arrested for racist language?
- Thread starter osufanboy
- Start date
Tb
1. filing a criminal complaint is generally considered to be a privilege and not subject to civil liability.
2. arrest is not charging with a criminal offense. the police don't make the decision. the decision is made by the state's attorney, the district attorney or the city attorney.
3. to have been arrested on a misdemeanor, the complainant has to sign a complaint, if the offense is not committed within the presence of the arresting officer
4. to have been arrested on a felony, the felony did not have to take place in the officer's presence.
5. there is no civil penalty for refusing the public service, unless there is a violation of a state statute or the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
6. you have to carefully delineate the civil responsibility of Taco Bell, based in Orange County, CA. you need to inquire whether it is a chain owned store or a franchise. If a franchise, under the limited fact situation, there is no civil responsibility.
Do you realize that a simple franchise like Subway has a 400% turnover in hired help in the first year of operation of at a new location? Our society makes it a crime NOT to hire any crumb bum off the street who does not have a record of criminal convictions. Then, when the crumb bum does something wrong, inappropriate or offensive, the same society wants to crucify the businessman.
I have no idea what transpired. It makes for good copy, flaring tempers, venting and doing anything but perfect practice with your firearm.
Of course, no one wants to ask whatever happened to the principles of the service employee saying "yes mam, no mam, may I take your order please" or the customer closing his/her pocket book and walking away from lousy service. No, we live in a society wherein everyone purports to "know my rights" and discards common sense on the basis of "principle" that does not exist. In some sense, the three people deserve each other.
1. filing a criminal complaint is generally considered to be a privilege and not subject to civil liability.
2. arrest is not charging with a criminal offense. the police don't make the decision. the decision is made by the state's attorney, the district attorney or the city attorney.
3. to have been arrested on a misdemeanor, the complainant has to sign a complaint, if the offense is not committed within the presence of the arresting officer
4. to have been arrested on a felony, the felony did not have to take place in the officer's presence.
5. there is no civil penalty for refusing the public service, unless there is a violation of a state statute or the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
6. you have to carefully delineate the civil responsibility of Taco Bell, based in Orange County, CA. you need to inquire whether it is a chain owned store or a franchise. If a franchise, under the limited fact situation, there is no civil responsibility.
Do you realize that a simple franchise like Subway has a 400% turnover in hired help in the first year of operation of at a new location? Our society makes it a crime NOT to hire any crumb bum off the street who does not have a record of criminal convictions. Then, when the crumb bum does something wrong, inappropriate or offensive, the same society wants to crucify the businessman.
I have no idea what transpired. It makes for good copy, flaring tempers, venting and doing anything but perfect practice with your firearm.
Of course, no one wants to ask whatever happened to the principles of the service employee saying "yes mam, no mam, may I take your order please" or the customer closing his/her pocket book and walking away from lousy service. No, we live in a society wherein everyone purports to "know my rights" and discards common sense on the basis of "principle" that does not exist. In some sense, the three people deserve each other.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Say What? Someone please tell me there's not really a crime on the books for this? That is totally un-American. My 'creed' is Guns don't cause crime, people do... so if I go to Conn and Sarah Brady ridicules me, I can have her arrested?
Jamelle Byrd won't be fired ,hell she CAN'T be fired! By her own Managers admission this wasn't the first incident involving her. Wonder why she was still there? The sad and ironic thing is that if somebody at Taco Hell with an ounce of backbone fired her ,she'd sue ,the ACLU would take her part and she'd get a big fat check!! Regards 18DAI.
Only if she uses the right (or wrong as the case may be) adjective.
ie: If she call you a baby killing gun owner, that's ok. If she calls you a black or brown or yellow baby killing gun owner, then she's in hot water.
If she calls you a white baby killing gun owner, then,,,well,,you're probably going to have to just take it.
On topic - I wonder if they black out old reruns of Sanford and Son in CT?
Fred ( Red Foxx) gets pretty down and dirty about the PR neighbor.
I went to the one in Livingston Texas (so you all know never to drop by there while traveling East Texas) and they took 30 minutes to get my order out.....I AM NOT KIDDING. And on top of that they were out of napkins.
Won't be going back there.
As for Conn. All I can say is just add them to the list of The People's Republik of Konnectikut. Heck just call it The People's Republik of New England.
invention_45
New member
When I read Doug's post, I wondered what ever happened to the concept of "fighting words". I'm surprised nobody mentioned it till way later, in a post by Optical Serenity.
You've got plenty of free speech. The reason for laws against using "fighting words" is to prevent those words from becoming fights. Which are illegal. Whether or not he'll say so, OS, as a LEO, knows this.
Fighting words, directed from me to you, are NOT the same as cusswords, overheard by you during a conversation that you're not a party to.
Being arrested for issuing fighting words is part of keeping some semblance of control over public safety. Being overly concerned about hearing bad words not directed at you is being a busybody.
Fact is, "hate crime" is partially a repackaging of "fighting words", a concept as old as the hills on ... well, as old as the hills.
You've got plenty of free speech. The reason for laws against using "fighting words" is to prevent those words from becoming fights. Which are illegal. Whether or not he'll say so, OS, as a LEO, knows this.
Fighting words, directed from me to you, are NOT the same as cusswords, overheard by you during a conversation that you're not a party to.
Being arrested for issuing fighting words is part of keeping some semblance of control over public safety. Being overly concerned about hearing bad words not directed at you is being a busybody.
Fact is, "hate crime" is partially a repackaging of "fighting words", a concept as old as the hills on ... well, as old as the hills.
Well, if I call you a creep, a jerk, a punk, a pompus ass or whatever, are you saying that's not fighting words? Only if it has to do with race, blindness, color of hair or something to do with your physical appearance is it fighting words?
People call each other any one of those things from time to time, but only if it has to do with race does it become "insentitive" and "illegal." If I don't like someone for what they are doing or the way they are behaving or the way they dress for work, I should be able to call them whatever I want.
This is the problem I have with crime prevention laws. All they do is hurt noncriminals. Same thing as prosecuting (or persecuting as I call it) someone for carrying a gun without a permit. Because we have a law that says you can't carry without a permit because we supposedly need this law to keep criminals or lunatics from getting guns you, as far as I know a perfectly honest and free man who has done no wrong, gets arrested and sent to jail for violating a crime prevention law that essentially limits your right to bear arms in self defense (while, as we all know, criminals get guns anyway and use them anyway....they are after all "criminals")
What this subject is (and I guess this whole thread is a tad off topic as it has nothing to do with guns) is a law that says you can't say certain things because somebody might start a fight with you (that isn't even what happened in this taco bell incident) or get their feelings hurt (and isn't that politically incorrect). The reason you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater is because people respond to that that their may be a danger and rush to the door causing a panic that can hurt other people. But what this is is you saying something to somebody (wrongly or not) and them having a choice whether to respond or not respond. Their response may very well rightly be (if I am just plain trying to hurt them or someone they know verbally) a punch in the nose. It may be to walk away. These are really personal things that the police or the courts have no business in. If it gets out of hand and starts spilling over and causing a public disturbance then police need to break it up. Not give someone a fine or imprisonment for being politically incorrect.
What laws such as this have to do with is trying to mold or control public thought (aka thought police) into a way that self-righteous elites want soley for their own self-righteousness. It makes them feel good (them being: hollywood actors, media personalities, politians at home and in Washington...in other words people in their own little world and not in the real world like you and me and everyone else in this forum)
Gary Conner
New member
Quote:
"You've got plenty of free speech. The reason for laws against using "fighting words" is to prevent those words from becoming fights. Which are illegal."
Exactly how much free speech is plenty, and what constitutes a fighting word?
Say for instance, if I said "I don't like Left Wing, Commie Socialist teachers trying to brainwash students into hating America" would that get me arrested in Connecticut?. Who actually determines it? Does a policeman decide on the spot that I have taken up too much First Amendment inventory?
Or alternatively, if a Leftist Senator from Massachusetts makes the inflammatory statement, "President Bush is a liar, and started the Iraq war only so his business associates down in Texas could profit" I wonder who arrests a Senator for calling the President a liar and slandering Texas businessmen in general, just so he could make a political point? Are Senators immune if they have been drinking?
