Tuesday, October 22, 2019

What In Blistering F#&%???



Two innocent men who are about to get very rich because of six letters.














(FUCKTARDIA CT) Two white UConn students have been arrested by campus police for repeatedly shouting a racial slur outside students’ apartments earlier this month.
The incident was captured on a now-viral video that has led to pointed conversations about racial inclusion on campus and sparked a rally Monday afternoon during which hundreds of students and the campus NAACP demanding action from top school officials. 
Jarred Karal, of Plainville, and Ryan Mucaj, of Granby, both 21 years old, were arrested by the UConn Police Department and charged with ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race, university spokeswoman Stephanie Reitz said Monday night. 
Officers investigating the incident watched the video of the men yelling late on Oct. 11 outside the Charter Oak Apartments and ultimately traced their whereabouts back through the night, determining they walked back through the complex playing “a game in which they yelled vulgar words,” according to a police report.
For the monumental jackholes at U Conn, especially the so-called UConn police fuckwits who should bloody well have known better, and any Common Core grads in the audience, a remedial Constitutional lesson:

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech... - Amendment I, U.S. Constitution, 1787
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. - Amendment XIV, §1, U.S. Constitution, 1868
This means, in short that the state of Connecticut, including through its state-sponsored university, may not abridge the First Amendment right of free expression to
anyone under or within its jurisdiction, ever, anytime, for any reason.

This means the charges filed are moot, the statute(s) under which said students were arrested is moot, their arrests constitute false arrest, false imprisonment, and kidnapping under color of authority; and every action subsequently taken by anyone in any position, from the Chancellor of the University to the superior court judge in this case and down to the janitor in the men's gymnasium, constitutes an entirely prima facie deprivation of constitutional rights.

The two fuckwits involved have just been handed at minimum an 8-figure civil lawsuit payday (which should be assessed to the officers of the university, not the taxpayers of CT), free tuition through post-doctoral level at U Conn, a written apology from all concerned, a cease-and-desist order that's liable to be stamped by a federal appeals court, at minimum, and full-fledged civil rights Constitutional law martyr status never even achieved by Martin Luther King, Jr.

In short, while it may not be physically healthy, depending on the mob present, to do so, if you want to secure a first-rate free college education for your child at U Conn, and a lifetime salary for doing nothing else, simply have them walk through the parking lots yelling "NIGGERS! NIGGERS! NIGGERS!" until the Keystone Klown Kops of U. Konnecticut show up and arrest them for something that cannot ever be an arrestable offense in the United States.

In general, using the N-word identifies the user as socially inept, boorish, and ill-mannered, (but not always:)


...and such behavior is generally its own reward in normal society, outside of certain entertainment occupations.

But the Nazis at UConn trying to criminalize protected free speech in this manner is beyond chilling, it's positively arctic, Orwellian, and jackassical to a degree previously only seen from the more unhinged members of Antifa, or Democrats in the Congress (but I repeat myself).

The imbecilic fuckwits working as UConn mall cops should have known that without being told. The university officialdom can be forgiven, since most of them are functioning high-grade morons. It's about to get visited on them in ways that will end in a lot of zeroes.

And if true justice were visited, the U.S. Attorney thereabouts would arrest the entire state board of directors of the University, the president and dean of students, and the entire UConn police force, for criminal constitutional violations and conspiracy to commit same.

I hope the morons who tried to pass and enforce this get the judicial ass-reaming they richly deserve for this kind of horseshit, and if they persist, they need summary judgment by shotguns in the face, just to drive the point well home.

You don't get to criminalize getting your feelings hurt, and you don't get to arrest people for hurting someone's feelings.

Ever.

That includes the entitled niggers at U Conn.
(Don't like that language? Don't mob up with that tribe.)
It also covers limeys, micks, wops, krauts, yids, kikes, chinks, gooks, crackers, redskins, fags, queers, and any other perpetually offended group here that think that their feelings deserve some special unconstitutional protection.
They do not.
Sticks and stones, bitchez.
Any "ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race" is PRECISELY what you can have no say about in law in this country, at any level beyond your living room.
Trying to make it a crime is, itself, a crime.

Grow a thicker skin, and a bigger brain, and crack a friggin' book.
You could look this up. It's not hard to find.

And shove your special snowflake perpetual offense status right the fuck back up your own ass, from whence you pulled it, and pound it home with a steel pipe lest it get loose again, because no one, starting with the law of the land, gives a flying fuck about your pwecious feeeeeeeeewings.

21 comments:

  1. Same goes for the asstards in NYfC who made it a crime to call an insane man a man. With laws like that on the books, I'm really surprised nobody has decided that their chosen pronoun is "kill niggers and fags" or some such. Personally, my chosen pronoun would be "his imperial excellency, protector of the faith."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Arrested several days later "after protests occurred". Sounds like a politically motivated arrest.

    At least they weren't shot during the arrest, were released on the own recognizance, and aren't cooling their heels in jail.

    ReplyDelete
  3. McChuck,

    Don't you dare call an illegal immigrant; "illegal immigrant." They will fine you for that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This will go to a jury trial just to make an example of them. Or it will be plead down with the 'agreement to not sue'.
    If the offenders are uncooperative them they will be subjected to doxing and harassment designed and targeted to destroy their lives.
    Remember:
    The process is the punishment.
    The best tactic is one your people enjoy.
    If enough people believe it, it becomes the truth.
    From personal experience, Connecticut has no inclination to observe or abide by the shredded remnants of the Bill of Rights.
    About the only good thing that can come from this is setting a precedent to use against Antifa goons if/when the pendulum swings the other way.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As others have noted, these are Heinlein's Crazy Years - we're just living in them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Western Oriental Gentlemen, Western Oriental Gentlemen, Western Oriental Gentlemen!"

