arrested for racist language?

O

osufanboy

New member
I may not agree with the language, but this hate-crime stuff is just getting insane. Saying something that offends someone else? I guess that's not free speech.

A woman accused of using racial epithets while waiting for food at a Connecticut Taco Bell drive-through window was arrested Wednesday.

Jennifer Farrelly, 19, of East Windsor, has been charged with ridicule on account of race, creed or color and second-degree breach of peace. Farrelly's boyfriend, Eric Satterlee, 22, of Ashford, was charged with breach of peace in the incident.

On Dec. 18, Farrelly and Satterlee became frustrated by the slow service at the Taco Bell restaurant on Brookside Place, according to an arrest warrant. Farrelly banged on the drive-through window and called the Taco Bell attendant, Jamelle Byrd, a racial epithet, according to the warrant. Satterlee allegedly cursed and banged on the window.

Farrelly denied using racial epithets when she was interviewed by police, saying Byrd caused the dispute by ridiculing her for parking her car far away from the drive-through window, the warrant states. Byrd's supervisor told police that Byrd should not have been working the drive-through because he had gotten into a similar incident with another customer, the warrant states.
Click to expand...
 
Amazing. Freedom of speech no longer exists. Funny how you can be arrested for making racial comments or insults (If I don't like someone for whatever reason I can call them whatever I want if I think it applies...if they want to punch me in the mouth then go ahead.) but I hear people shout 4 letter vulgar curse words all the time every other word in public now and you're supposed to "mind your own business"
 
thats not a bad word, I use it all the time! "Hey you friggin' racial epithet!" "Man, I really hate you racial epithets!" "Hey you racial epithets need to get a friggin' job!":D
 
They both banged on the window. Then it says they was parked far away from the window. I would like to measure their arms. We might be able to get them in the Guiness book of world records for having the longest arms on a human.
 
The freedom is speech does indeed have its limitations. Lets see what happens if someone makes a threat against the life of the president. You will have the Secret Service on your butt so fast, especially if they know you are among the armed populace. You cannot scream fire in a crowded building as this would cause a stampede and likely cause many people to get injured. Next time you are feeling brave or stupid, walk past security in the airport and tell them you have an explosive device. Then you can tell them that you were kidding after they finish giving you a cavity search.

Those examples are for the safety of other and I know that it is not the same as using offensive language. I don't know what the penalties are for such a charge. Although the intention is good, I do believe that is oversteps our freedom of speech. Big brother is watching so watch what you say!
 
Byrd's supervisor told police that Byrd should not have been working the drive-through because he had gotten into a similar incident with another customer, the warrant states.
Click to expand...
Congratulations, Jennifer Farrelly, you have just won the Sue-Taco-Bell sweepstakes.
 
I'm confused ,they went to Taco Hell ,and were expecting to get what they ordered ,quickly? Whazz up wif dat?
 
One more question ,If they had prefaced the "bad word" with "Yo Yo Yo" ,and hadn't been white ,would it still have been a crime? Regards 18DAI.
 
my understanding is, if you use a racial slur during a threat,it would be illegal.
is this "ridicule" law a local one?
do you have a link?
 
I would love to see the text of the law. As it stands it sounds unconstitutionally vague since "ridicule" could encompass just about anything spoken or gestured. One must know that ones acts are unlawful prior to making the act and if the law is too vague to inform one of the unlawfulness, then the law is not enforceable.

Secondly, I agree with the worlds longest arms theory.

Third, if the guy had problems with this issue allegedly happening in the past, then WHY were the customers arrested. Seems to me that if the guy was constantly having racial epithet issues, then it probably is the taco-bell-guy who is creating the problem and not the customers.

Last, I wonder why the couple were arrested if the manager supported their version, the facts supported their version, and the warrant states their version as the basis for the arrest? If everyone says they were acting lawfully and the warrant alleges lawful acts, then why were they arrested?

I think they were arrested in order to shut them up and defuse the situation. Also the arrest makes it very difficult for them to win a suit against Taco-Bell as the arrest makes them the perpitrators and not the victims. Maybe the cops are on the freebee taco-bell-food plan and needed to protect their favorite lunch break hangout?
 
Rob - Here you go...

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap939.htm#Sec53-37.htm

Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 53-37
Ridicule on account of race, creed or color. Misdemeanor.

Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be fined not more than fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days or both.


Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 53-37a
Deprivation of a person’s civil rights by person wearing mask
or hood. Class D felony.

