Social White students arrested after shouting the N word in Uconn

[Fugazy]

The next person to yell cracker at me is getting arrested!

In all seriousness they shouldn't be arrested but a good ole ass whoopin would change their tone.

This is how I feel.

I'm almost okay with a ticket too if they were disturbing the peace or legitimately causing a public nuisance.

People getting arrested for words will nearly always sit wrong with me.

 

[Madmick]

How is an absurd belief of free speech if it is constitutionally sound? Are you disputing SCOTUS's previous holdings on this issue? If so, on what grounds?

Because the nature of the arrest clearly was predicated on #woke outrage reacting to the content of the speech which has nothing to do with the nature of that ordinance or its constitutionality.

 

[vengeful]

Because the nature of the arrest clearly was predicated on #woke outrage reacting to the content of the speech which has nothing to do with the nature of that ordinance or its constitutionality.

Was it also #woke outrage when people were previously arrested for racist language directed towards white people?

 

[lifelessheap]

Remember when the Covington boys were getting verbally assaulted by racist men? Even the black Covington teen? Nobody cared. Why?

 

[AgonyandIrony]

Dude if you want to shout and be vulgur then take your scarey ass to an Open Mic night and do your best to channel your inner Sam Kinison.

If can get a ticket for bumping vulgur music then what the fuck makes you think it's legal to bump your gums in a vulgur fashion?

Shhh.

 

[Fawlty]

Nice bootkicking there, bud.

Can't believe people are actually spineless enough to support these sort of laws.

Bootkicking? Seems redundant. If you mean bootlicking, I don't agree. There is a time and place for loud displays of hate speech, and at night outside people's apartments is not okay.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

law shouldn't exist
sticks and stones...….

 

[SiKnSiN]

Do people think that you should be able to walk around screaming at the top of your lungs?

No, they should be warned/fined/arrested. We have disturbing the peace laws and noise ordinances to handle this. And depending on the situation, there's also harrassment laws to consider.

Do you think people should be arrested for ridicule based on creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race?

 

[jamel]

law shouldn't exist
sticks and stones...….

Then mutual combat ordinances need to become a nationwide thing.

 

[Prokofievian]

No, they should be warned/fined/arrested. We have disturbing the peace laws and noise ordinances to handle this. And depending on the situation, there's also harrassment laws to consider.

Do you think people should be arrested for ridicule based on creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race?

Based purely on the content, no, unless they cross the red line into incitement.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Then mutual combat ordinances need to become a nationwide thing.

sure, if it's mutual
if you call me a name, and I can't control my emotions and strike you, I committed battery and/or assault

that's not mutual combat

 

[Darkballs]

Because the nature of the arrest clearly was predicated on #woke outrage reacting to the content of the speech which has nothing to do with the nature of that ordinance or its constitutionality.

Well the reason the guy got arrested was certainly due to a lawful and constitutionality valid ordinance being on the books.

You keep suggesting the arrest wasn't lawful and citing citizen outrage as your reason. That's stupid.

If you want to claim that the woke culture shouldn't have made a fuss about an internet video, ok. Then by what standard do the police chose to enforce the law? Should they act on it when they have irrefutable evidence of said dipshit violating said ordinance? Or do they first way the political leanings of the people who reported him?

Of course the fact that the guy was a racist played a part. But not in the application of the law. Citizens took more notice because it went viral, and were more offended because unlike a typical noise ordinance, this wasn't just music too loud, it was a racist asshole. Regardless, that isn't a police issue. They have evidence, they are obligated to act.

You seem to be applying your idiotic notion of what it means to be a moderate to this. You seem to think if you can read any political stance whatsoever into a crime, then we must all play dumb and ignore it less are woke culture run wild.

You're being more of an ideologue here than the people you complain about.

 

[Madmick]

Well the reason the guy got arrested was certainly due to a lawful and constitutionality valid ordinance being on the books.

You keep suggesting the arrest wasn't lawful and citing citizen outrage as your reason. That's stupid.

If you want to claim that the woke culture shouldn't have made a fuss about an internet video, ok. Then by what standard do the police chose to enforce the law? Should they act on it when they have irrefutable evidence of said dipshit violating said ordinance? Or do they first way the political leanings of the people who reported him?

Of course the fact that the guy was a racist played a part. But not in the application of the law. Citizens took more notice because it went viral, and were more offended because unlike a typical noise ordinance, this wasn't just music too loud, it was a racist asshole. Regardless, that isn't a police issue. They have evidence, they are obligated to act.

You seem to be applying your idiotic notion of what it means to be a moderate to this. You seem to think if you can read any political stance whatsoever into a crime, then we must all play dumb and ignore it less are woke culture run wild.

You're being more of an ideologue here than the people you complain about.

