Afroman Wins Civil Trial over Use of Police Raid Footage in His Music Videos(www.nytimes.com)
253 pointsby pseudolus4 hours ago11 comments
  • duxup3 minutes ago
    > 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.

    >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.

    The man has a sense of humor.

  • maerF0x043 minutes ago
    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.
  • fny13 minutes ago
    I highly recommend people watch video from the trial--specifically the officer testimonies. It's absurd this lawsuit was even fit for trial.
  • Reubachi3 hours ago
    "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"

    "2002" New York Times, everyone.

    Props to afroman for his perfect demeanor/attitude during all this.

    • esprehn2 hours ago
      2022. I'm not sure phones recorded useful video in 2002.
      • refulgentis2 hours ago
        Right. It’s a little hard to parse but they’re saying “The NYT has a typo”
        • netsharcan hour ago
          And what he's implying. "The NYT has a typo, it's all garbage!"
          • amiga38639 minutes ago
            They're implying "An establishment calling itself a 'newspaper of record' can be expected to have high standards, such as correctly reporting dates, and I'll hold them to that"

            If you can spot a typo in the first few seconds of reading a piece, so can the editor and sub-editor before it's published.

            • ddellacosta18 minutes ago
              Myself and most other programmers I know have at least once (more like 100 times) had the experience where you can't figure something out in some code you've been staring at for an hour, then another person comes along and immediately sees an obvious glaring error that you missed.

              I can only imagine the same thing happens in newsrooms with text, especially when it is visibly very similar, like "2002" and "2022."

              • Dansvidania10 minutes ago
                Youd expect them to have a checklist too though.
  • throwa3562622 hours ago
    Serious question: how come the police have not paid for the damage they caused?
    • wl2 hours ago
      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).
      • delfinom3 minutes ago
        Eh? This falls under tort law for damages caused by the government.
    • Refreeze5224an hour ago
      Serious answer: cops are not accountable for their behavior, in the vast majority of cases.
    • Drakim2 hours ago
      If the damaged party tries to sue the police for the damage they caused, the police can get the case instantly dismissed underqualified immunity.
      • dec0dedab0de2 hours ago
        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.

        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.

        • voxic11an hour ago
          The government has sovereign immunity which is why you usually have to sue the people involved rather than the government directly.
          • dec0dedab0de2 minutes ago
            I didn't know about sovereign immunity, but I just looked it up and there are exceptions to it. I think this one in particular could fall under a civil rights violation.

            People routinely get money from excessive force used by police officers, and I believe that does extend to property too.

            Qualified immunity means it is almost impossible to sue the officers directly, which is why so many people have a problem with it. Not only do taxpayers have to pay for the actions of a bad police officer, the officer themself isn't held responsible for their actions.

            On the other hand, you don't want officers afraid to engage with a dangerous situation because they might bankrupt their family if they do the wrong thing in the heat of the moment. It is a sticky situation, and before smartphones and body cameras there was no real way to know if an officer crossed the line. As technology improves, I expect there to be more personal accountability, while also allowing the officers enough leeway to do their jobs without hesitation.

          • petcat5 minutes ago
            Police departments are sued constantly. Most major police departments even have dedicated divisions set up just to assess and respond to lawsuits. Oftentimes by just knocking on the door and handing over a check.
          • ngetchellan hour ago
            The government is sued all the time.
      • lightedman2 hours ago
        Stealing things out of a person's fridge and eating it is not covered under qualified immunity.
        • RIMR2 hours ago
          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.
        • cobbzilla16 minutes ago
          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.
    • caymanjim2 hours ago
      Qualified immunity.
      • iririririr2 hours ago
        which is double genius on afroman, because they forfeited qualified immunity to start this trial. now he can even sue further damages.

        distrack as legal maneuver.

        • giraffe_ladyan hour ago
          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."
      • jhancock2 hours ago
        I'm going to keep this one... underqualified immunity :)
    • quickthrowman23 minutes ago
      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.

      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.

      • malfist13 minutes ago
        There's even a legal case where police took a backhoe to a building and tore one wall completely out instead of negotiating during a hostage situation. The homeowner was unable to get compensation for their destroyed home.
  • 14 minutes ago
    undefined
  • cardsstacked475 minutes ago
    this matches my experience exactly
  • josefritzishere3 hours ago
    This is the single funniest thing to happen in at least a decade.