Any person who, with the intent to subject, or cause to be subjected, any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the constitution or laws of this state or of the United States, on account of religion, national origin, alienage, color, race, sex, blindness or physical disability, . . . while wearing a mask, hood or other device designed to conceal the identity of such person shall be guilty of a class D felony.


Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 53a-181j, 53a-181k and 53a-181l
Intimidation based on bigotry or bias. Class C or D felony.

A person is guilty of intimidation based on bigotry or bias if he or she “maliciously and with specific intent to intimidate or harass another person because of the actual or perceived race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation of such person, causes serious physical injury to such other person or to a third person.” (53a-181j)

A person is guilty of intimidation based on bigotry or bias if he or she “maliciously and with specific intent to intimidate or harass another person because of the actual or perceived race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation of such other person,” does any of the following: causes physical contact with such other person; damages, destroys or defaces any real or personal property of such other person; or threatens, by word or act, to do an act described above if there is reasonable cause to believe that such act will occur. (53a-181k)

A person is guilty of intimidation based on bigotry or bias if he or she, “with specific intent to intimidate or harass another person or group of persons, because of actual or perceived race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation of such person or persons:” damages, destroys or defaces any real or personal property or threatens, by word or act, to do such an act, or urges another person to do such an act if there is reasonable cause to believe that such an act will occur. (53a-181l
Click to expand...
 
Yep! We have middle eastern illegals and gang banger's flooding accross the mexican border, and when we the people ask, can we keep it legal? we get called xenophobes,racists, and told to shut up!
 
Also the arrest makes it very difficult for them to win a suit against Taco-Bell as the arrest makes them the perpetrators and not the victims.
Click to expand...

I would think the arrest would have little or no effect on a civil suit if there is no conviction. It may actually increase civil liability against TB depending on the nature of the dismissal. (Rob, you are the lawyer, correct me if I'm wrong)

"Breech of the peace" when charged alone is usually vague and difficult to make stand from a prosecutorial position also.

I am curious if "50 Cent" will be playing any time soon in Connecticut? If so will they be arrested under the same statute or are they protected because of artistic freedom? Maybe if Farrelly and Satterlee would have sung their displeasure they would have a better defense.:D

Where are the ACLU when they are needed?
 
No Carbiner, I'm of the brown persuasion and I'd love to get them borders closed! If I have to go across the border to see family, and I have to bring a passport and foto ID and whatever else they want me to bring, I'll comply just dont let anymore ILEGALS in the country. If they want to go through the legal chanels to come in to the U.S. I have no problem either. :)
 
Instead of using they,I should have said the ACLU/LIBERAL crowd.

Heck, look at some of the names they called C.Rice and Alberto G.
 
Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 53-37
Ridicule on account of race, creed or color. Misdemeanor.

Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be fined not more than fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days or both.
Click to expand...

Sounds really vague to me. "By his advertisement" means what exactly? Vocal speech only? Or does it also include T-shirts, hand gestures and other social behaviors considered rude? Farting or belching? "Ridicules" can mean just about anything since it's subjective based upon the specific circumstances of the event.

If anyone is feeling really frisky they can do the legal research to see if there's something specific in this area. AFAIK, the law appears too vague on it's face. Me, I'm too darn tired tonite to dig through the junk to find swine (wait a minnit, ain't that supposed to be pearls?).

Pipoman, if I were the defense atty for TB I'd be darn sure to put the couple on the witness stand and ask them about whether or not they were arrested over this incident. It's civil court so the "felony arrests or convictions" rule doesn't apply. It'd also be relevant to the issues of injury, viability of the claim, and potential insurance fraud.

When the jury hears that they were arrested their opinion of the plaintiffs will severly alter to the point they become bad people who are trying to rip off the good merchant. It'd be almost impossible to win without some sort of counter like "TB insisted that they be arrested then insisted that the charges be dropped."
 
I suppose it would matter if the charge is dismissed prior to or during the trial and the grounds for dismissal.

Yes the issue of injury keeps a lot of these cases off the docket. I think there would be some injury to the defendants if it is found that the employee and the manager at the TB gave provably false statements. Also the manager of the TB states he knows of a previous act by the employee (I'll bet Byrd's job security is questionable;) ). I wonder how many previous acts the manager doesn't know about. Of coarse this is all hypothetical, it would be interesting to see how it plays out.

The amount of damages sometimes pales in comparison to the satisfaction of victory. Then its just a matter of can you afford legal fees or find an attorney who doesn't fear implication in insurance fraud. I hadn't thought of the insurance fraud aspect.
 
Personally as an LEO, I think Hate crime specific charges are insane. I can understand "disorderly conduct" charges for language that results in fighting words...but not hate crime specific.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top