that you're completely within your right to film them and publish that, but then the cops would argue (using GDPR of all things) that you have to blur their faces and names before publishing. (Try to argue != succeeding automatically, that's up to the court to decide.)
Exactly what I meant. For example, in Germany one would have a hard time for much less.
This is the single funniest thing to happen in at least a decade.