Discussion

Afroman found not liable in bizarre defamation case brought by Ohio cops who raided his home

looofooo0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3YThis is the video in question, police again falling trap to the Streisand effect.

archerx: Those cops are the epitome of the term “cry bully”.

LightBug1: As someone who has never seen that video before, could I respectfully say:LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLThank you, Ohio cops and lawyers, for bringing this to our attention.

Mashimo: Yes, but not limited to just that one. https://www.youtube.com/@ogafroman/videosHe also has other videos where he calls one of them a pedofile, questioning their gender (Licc'm low lisa) and more.

shadowgovt: [delayed]

snackbroken: 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.

arianvanp: I think you're confusing gender and sexual orientation. He's calling her a lesbian

Mashimo: No, I'm not. He also posted about her deep voice and people should check what genitals she really has.

embedding-shape: Also probably where there are a few Streisand effect's all packed together too, where the cops at each step made it worse for themselves.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 never heard about it.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.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.Finally, Afroman wins the case, leading to this now seemingly making international news, and the videos continue racking up views.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.

thinkingtoilet: >I know cops aren't known for being smartEven worse. Police departments can actively reject you for being smart.https://abcnews.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story...(granted this is a one off case, but it is astonishing and speaks to the larger issue)

lenerdenator: > don't cops have lawyers who can inform them about what is a smart move vs not?Generally, municipalities have at least some sort of attorney on retainer for this sort of thing.Generally. I don't know if that's the case where he lives.Either way, the police have to be smart enough to listen to that attorney, and have to be given a consequence for not doing so. 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.

delecti: I suspect it was less about the legal merits and more about punishing (whether or not they won) through the lawsuit itself.

mwigdahl: "The process is the punishment"

echelon_musk: > way less people (including myself) would have never heard about itI think the never here is a typo.

jcarrano: The US is possibly the only place in the world where one can get away with things like this.

cucumber3732842: 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.

milkshakes: here appears to be his celebration of his victory, pretty catchy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM8Ee6pcXvQ

embedding-shape: > here appears to be his celebration of his victoryNo, that video seems to be from 4 days ago, the verdict of the jury came yesterday.

milkshakes: even more amazing then

postalcoder: It gives me immeasurable delight seeing afroman at the top of HN.Love me some freedom, sweet soulful music, and pie in the face of bad cops.During one of the most stressful times of my life, "because I got high" was my wake up song. Thank you afroman for htose sweet, blissful mornings.

johannes1234321: This may be true in many cases.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.

sneak: 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.

bdcravens: Gotta say I love Afroman's choice of courtroom atire.

bonesss: I made this joke in another thread, but: I keep imagining Afromans court getup as the formal attire for American civil lawyers. Like robes and wigs, suits n ‘fros.

hollywood_court: Those cops embarrassed themselves. Especially that one lady that was faux crying. Shameful behavior from the largest gang in the US.

anon84873628: 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).That said, I don't disagree with outcome.

embedding-shape: 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.

yread: > pedofileapparently, the deputy in question has a brother who was a deputy as well but was fired and charged with a sexual misdemeanor against minors.Afroman also said he steals money during traffic stops and he was accused of that multiple times.Of course that's not bulletproof evidence but a reasonable person might assume these rumours to be true

anon84873628: Or claiming you don't know what crime your brother was charged with that led him to resign from the same police department.

embedding-shape: 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?

JoshTriplett: You're assuming a rational, reasoned process, rather than an instinctive punishment of a perceived status challenge.