Racially verbal encounter

[BigJaj]

Jurisdiction

D.C.

Thought this was the closest category to post the questions later in this posting. This happened to me one time in DC where the population is predominantly black. I'm Asian-American. As I was pushing my cart in a supermarket and was about to pass a black guy in an aisle, he muttered a few slurs like ch*ng ch*ng and ch*nk. Right after passing each other and then looking back at each other, he just smirked and walked away. When I called DCPD to ask what could've been done about those kinds of situations, they said nothing really unless it culminates to him verbally threatening or actually perpetrating physical violence against me. Then in fairness, I could've just called him the n-word, walked away smirking or laughing, and cops couldn't do anything about it either. Right? And a cop can't do anything about it either even if anyone racially taunts him and just walks away smirking/laughing but poses no physical threat at all?

 

[Tax Counsel]

I could've just called him the n-word, walked away smirking or laughing, and cops couldn't do anything about it either.

Our right to freedom of speech means, among other things, that the government may not punish us for insulting others or calling them offensive names.

That said, had you responded that way you may have goaded him into attacking you. While the city could prosecute the guy for doing that, that's not going to be a lot of comfort to you if you come out of that confrontation with injuries. It stings to face racial slurs slung at you. Most people would at least have the idea of responding in kind flash through their head, as you did. And most will also not act on that idea to avoid a greater confrontation, again just as you did. IMO you did the right thing and you were the more noble person because of it. There is too much animus between racial groups in this country already and it doesn't help stop it by escalating these kinds of confrontations.

 

[welkin]

As I was pushing my cart in a supermarket and was about to pass a black guy in an aisle, he muttered a few slurs like ch*ng ch*ng and ch*nk. Right after passing each other and then looking back at each other, he just smirked and walked away.

So, now you know that this guy is an as**le and you forget about. What he did/said says more about him than it does about you.

 

[adjusterjack]

And a cop can't do anything about it either even if anyone racially taunts him and just walks away smirking/laughing but poses no physical threat at all?

Why is it that people start posts with intelligent questions and then devolve into stupid questions.

Yeah, try it with a cop. See where that gets you.

smh.

 

[army judge]

Why is it that people start posts with intelligent questions and then devolve into stupid questions.

You've not only highlighted what I call, "the agenda", you've discovered what I refer to as "grievance against another".

Grievances against many people go unaddressed/unresolved, leaving the mythical "victim" sullied and emotionally disturbed.

To seek resolution, these "agendists" seek resolution of their aggrievement by finding an unsuspecting "dupe".

The "dupe" takes the insults, taunts, and verbal dress down intended for the aggrieving party, who is clever enough to escape the ALLEGED victims brutal, verbal battering.

 

[zddoodah]

It's really this simple: name calling is not a legal matter.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Yeah, try it with a cop. See where that gets you.

smh.

A cop should tread carefully, as any punitive action the officer would take as a result of mere insult would be a violation of the First Amendment. From what I can tell, officers at the police academy don't get much, if any, training on the First Amendment. They probably should though, as the city/county/state for whom they work may have to pay out money for violating that right, as it should. If a cop lets mere words provoke him/her, then that cop is in the wrong job.

 

[BigJaj]

If racist encounters are considered protected First Amendment rights as long as it's just verbal and don't insinuate nor elevate to anything physical, then what was different about that incident in Arizona?

Arizona man arrested, fired from job after racist rant is caught on camera

The encounter happened Friday as Dre Abram and his roommate, both of whom are Black, were filming in the neighborhood of Old Town Scottsdale.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[adjusterjack]

He was arrested for disorderly conduct. He was fired because he was employed at will and could be fired for doing something that the employer won't tolerate.

A search of Scottsdale criminal court records reveals that he was charged with Abusive Language and Disorderly conduct - Disruptive Behavior or Fighting.

Both charges were dismissed in 2023 at the req of the City Attorney.

City of Scottsdale - Use Search to find Case Details

eservices.scottsdaleaz.gov

(I love the internet)

 

[Tax Counsel]

If racist encounters are considered protected First Amendment rights as long as it's just verbal and don't insinuate nor elevate to anything physical, then what was different about that incident in Arizona?

Arizona has a disorderly conduct statute that penalizes what are generally known as "fighting words", which are words likely to provoke an act of retaliation, e.g. start a physical fight. The Supreme Court has held that the state may enforce such a statute, if the words were likely to cause an imminent reaction of lawless behavior. As the court put it:

Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). Basically, the speech that isn't constitutionally protected involves more than just stating your views of something or someone. The speech has to go beyond that by trying to incite others around the speaker to engage in imminent lawless behavior, like starting a riot, looting a store, beating someone up, damaging property, etc. If you are shouting things to a crowd to whip them up into a frenzy that will result in those kinds of behaviors, that's not protected.

Mr. Ng's speech in the story you linked, while offensive to most people, didn't meet that standard and his speech was protected. That's why the city decided to drop the charges. Cops are not lawyers and can't be expected to make the kind fine distinctions in the law that a lawyer does. So the cop went by what the statute seemed to prohibit, apparently without knowing that the statute's reach is limited by the U.S. (and likely the Arizona) Constitution. When the case got to the prosecutor, who is lawyer, the prosecutor recognized there was no case and dropped it. People, including cops, make mistakes and there is nothing in the Constitution that is able to prevent that. Making mistakes is a part of being human. Had Mr. Ng suffered more than the process of arrest such that he lost money as a result of it, he would have had a potentially good civil rights case to bring against the city.