If not, would it be the Secret Service, or could a regular Deputy Sherriff determine if and when that Senator would be hauled off to jail?
I vote to go back to the old way, and let the First Amendment mean what it says. Because if we don't then the Second Amendment will be subject to the same treatment. (Oh wait, that already happened)
"You've got plenty of free speech. The reason for laws against using "fighting words" is to prevent those words from becoming fights. Which are illegal."
Exactly how much free speech is plenty, and what constitutes a fighting word?
Say for instance, if I said "I don't like Left Wing, Commie Socialist teachers trying to brainwash students into hating America" would that get me arrested in Connecticut?. Who actually determines it? Does a policeman decide on the spot that I have taken up too much First Amendment inventory?
Or alternatively, if a Leftist Senator from Massachusetts makes the inflammatory statement, "President Bush is a liar, and started the Iraq war only so his business associates down in Texas could profit" I wonder who arrests a Senator for calling the President a liar and slandering Texas businessmen in general, just so he could make a political point? Are Senators immune if they have been drinking?
If not, would it be the Secret Service, or could a regular Deputy Sherriff determine if and when that Senator would be hauled off to jail?
I vote to go back to the old way, and let the First Amendment mean what it says. Because if we don't then the Second Amendment will be subject to the same treatment. (Oh wait, that already happened)
invention_45
New member
Doug:
Calling somebody a creep or other nasty name is what most would call "looking for trouble". Adding something very personal like race to it is "really looking for trouble".
Say you decide you don't like some kid's saggy pants and saunter up to him and call him a creep. Being a not-so-smart teenager, he turns around and punches you. A brawl (illegal in Florida) ensues. This all better happen with at least 20 witnesses, because 95% are going to make themselves scarce. They, unlike you, have more important things to do with their lives than spend them involved in somebody else's business (like being a witness in court). I'm not blowing smoke here. I have BEEN THERE and can assure you that NOBODY will have seen ANYTHING.
The police arrive.
Who is going to get arrested? Both of you. Who most deserves to get arrested? YOU.
About that fire in a theater thing. There's no fire. Nobody has to get up and stampede. But they might, and that's why our freedom of speech is said to be somewhat short of yelling "fire" in that place.
Let's say you are big and ugly and dangerous-looking to that teenager. Your "creep" comment might frighten him every bit as much as "fire" in a crowded theater. Or he might be mentally unstable and suddenly mortally stab you before you can react. He'll go to prison, but you'll be just as dead.
People who lack self-control and can't mind their own business but also want the full force of the 2nd amendment to let them carry a weapon that says "try and stop me" provide a lot of fuel to the gun grabbers' fire.
Finally, walking up to somebody and calling them a creep, with or without the racial adjective, isn't likely to change their behavior or appearance one bit. Maybe striking up a conversation and politely mentioning it will. Don't think that's realisitc? I got an example of that, too.
I have a neighbor across the street. Her yard is a mess. A neighbor about 10 houses away decided he didn't like it. So his solution was to drive by when she was outside and yell at her "clean up your yard" or "christmas is over, take down your lights".
The result was a still-ongoing feud between them, involving cops and all, and that will likely result in somebody being arrested someday.
Same neighbor visits me one day, complaining about how this is all going on. I say to her that my property ends at the sidewalk, and I mind my business. I tell her that the fact that her yard is in fact pretty disorderly is not really my affair.
Within 3 days of that conversation, it's about 85% cleaned up.
Being insulted about the situation only made her dig in her heels. Being told it in a polite setting and in an offhand way embarrassed her into cleaning up.
Something about flies and honey and vinegar.
Calling somebody a creep or other nasty name is what most would call "looking for trouble". Adding something very personal like race to it is "really looking for trouble".
Say you decide you don't like some kid's saggy pants and saunter up to him and call him a creep. Being a not-so-smart teenager, he turns around and punches you. A brawl (illegal in Florida) ensues. This all better happen with at least 20 witnesses, because 95% are going to make themselves scarce. They, unlike you, have more important things to do with their lives than spend them involved in somebody else's business (like being a witness in court). I'm not blowing smoke here. I have BEEN THERE and can assure you that NOBODY will have seen ANYTHING.