    ReplyDelete
  7. Think the ACLU will provide them with pro bono representation?

    ReplyDelete
  8. http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial1

    http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial2

    Conspiracy to deprive of civil rights.

    Hat tip http://blog.joehuffman.org/category/enjoy-your-trial/

    ReplyDelete
  9. those types want their precious little feelings protected because they are emotion driven with knee jerk responses to 'offenses'.

    they 'need' this protection because they are, to a person for those types, incapable of rational thought, having only 'feelings', never a moment's thought, with respect to all issues.

    i care as much about their 'feelings' as they care about my rational thought, which is to say, firmly, none at all.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I like 1st video although it looks like they hired some slow ass knee-grows to chase him.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "It also covers limeys, micks, wops, krauts, yids, kikes, chinks, gooks, crackers, redskins, fags, queers, and any other perpetually offended group"

    Only about a third of the groups on that list (which contains a bunch of synomyms anyway) are even *frequently* offended. And fewer than that are *perpetually* offended. They even have formal organizations (very lucrative at that) to ensure that the offendedness goes on in perpetuum. The other groups are only occasionally offended. Let's be precise in our definitions and assertions.

    And FredLewers appears to have it right on the probable outcome.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Correct call. Let's see if the judicial system will screw this one up.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Mike_C:

    I have no doubt CT will screw the pooch. Like CA, it's what they do
    (Gropey Joe isn't an aberration.)
    This will make it to federal court likely as not, and they'll make short work of such nonsense.

    At some point, UConn is going to run out of money, probably before they run out of stupid, and they'll read the writing on the wall.

    If not, they can content themselves with going down in history as the wrong half of permanent precedent.

    As I said, the real pity is that the FBI and/or federal marshals won't swoop in and start perp-marching handcuffed felons out of the offices of the university.
    That would be the healthiest way to end this thing, and for a bonus, the most entertaining.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "It also covers limeys, micks, wops, krauts, yids, kikes, chinks, gooks, crackers, redskins, fags, queers, and any other perpetually offended group"

    That sounds a lot like DiGeorgio's description of who Harry Callahan hates.

    ReplyDelete
  15. That may very well be where that came from, mostly.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Mike C, 1:58 and @ Popular, 10:12: How could you forget Frog from the list ? We haven't sued yet being normies but WTH why shouldn't we profit from this perpetual offended victimhood control freaks money grabbing fest going on ? BTW: Was just being sarcastic.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "In general, using the N-word identifies the user as socially inept, boorish, and ill-mannered, (but not always:)"
    ------

    I might disagree Aesop. Blacks used the term all the time and if it is good enough for them, it is good enough for me. There is a difference between black people and niggers, and we should not be shy about making it.

    I personally think everyone involved in this virtue-fest should get bitch slapped into submission and told to STFU. Rewarding stupid people for misconduct is not going to solve anything and may encourage others. If there was an n-word for white people... we should be using that too.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I am so very glad that in the USA, at least for now, the law is in support of free speech; at least insofar as our Constitution is followed.

    It saddens me greatly that in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, England and other Commonwealth countries there is no freedom of speech: they have "hate" laws instead, which are biased, arbitrary and capricious.

    IANAL, but I did study law in Australia, and have a degree in Legal Studies. I was pleased to find that Australia's Constitution, adopted in 1901, was closely based upon our own US Constitution.

    But I was sorry to find that our Bill of Rights was purposefully not adopted; Aussies have no freedom of speech, of religion, no right to keep and bear arms, no right to a jury trial- they have literally no inalienable rights.

    Libel & slander laws are very different too: truth is no defense, so saying something true but which hurts someone's reputation can get you jailed (gaoled, if you prefer.) Media outlets there usually stifle discussion on sensitive topics, to avoid prosecution; sometimes the government shuts down discussion, as the NZ gov't did with the Mosque shooting video & the shooter's "manifesto."

    Aussies can only do and say what their government allows them, which I find so very sad. How long will it remain a "free" country, I wonder, when they have no rights but only permissions?

    ReplyDelete
  19. But..but..but...muh haighte crimes!

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Hate crimes" used as a serious thing is a clinical symptom of mental retardation.
    All crimes are hate crimes, because no one ever perpetrated a criminal act out of love or beneficence towards the victim.

    That anyone anywhere treats this as other than reality is another instance of mollycoddling the fuckwits in society, and defining their mental deficiency, hence deviancy, downward.

    The proper answer to that should be a roundhouse bitchslap, delivered at max velocity, and repeated until the lesson takes.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The First Amendment gives these two nimrods the right to utter whatever words they wish without regard to the offense others may CHOOSE to take. However that in no way means they will see the charges dismissed or that they will prevail in a civil suit for damages due to violation of said 1A rights.

    The Second Amendment is about as clear and defining as is possible in the English language....yet we have more than TWENTY THOUSAND LAWS in America ALL of which are in direct and blatant violation of said Amendment. And THOUSANDS of people have been arrested, charged and JAILED using these laws.

    Hate to be the bearer of bad news but the Bill Of Rights is dead....has been for a long time. Now what we see is the 'state' screwing it's corpse on the kitchen table on a daily basis.

    ReplyDelete