Posted on 07/21/2026 9:59:55 AM PDT by Morgana
A white woman has gone on trial over claims she racially abused an autistic black boy in a playground after a spat over applesauce.
Shiloh Hendrix, 37, was filmed allegedly calling a young black boy the 'N-word' at a park in Rochester, Minnesota, last April.
Video of the exchange went viral and Hendrix was charged with three counts of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor charge with a maximum of 90 days in jail.
Hendrix, who has pleaded not guilty, appeared on Monday in Olmsted County District Court as jury selection got underway for her trial.
The jury will decide whether her behavior was unlawful and likely to cause violence, or if her words are protected under the First Amendment.
According to KTTC, Hendrix's lawyer Brian Karalus raised concerns that he did not have a list of witnesses that the state intended to call during trial.
Prosecutors said they would not release their witness list due to safety concerns, they also said that Karalus knew this and had made no prior objections, the outlet said.
KAALTV reported that right wing activist Jake Lang was in court as proceedings got underway, while protestors outside held sings calling for Hendrix to be freed.
Jury selection is expected to continue today which will be followed by opening statements.
allegedly calling a young black boy the ‘N-word’
= = =
She was pulling out stops. Trying to sound like his mother.
She should have mentioned that famous Chris Rock monolog and say...”If Chris Rock can make a distinction between loving normal respectful black folks and disliking “”N-——s” and not facing censure about it, then so can I!”
That’s what I was thinking too.
“Grok” is a four-letter word; it has no place in polite society.
maybe the parents need to keep an eye on their visibly autistic kid in public.
and teach your offspring not to touch other peoples things.
That’s true.
Exactly.
The only way it stops is when the productive people take a collective breath and simply stop producing and let the system fail!
Prosecutors said they would not release their witness list due to safety concerns, they also said that Karalus knew this and had made no prior objections, the outlet said.
Was it necessary to object prior to the trial? Possible mistrial for procedural reasons?
And a lot of them are libtards.
The frontal lobe challenged yute was bein’ ignant..therefore Nigger websters definition being an ignorant person....The word concisely described the incident she was confronted with. Whats your problem ?
Two tiered justice, the bottom for whites, the top for everyone else. Apparently cops in Minnesota just carry out any order they get regardless of it’s legality.
If they can't learn to not touch other peoples' things (and keep their hands to themselves generally) ...
well ...
We have places for people like that. Very special places, where they get a small room, and a bed, and they get fed every day, and they can occasionally make phone calls! They will, of course, be carefully guarded ... and we the taxpayers foot the bill for all of it.
Incorrect. The SCOTUS has repeatedly held that the 1st Amendment does not protect "fighting words" -- Words that are "likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 315 U. S. 574 (1942).
In the UK, this would probably cause her to lose her child.
Here, with the wrong judge, the same applies until appeal correctly identifies the original complaint as having violated her 1A rights.
If I was in her shoes, my filter would probably turn off as well.
"Spat over applesauce" huh? /s smh
This should NEVER have gone to trial.
Can’t pretend to care about this one way or the other…
I’d plead the First Amendment, which completely covers objectionable speech.
“I’d plead the First Amendment, which completely covers objectionable speech.”
It is Minnesota. Better have your federal decisions ready.
Does calling someone “Hitler” or a “Nazi” constitute “fighting words”? If so, why are people never arrested for using those terms in public, and directing them at specific people, such as ICE employees? If those aren’t “fighting words,” why aren’t they?
The article biases judgment by saying that the boy is “autistic” right in the headline. How could the woman - in a brief encounter - have known that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.