The police arrive.
Who is going to get arrested? Both of you. Who most deserves to get arrested? YOU.
About that fire in a theater thing. There's no fire. Nobody has to get up and stampede. But they might, and that's why our freedom of speech is said to be somewhat short of yelling "fire" in that place.
Let's say you are big and ugly and dangerous-looking to that teenager. Your "creep" comment might frighten him every bit as much as "fire" in a crowded theater. Or he might be mentally unstable and suddenly mortally stab you before you can react. He'll go to prison, but you'll be just as dead.
People who lack self-control and can't mind their own business but also want the full force of the 2nd amendment to let them carry a weapon that says "try and stop me" provide a lot of fuel to the gun grabbers' fire.
Finally, walking up to somebody and calling them a creep, with or without the racial adjective, isn't likely to change their behavior or appearance one bit. Maybe striking up a conversation and politely mentioning it will. Don't think that's realisitc? I got an example of that, too.
I have a neighbor across the street. Her yard is a mess. A neighbor about 10 houses away decided he didn't like it. So his solution was to drive by when she was outside and yell at her "clean up your yard" or "christmas is over, take down your lights".
The result was a still-ongoing feud between them, involving cops and all, and that will likely result in somebody being arrested someday.
Same neighbor visits me one day, complaining about how this is all going on. I say to her that my property ends at the sidewalk, and I mind my business. I tell her that the fact that her yard is in fact pretty disorderly is not really my affair.
Within 3 days of that conversation, it's about 85% cleaned up.
Being insulted about the situation only made her dig in her heels. Being told it in a polite setting and in an offhand way embarrassed her into cleaning up.
Something about flies and honey and vinegar.
invention_45
New member
Gary Conner:
You said:
"Say for instance, if I said "I don't like Left Wing, Commie Socialist teachers trying to brainwash students into hating America" would that get me arrested in Connecticut?. Who actually determines it? Does a policeman decide on the spot that I have taken up too much First Amendment inventory? "
"Or alternatively, if a Leftist Senator from Massachusetts makes the inflammatory statement, "President Bush is a liar, and started the Iraq war only so his business associates down in Texas could profit" I wonder who arrests a Senator for calling the President a liar and slandering Texas businessmen in general, just so he could make a political point? Are Senators immune if they have been drinking?"
Not being from/in Connecticut, I can't say for sure, but my money's on their not having any law against saying what's in your quotes. So if you say that exact thing to me out on the street, my comment to you, as a stranger, if I make any at all, will be "OK, fine". Same with the quote about Bush.
So far, no restriction at all on you freedom of speech, other than I'd walk away from any stranger who just up and said those things to me, restricting his further speech to me.
Now, if you should say to some 3rd party "I don't like John Doe, a Commie teacher, trying to brainwash...", you've just slandered John Doe. That's a crime, you know.
You might not like it being a crime, claiming that it cramps your free speech, but it's being a crime is what then prevents John Doe from getting on the 11 o'clock news and defending his honor by saying "I may be a Commie, but despite appearances, (your name here) is the leader of our "cell" here in Connecticut"
As far as one politician slandering another, well, far as I know a defense to a charge of slander/libel is that it's against a public figure. They're expected to accept a certain amount of that.
And don't forget that strict means strict. If you want the 1st amendment strictly enforced, then you have to accept the occasional theater stampede due to some idiot yelling "fire".
Personally, I like it just the way it is. That is because I have tried to actually read the laws and, where I could find it, the legislative intent, at least of the State of Florida. And most of them seem pretty reasonable attempts at keeping the peace.
You said:
"Say for instance, if I said "I don't like Left Wing, Commie Socialist teachers trying to brainwash students into hating America" would that get me arrested in Connecticut?. Who actually determines it? Does a policeman decide on the spot that I have taken up too much First Amendment inventory? "
"Or alternatively, if a Leftist Senator from Massachusetts makes the inflammatory statement, "President Bush is a liar, and started the Iraq war only so his business associates down in Texas could profit" I wonder who arrests a Senator for calling the President a liar and slandering Texas businessmen in general, just so he could make a political point? Are Senators immune if they have been drinking?"
