2 white UConn students arrested after video showed them shouting racial slurs

[Dennis Donovan]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/2-white-uconn-students-arrested-after-video-showed-them-shouting-n1069891?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma


Jarred Karal and Ryan Mucaj. (UConn Police Department)

Students on campus demanded action after video of the incident surfaced, saying it is indicative of broader issues of racism at the school.

Oct. 22, 2019, 8:17 AM EDT

By Ben Kesslen

Two white students at the University of Connecticut were arrested Monday after video that showed them shouting racial slurs prompted campus protests, university police told NBC News.

Jarred Mitchell Karal, 21, and Ryan Gilman Mucaj, 21, face charges of ridicule on account of race, color, or creed. They were released with a court date set for Oct. 30 at Rockville Superior Court in Vernon, Connecticut.

Karal and Mucaj’s charges could result in a $50 fine or up to 30 days in jail.

NBC sent emails to the two men Tuesday morning requesting comment but did not immediately hear back.

Campus police learned of the incident from social media footage showing Karal and Mucaj shouting epithets in an apartment complex parking lot, a university spokesperson told NBC News. The men were playing a game that involved yelling vulgar words, university police said, and then started shouting epithets. Karal and Mucaj were walking with a third man, whom police said did not shout epithets and was not charged.

The Oct. 11 incident sparked an outcry on campus, particularly from some black students who said it was indicative of broader issues of racism at the university.

“To just experience that on a daily basis and then having something that gets out to the public that everybody can see and understand, it’s really impactful for the rest of us," freshman Mason Holland told NBC Connecticut.

</snip>

Dopes...

[brush]

1. Those two don't look "white" to me.

[malaise]

3. Ditto n/t

[treestar]

26. They look middle eastern

and their surnames are not Anglo-Saxon.

That charge is not likely to pass constitutional muster. Black and brown people could be charged with it for ridiculing another race, too. Nothing about it does not allow for white people to be the victim, so Eddie Murphy could have been charged for his hilarious skits on SNL back in the 70s.

[TheBlackAdder]

33. They aren't.

[dalton99a]

2. They should go back to Croatia

[Glorfindel]

5. Or Albania n/t

[DFW]

7. I think you got it

Family names ending in "aj" (pronounced "ay" as in aye-aye sir) are typically Albanian.

[treestar]

27. Likely to be Muslims too

[DFW]

31. Likely, though not 100% certain

I meet a lot of Albanians and Kosovars here in Germany, and even those that do have a Muslim background don't all take it seriously by a long shot, especially the ones that were born here or came here as infants. They speak German with the same accents as the natives, and have adapted to life as Germans with "funny" names pretty quickly. You couldn't very well call John Belushi a model Muslim, for example.

[treestar]

37. John Belushi?

Haha did not know that! I can believe he was not too observant.

[DFW]

38. Probably the most famous Albanian-American

And if not, certainly the most famous one we'd know. Mother Theresa was Albanian, too, by the way, also not exactly your typical Muslim.

[Hortensis]

15. Is Trump by any chance a member here?

I notice that the press has avoiding posting anything that might encourage ethnic or other slurs. No, "Although born in the U.S., Mr. Karal is the grandson of Turkish immigrants."

[jberryhill]

4. UConn, the home of bacon jalapeno fucking mac and cheese

[TidalWave46]

32. What a great job by that manager. I'm impressed.

A lot of good adults I know can't carry themselves like that in a tough situation.

[kimbutgar]

6. They should be expelled from the college for that behavior.

[jayfish]

8. Arrested For What Exactly?

These two will likely have thier charges dropped and receive a settlement from university police. If the two decide to press the issue I can see that law being declared unconstitutional. Sorry DU; as abhorrent as the behavior is we simply can't go around arresting people for speech. E.O.D.

[Mosby]

9. "ridicule on account of race, color, or creed"

Jarred Mitchell Karal, 21, and Ryan Gilman Mucaj, 21, face charges of ridicule on account of race, color, or creed. They were released with a court date set for Oct. 30 at Rockville Superior Court in Vernon, Connecticut.

Karal and Mucaj’s charges could result in a $50 fine or up to 30 days in jail.

[jberryhill]

10. It's a CT statute that's existed since 1949

It's not some new thing.

People are arrested for speech every day.

These are all speech:

"I am going to kill you."

"I will pay you $50 to have sex."

"I will sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for $10,000."

Those are all speech. They are all illegal.

[jayfish]

11. And It Will Be Ruled Unconstitutional.

As it should be. Also, your examples are not illegal and we can't go around jailing people who say mean things to us. We have enough people behind bars as it is.

[jberryhill]

18. "your examples are not illegal"

Nonsense. The crimes are:

Assault.

Solicitation of Prostitution.

Fraud.

They are all crimes which can be accomplished by means of speech.

[jayfish]

22. "can be accomplished" -NT-

[dsc]

19. no, you don't get arrested for saying I am going to kill you without some action

you don't get arrested for saying I will pay you $50 to have sex until the money changes hands. you don't get arrested for saying I will sell you the BB for $10,000 until the money changes hand. In all cases, action is needed for the arrest.

[jberryhill]

20. That's simply not correct

[jayfish]

24. Case Law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elonis_v._United_States

Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. ___ (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether conviction of threatening another person over interstate lines (under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c)[1]) requires proof of subjective intent to threaten or whether it is enough to show that a "reasonable person" would regard the statement as threatening.[2] In controversy were the purported threats of violent rap lyrics written by Anthony Douglas Elonis and posted to Facebook under a pseudonym.[3] The ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner.[2] It was the first time the Court has heard a case considering true threats and the limits of speech on social media.[4]

The actions led to Elonis's indictment by a grand jury on five counts of threats to park employees and visitors, local law enforcement, his estranged wife, an FBI agent, and a kindergarten class that had been relayed through interstate communication.

At the district court,he moved to dismiss the indictment for failing to allege that he had intended to threaten anyone. His motion was denied. He requested a jury instruction that "the government must prove that he intended to communicate a true threat." which was also denied.

He was convicted on the last four of the five counts. He was sentenced to 44 months in prison and three years on supervised release.

He appealed unsuccessfully to the circuit court of appeals, renewing his challenge to the jury instructions.

He appealed to the Supreme Court based on lack of any attempt to show intent to threaten and on First Amendment rights.[3][4][5][6]

The majority opinion, written by Roberts, did not rule on First Amendment matters or on the question of whether recklessness was sufficient mens rea to show intent. It ruled that mens rea was required to prove the commission of a crime under §875(c).

Importantly, Elonis had held that view and had objected at every stage of previous proceedings and so the court was able to address the matter.

The government contended that the presence of the words "intent to extort" in §875(b) and §875(d) implied that the absence in §875(c) was constructive. The court disagreed, holding that the absence of the language in §875(c) was because the section was intended to have a broader scope than threats relating to extortion.

The opinion drew on many Supreme Court cases that held that in criminal law, mens rea was required though it had not been mentioned explicitly in statute.

Consequently, the court found for Elonis.

[LanternWaste]

21. You'll point us towards legal precedent to support your premise, yes?

In other words, you'll distinguish (with relevance if not precision) what these fine young student engaged in from other speech which has in fact, resulted in arrest, indictment and sentencing.



Or do you believe that these students were arrested "simply for speech"?

[jayfish]

23. Oh, Brother.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauharnais_v._Illinois
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matal_v._Tam

Campus police learned of the incident from social media footage showing Karal and Mucaj shouting epithets in an apartment complex parking lot, a university spokesperson told NBC News. The men were playing a game that involved yelling vulgar words, university police said, and then started shouting epithets. Karal and Mucaj were walking with a third man, whom police said did not shout epithets and was not charged.

Case closed payday awarded.

ON EDIT: I hope that was relevant and precise enough for you.

[treestar]

29. I see a lot that could be argued from those cases

This is for "ridicule" which may not be enough for "fighting words."

[jayfish]

30. The "Fighting Words" Exception...

Last edited Fri Oct 25, 2019, 10:43 AM - Edit history (1)

has been pared back significantly since the Chaplinsky decision. Specific to this discussion:

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.

[jayfish]

25. More Relevance And Precision For You

Two UConn Students Arrested After Being Captured On Video Shouting Racist Slurs

According to the arrest warrant affidavits, the student who took the video is black, and was playing video games in his apartment around midnight when he heard several students outside his building shouting “penis.”

“I ... took out my cell phone thinking that I would get a funny video of the group of males as they walked past my apartment building,” the student told police, in a written statement. “I had begun filming hoping to get the group of males saying or doing something funny; however, as they continued walking down the road past my apartment building they began to say [the racial slur]. As the group transitioned to saying [the racial slur] they began to speak in a much softer tone and were not screaming nearly as loud as they had been previously.”

[treestar]

28. +1

That law does not seem like it would make it through. They should stick to "disturbing the peace" which this likely could fit.

[coti]

34. Have to agree- the language wasn't even aimed at a particular person for a "fighting words"

type situation. I'm not sure you can call this criminal- based on the CONTENT of what they were saying- without seriously running afoul of the 1st Amendment.

Certainly, you could still try a "disturbing the peace"-type charge.

[jayfish]

35. Disturbing The Peace Is A BS...

catch-all offense used to railroad people. ...proportionally non-whites. It's possibly unconstitutional itself. I also think that just throwing whatever up against the wall to see if it sticks is a misapplication of LEA resources an abuse of power.

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

[coti]

36. I can see that opinion, sure, for disorderly conduct-type charges

Wouldn't say I necessarily agree with it in its entirety- we need to keep a semblance of order in society- but it's definitely a vague idea that could be prone to abuse.

[MineralMan]

12. "Portrait of Two Incels"

[Dennis Donovan]

13. Angry masturbation *can't* be healthy...

[MineralMan]

16. At least it's a release of some kind.

Perhaps those two should engage in it more often?

[Initech]

17. Ah they were clearly inspired by the racist in chief.