No, I'm not. It's pretty obvious you've failed to comprehend my grievance. The issue was never that the cops weren't citing a valid reason to arrest the men. It's that the implementation of the law in this specific instance is in direct contrast with the spirit of that First Amendment.

Obviously nobody that night gave a shit about any disturbance of the peace, or public obscenity. That's obvious because nobody complained or reported it. Ironically, in context of the argument by @panamaican criticizing only those who react with indignation at stories like this, that's precisely how the arrest came to be. It was only the online #woke community rabble-rousing once they saw the video of that night who sought to punish these men under the auspices of the government.

I'm not the one who cast this stone, so no, I'm not at all the ideologue who is a problem. All you (and other leftists) in this thread have served to do is prove exactly what I asserted in my first post. You don't even pretend to be bothered by this abuse of the law. You don't even pretend to be upset by the assault on their speech.

Nor have you are any of these leftists taken up my arguments towards the precedent this establishes that is problematic. You're just hiding behind past SCOTUS rulings that you believe justify it. I'm going to look forward to abusing you with SCOTUS rulings for the next half century while ignoring the rational underbelly of any grievances objecting to the precedent those establish.

 

[Darkballs]

No, I'm not. It's pretty obvious you've failed to comprehend my grievance. The issue was never that the cops weren't citing a valid reason to arrest the men. It's that the implementation of the law in this specific instance is in direct contrast with the spirit of that First Amendment.

So you've moved off from "unconstitutional," to "against the spirit." We'll we're making progress.

Nor have you are any of these leftists taken up my arguments towards the precedent this establishes that is problematic. You're just hiding behind past SCOTUS rulings that you believe justify it. I'm going to look forward to abusing you with SCOTUS rulings for the next half century while ignoring the rational underbelly of any grievances objecting to the precedent those establish.

Hiding behind the Constitution. I guess that's something moderates don't do?

Your entire premise is retarded. The guy wasn't arrested because he was a racist. He drew public attention because he was a racist.

The cops, when faced with evidence that someone broke the law, can't refuse to act because the people who reported him were not "acting in the spirit of the constitution."

You've introduced a retarded framework that even if a violation did occur; and the law addressing said violation was CONSTITUTIONAL; the police still shouldn't act because of how it came to the publics attention.

You are do ideologically blinded that you can't see how your standard for arrest is just flat out dumb and could never be applied.

Speak to this point blank:

Cops get reports of guy violating noise ordinance. They see evidence that he did just that. Hell, it's public knowledge now. Given that cops are supposed to uniformly enforce the law regardless of political bias, what would you have them do here?

 

[panamaican]

So you've moved off from "unconstitutional," to "against the spirit." We'll we're making progress.




Hiding behind the Constitution. I guess that's something moderates don't do?

Your entire premise is retarded. The guy wasn't arrested because he was a racist. He drew public attention because he was a racist.

The cops, when faced with evidence that someone broke the law, can't refuse to act because the people who reported him were not "acting in the spirit of the constitution."

You've introduced a retarded framework that even if a violation did occur; and the law addressing said violation was CONSTITUTIONAL; the police still shouldn't act because of how it came to the publics attention.

You are do ideologically blinded that you can't see how your standard for arrest is just flat out dumb and could never be applied.

Speak to this point blank:

Cops get reports of guy violating noise ordinance. They see evidence that he did just that. Hell, it's public knowledge now. Given that cops are supposed to uniformly enforce the law regardless of political bias, what would you have them do here?

Personally, I see little point in arguing this much further.

We've reached a stage in debate where some people no longer care about right/wrong. They care about if the observers of right/wrong are people they agree with on other issues.

Murder? Right vs. wrong isn't relevant. What's relevant is if the person who reported the murder and the people who brought the murder to the police's attention are people who agree with the reader on immigration or tax policy. If they agree on immigration then these people say "Good job reporting that murder." If they disagree on tax policy, these people say "Those people should not have reported the murder."

You can't discuss things with these people because their standard for whether a particular act was justified is dependent on how you felt about a completely unrelated event from some other period of time.

Note that they are not critiquing you for holding hypocritical positions or positions that cannot co-exist. They are critiquing if you support other positions that have no bearing on this event.

So, you cannot support the arrest of law breakers in Connecticut if you also support [random other position that they don't agree with]. Once you recognize this approach to event evaluation, you'll quickly realize how many people aren't really evaluating the issue so much as they are evaluating your overall politics.

 

[jamel]

sure, if it's mutual
if you call me a name, and I can't control my emotions and strike you, I committed battery and/or assault

that's not mutual combat

Ahhh. Brother you may wanna look up "fighting words clause" in relation to areas that practice MC.

 

[lifelessheap]

I cant believe how many losers want the government to have the power to lock us up over sounds we make. Pathetic.


Government is nothing but greedy, power hungry people who want to take advantage of us. Stop giving them more power you fucking idiots.