Not being from/in Connecticut, I can't say for sure, but my money's on their not having any law against saying what's in your quotes. So if you say that exact thing to me out on the street, my comment to you, as a stranger, if I make any at all, will be "OK, fine". Same with the quote about Bush.
So far, no restriction at all on you freedom of speech, other than I'd walk away from any stranger who just up and said those things to me, restricting his further speech to me.
Now, if you should say to some 3rd party "I don't like John Doe, a Commie teacher, trying to brainwash...", you've just slandered John Doe. That's a crime, you know.
You might not like it being a crime, claiming that it cramps your free speech, but it's being a crime is what then prevents John Doe from getting on the 11 o'clock news and defending his honor by saying "I may be a Commie, but despite appearances, (your name here) is the leader of our "cell" here in Connecticut"
As far as one politician slandering another, well, far as I know a defense to a charge of slander/libel is that it's against a public figure. They're expected to accept a certain amount of that.
And don't forget that strict means strict. If you want the 1st amendment strictly enforced, then you have to accept the occasional theater stampede due to some idiot yelling "fire".
Personally, I like it just the way it is. That is because I have tried to actually read the laws and, where I could find it, the legislative intent, at least of the State of Florida. And most of them seem pretty reasonable attempts at keeping the peace.
Gary Conner
New member
Quote:
"Now, if you should say to some 3rd party "...I don't like John Doe, a Commie teacher, trying to brainwash...", you've just slandered John Doe. That's a crime, you know."
Where in your reading of the law, is slander against a public figure allowed, (since you say in that post "...they are expected to put up with a certain amount of that"..) but "slander" against John Doe, is a violation of criminal statute?
I thought damages from slander or libel was pursued by suit under Civil law, not a Criminal violation.
When you think about researching Legislative Intent, I don't think you'll find the intent was application of any law differently for elected officials, than for non-elected officials. I agree they may expect more dissenting speech, but I disagree that they should expect or accept, slander or libelous statements.
Alternatively, I don't feel that they have the right to sick an LEO on you because they "feel" either your views, or statements, are offensive to them personally.
I think they do have the right to file civil suit if you slander or libel them, and you have the same right in return. In other words, just because something is "legal", it doesn't mean it is "Constitutionally" a sound law.
Take McCain Feingold. It limits within 60 days of an election, certain groups from making any advertised references to a candidate, or to any specific legislation that is tied to their name, such as the McCain-Feingold bill itself. It limits the speech of all members of the NRA within 60 days of an election.
It is legal at present, but I doubt anyone who can actually read the First Amendment as it was intended will tell you it is within the Intent of the Founding Fathers who authored it, when you read the First Amendment as it is written.
"Now, if you should say to some 3rd party "...I don't like John Doe, a Commie teacher, trying to brainwash...", you've just slandered John Doe. That's a crime, you know."
Where in your reading of the law, is slander against a public figure allowed, (since you say in that post "...they are expected to put up with a certain amount of that"..) but "slander" against John Doe, is a violation of criminal statute?
I thought damages from slander or libel was pursued by suit under Civil law, not a Criminal violation.
When you think about researching Legislative Intent, I don't think you'll find the intent was application of any law differently for elected officials, than for non-elected officials. I agree they may expect more dissenting speech, but I disagree that they should expect or accept, slander or libelous statements.
Alternatively, I don't feel that they have the right to sick an LEO on you because they "feel" either your views, or statements, are offensive to them personally.
I think they do have the right to file civil suit if you slander or libel them, and you have the same right in return. In other words, just because something is "legal", it doesn't mean it is "Constitutionally" a sound law.
Take McCain Feingold. It limits within 60 days of an election, certain groups from making any advertised references to a candidate, or to any specific legislation that is tied to their name, such as the McCain-Feingold bill itself. It limits the speech of all members of the NRA within 60 days of an election.
It is legal at present, but I doubt anyone who can actually read the First Amendment as it was intended will tell you it is within the Intent of the Founding Fathers who authored it, when you read the First Amendment as it is written.