Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WOMAN ARRESTED AFTER 'RACIST LANGUAGE' AT TACO BELL
Drudge Report ^ | February 3, 2006

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...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Connecticut
KEYWORDS: 1984; 1stamendment; billofrights; constitutionlist; doubleplusgood; freespeech; govwatch; libertarians; ministryoftruth; thoughtcrime; thoughtpolice
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-163 next last
To: BinaryBoy
I vaguely remember that a few years ago the Supreme Court ruled calling a law enforcement officer an emeffer and giving them a middle finger salute was "Free Speech."

If its good enough for LEOs, it should be good enough for all others.

141 posted on 02/03/2006 5:54:19 PM PST by rw4site (Little men want Big Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

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.


142 posted on 02/03/2006 5:58:20 PM PST by edwin hubble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
I resemble that remark!

Heh, so do I.

=-)
143 posted on 02/03/2006 6:11:30 PM PST by Dr.Zoidberg (Mohammedism - Bringing you only the best of the 6th century for fourteen hundred years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: narses; edwin hubble
No, disturbing the peace is one of the charges. "Fighting words" can and are illegal in most jurisdictions. There are factual issues to be resolved here, but IF the incident meets the elements necessary for conviction, she deserves punishment.

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.

144 posted on 02/04/2006 10:45:19 AM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

Farrelly and Satterlee were utterly and thoroughly frustrated. Yea, verily.


145 posted on 02/04/2006 10:50:12 AM PST by Tall_Texan (The Democrat Party - emboldened by Hamas to combine terrorism with politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro
Viewed in a certain light, Taco Bell food is an ethnic slur.

Given Mexico's history of dysentery, I've always thought their "Run For The Border" tagline was somewhat racist, not to mention that chihuahua.

146 posted on 02/04/2006 10:53:17 AM PST by Tall_Texan (The Democrat Party - emboldened by Hamas to combine terrorism with politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: inquest

What is the standard for conviction under the law you cite? What elements must be present?


147 posted on 02/04/2006 7:45:45 PM PST by narses (St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: narses
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.

148 posted on 02/05/2006 8:12:30 AM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: inquest

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.


149 posted on 02/05/2006 9:13:55 AM PST by narses (St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: narses
Are words alone sufficient for conviction?

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.

150 posted on 02/05/2006 10:47:41 AM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: inquest

Have you actually READ the statute? Can you post it?


151 posted on 02/05/2006 10:50:40 AM PST by narses (St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: narses
I'm pretty sure that what I posted at #94 is the statute.
152 posted on 02/05/2006 10:58:34 AM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: inquest

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?


153 posted on 02/05/2006 11:17:07 AM PST by narses (St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: narses
I didn't realize you hadn't seen it. Now I know why we were talking past each other. Anyway, I don't know exactly how "advertisement" is supposed to be interpreted in this sense, now that you mention it. I figured it probably meant any open, public statement, but Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines it as, "A 'notice' published either in handbills or in a newspaper." Granted this definition was pre-radio, but still, it seems that violation of a law against some form of "advertisement" would have to come under the laws of libel, rather than the laws of slander.

Maybe my initial reaction was right, and this story's bogus.

154 posted on 02/05/2006 1:39:40 PM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: inquest

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.


155 posted on 02/05/2006 2:57:30 PM PST by narses (St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

Comment #156 Removed by Moderator

To: gondramB

""Maybe we should outlaw all ridicule"

But then DU weould be out of business.... :)"

So would FreeRepublic. :(


157 posted on 02/06/2006 11:41:17 PM PST by bigdcaldavis ("HYAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!" - Howard Dean; Xandros - Linux Made Easy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

"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!


158 posted on 02/06/2006 11:46:44 PM PST by bigdcaldavis ("HYAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!" - Howard Dean; Xandros - Linux Made Easy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: kentj

"Dam this coffee is to hot"

Stop talking negatively about coffee.....you might offend Juan Valdez. :)


159 posted on 02/06/2006 11:52:15 PM PST by bigdcaldavis ("HYAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!" - Howard Dean; Xandros - Linux Made Easy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: inquest

"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!


160 posted on 02/06/2006 11:54:41 PM PST by bigdcaldavis ("HYAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!" - Howard Dean; Xandros - Linux Made Easy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-163 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson