BMX Bandit said:

---

That's what the reports are.

HTowns theory likely correct. Jury didn't think they were serious accusations from Afroman

---

I'm guessing they thought the sheriffs were idiots and destroyed his property with no charges filed AND they didn't reimburse him for the damage.

that likely played a role as well. "unsympathetic plaintiff" is not good for a defamation case

Afroman wins

NOW: Afroman celebrates right outside Adams County courthouse after winning big in his defamation trial

Afroman wins in unanimous fashion, defending his First Amendment rights against the Adams County Sheriff's Department.

Officers Pound Cake, Lick’em Up Lisa, and the boys… https://t.co/hZ7CgHPqpz pic.twitter.com/nbnKV67fXh

— The Facts Dude 🤙🏽 (@Thefactsdude) March 18, 2026

Watching the Runkle coverage of the trial and wow these cops were awful on the stand.

Plaintiff lawyer should have dropped most of these guys and focused on the pedo accusation.

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

Watching the Runkle coverage of the trial and wow these cops were awful on the stand.

Plaintiff lawyer should have dropped most of these guys and focused on the pedo accusation.

---

That's where I'm at. Most of these claims were pretty outlandish, and it came off as people looking for a payday. The context around the pedo accusation could have played a part in it. Saying the same thing in a parody song versus in a news conference can have a great impact on how that statement is perceived. If the statement was made on an Instagram post, it's going to carry less weight since social media is known for ****-posting. The other thing is it came from someone who made a song "But Then I Got High." You kind of have to take anything he says with a grain of salt to begin with.

One of the funniest moments happened when one of them was asked if his wife was cheating on him (to go to the claim that Afroman was banging his wife). For some background, when you make a claim of defamation, one of the first things you have to do is prove, beyond a preponderance of the evidence (aka more likely than not), that that alleged defamatory statement is false. If you have a legitimate claim, that should be pretty easy to do. Instead, this exchange happened on direct examination:

Q. Has your wife been cheating on you?
A. I don't know.

*facepalm*

My Brother in Christ, you had one job when asked that question, and you were supposed to respond "No." Instead, you didn't prove the statement was false, and you just torpedoed that particular claim. As I've seen more of this case, most of these claims should have been tossed at the motion for summary judgement stage.

Ag with kids said:

---

ts5641 said:

---

Who in holy hell is Afroman?

---

---

"Crazy Rap (Colt 45 & 2 Zig-Zags)" is better than "Because I Got High". Just my opinion. And definitely NSFW or your kids

He should've been more specific and clarified, "With the defendant," because maybe she IS cheating on him, just with someone else.

I do believe someone in the ACSO stole his $400. It isn't difficult to count under $5k in cash so I find it incredibly unlikely that the SO explanation that the officer in charge of taking the money into evidence made a mistake in counting is credible. Somewhere along the line they helped themselves to some cash thinking no one would notice or care. The officer admitted on the stand he had seized cash during traffic stops and been accused of stealing money previously. I'm sure that is a pretty common accusation when money is seized but I'm sure the jury took considerable interest in that testimony.

I want to know if the cops body cam was rolling during the count.

I can't believe the cops' lawyer played the entire 13 minute lick'em low video in court to try and win sympathy with the jury. Anyone who watches that would see right away it was satire and not a real accusations.

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

Watching the Runkle coverage of the trial and wow these cops were awful on the stand.

Plaintiff lawyer should have dropped most of these guys and focused on the pedo accusation.

---

They asked Afroman on the stand if the cop was a pedo and he responded ' I don't really care for how he's holding that kids booty in the picture'.

I thought the false lite claims would be the harder ones to get over. Seem broad and based on case law, and the judges instruction made it seem anything that could be false and is shocking could be a false light claim.

I think Afroman post's on F16. He nailed this with all the boards talking points

Okay I just watched Andrea Burkhart break down the testimony of the first cop, the one he accused of being a pedo. I don't feel bad for the cop anymore. That guy was smug, arrogant, low IQ, and I do think he stole that money. He's the one who counted it on scene but the count was off. He dodged the question about whether he sealed the evidence bag. He testified his career was affected but apparently he got a job in another county and got a promotion to detective with a raise.

lol good for Afroman, must cops i have encountered are ****ing *******s.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

---

This is the best summary out there lol

Judge scolded jurors after the trial asking them were they got hung up. Is this normal?

https://www.youtube.com/live/qlxvSiBJwn8?si=y1uxn_GXS0aqcCFV

Just got introduced to this song today - what an absolute banger

Afroman's attorney giving interviews. Interesting guy. He has a PhD in chemistry. He didn't even know the trial was livestreamed until the second day.