Posted on 02/03/2006 11:07:42 AM PST by Irontank
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.
Developing...
If its good enough for LEOs, it should be good enough for all others.
The misdemeanor of Disorderly Conduct is defined in common law as "words uttered to another that one would reasonably expect to incite another to violence" (fighting words).
This is a common-sense definition of a misdemeanor that existed for centuries...
Long before the statutory definition of a "race crime".
This woman is guilty of Disorderly Conduct.
For disturbing the peace, maybe, but not for "ridicule on account of race, creed or color" (from the exact words of the statute, as posted at #94). That law is just plain wrong.
Farrelly and Satterlee were utterly and thoroughly frustrated. Yea, verily.
Given Mexico's history of dysentery, I've always thought their "Run For The Border" tagline was somewhat racist, not to mention that chihuahua.
What is the standard for conviction under the law you cite? What elements must be present?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. The law itself defines the elements that need to be present. Are you asking what specifically constitutes "ridicule" or "holding up to contempt"? I think there are centuries of Anglo-Saxon law that nail down the meanings of those terms, and I'm pretty sure they correspond well to their commonly understood meanings today.
Are words alone sufficient for conviction? If so how are those words described? You seem to not understand the concept of 'elements', those are the exact things that must be proven for a conviction and are usually quite specific.
The language of the statute would strongly lead to that conclusion.
If so how are those words described?
Absent any further statutory language, they'd be described in the same way they were described under the old English laws against holding the King up to ridicule or contempt.
Have you actually READ the statute? Can you post it?
I missed that, thank you. In the statute, the word 'advertisement' strikes me as interesting. Does this regulate commercial speech? If so, where is the commercial nexus?
Maybe my initial reaction was right, and this story's bogus.
Regulating commercial speech is far less worrisome, imho, than regulating all speech. The former is probably defensible, the latter clearly abridges the 1st Ammendment. I suspect the prosecutor goofed, or the story is bogus.
""Maybe we should outlaw all ridicule"
But then DU weould be out of business.... :)"
So would FreeRepublic. :(
"charged with ridicule on account of race, creed or color and second-degree breach of peace.
So sayeth the Ministry of Love."
[voice on loudspeaker from telescreen] ROOM 101!
"Dam this coffee is to hot"
Stop talking negatively about coffee.....you might offend Juan Valdez. :)
"Sec. 53-37. Ridicule on account of race, creed or color. 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.
(1949 Rev., S. 8376.)"
A clearly unconstitutional law. Any activist judge who would uphold this law is an abomination. Oops! I just offended the activist judges! Room 101 for me!
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.