Town's White Police Official Calls Obama N-word - Refuses to Apologize

originally posted by: Realtruth
a reply to: FlyersFan

If someone is a publicly elected official they are fair game for any type of slurs, especially the president of the united states.

It's happened, happens and will continue happen to every president, congressmen, judge, or public figure.

His comment may have been distasteful, but it was a private conversation.

And the waitress, and restaurant could get sued for invasion of privacy tort law.

Just to get some of the facts of the story straight, it wasn't a private conversation - He exclaimed loudly that he hated watching TV because every time he turns it on, he sees "that f****** n*****."

AND

The person who reported him was not a waitress, just a resident seated nearby.

See this post for sources.

Also, many on here do not understand the first amendment and free speech.

We have the right to voice our opinion without GOVERNMENT interference. But we do not have the right to speak our mind in public without repercussions from regular citizens.

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: TiedDestructor

Yeah, I've read through. It doesn't matter though, because some people think and are posting, that waitresses are paid to be mindless, deaf and dumb servants! LOL!

"We reserve the right to refuse service" to anyone, including jerks like Copeland!

are u a waitress?
do u hire them?

i've heard # that would make your hair curl, i was only the chef.

this bs of outing peoples private conversations are nothing more than commie witch hunts.

by the left, btw.

For 37 years! Waiters and waitresses are obliged to report offensive behavior to their managers, and are not required to wait on customers that offend them.

Are you kidding? I did not even realize that the gossipmonger was a waitress. She should be fired for eavesdropping. Does anyone know the number to the restaurant she works?

I do not care what the hell people say in their own private conversations with other people. It is not about the N word, I won't even acknowledge that instead the outrage should be directed at this women who is trying to incite hysteria over a freakin word.

We have the first amendment, that guy has every right to think and say what he pleases, even if it upsets others small minds. That women should be fired and she should be ashamed of herself for being just one more person to try and take away our freedom of speech by muting people.

Would be great if the people who know her throughout her life would come forward with every potentially offensive diatribe she has ever said. She should be held to the same standards then that she wants to push on everyone else, gossipmongers always have a closet full of skeletons.

originally posted by: brandiwine14
Are you kidding? I did not even realize that the gossipmonger was a waitress.

She wasn't. That was a mistake in the first post that was never corrected.

We have the first amendment, that guy has every right to think and say what he pleases, even if wrong...we all do. That women should be fired and she should be ashamed of herself for being just one more person to try and take away our freedom of speech.

We have the right to voice our opinion without GOVERNMENT interference. But we do not have the right to speak our mind in public without repercussions from regular citizens. He has every legal right to say what he did, but he is not immune to repercussions of those who heard him say it.

originally posted by: brandiwine14
I did not even realize that the gossipmonger was a waitress.

The original story on TV news is that the witness was a waitress and resident of the town. The stories online just say 'witness' and don't have the 'waitress' title. So it's now unclear if is is a waitress who saw this or not. Maybe it is. Maybe it's not.

This has now been dropped from the news and so we don't know.

It's strange that the national TV picked it up anyways.
It's just a small town issue.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Okay, thanks for correcting me.

Sure, people can be upset but what happens when it is their turn? We have all said shameful things in the moment of anger, I dare anyone to tell me they never said something they later thought was over the top.

These are turning into witch hunts, people are so excited to take someone down over bitter words and be in the spotlight for a day. At this rate people will turn mute in public, no more going to a restaurant for a bite to eat and a conversation with friends, no more public outings at all. This is exactly the type of thing that excites those in power. They just sit back and laugh to themselves over the hysteria caused when we turn on each other.

Words have just never bothered me, I find it shameful that our society is so easily offended. It is like people forget that there are so many other important things going on in the world, why bother with some old man who said the N word.

it doesn't apply in this case. obama is neither black or white. so assuming the n word as a racial slur is applicable in his case, is incorrect. therefore, it can only be considered an insult to the president as a person, not a racial slur. it would be better stated that calling another person an idiot or stupid, is what is on trial here. biblically, referring to another person as intellectually bereft, whether true or false, is considered improper and dangerous. it's hard to believe that someone you disagree with is intelligent because your basis for understanding is your own opinion, which you likely view as being intellectually sound. however, i don't think it's a matter of words, but of intent of the heart.

a reply to: brandiwine14

That is the deeper issue I fear: that TPTB will use examples like this one to push for prosecution of Thought Crimes. Presently, saying something inappropriate or offensive will only cost you your reputation, friends and job...who knows what else it will lead to in the future if things continue the way they are progressing.

It honestly makes my head heart to continue to see people say:

A: That this is a freedom of speech issue
B: This was a private conversation so what he says doesn't matter


It bothers me, probably more than it should, that there are actually people out there that use the above justifications to excuse his racism.

I'm just lost for words that people don't get this.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

We have the right to voice our opinion without GOVERNMENT interference. But we do not have the right to speak our mind in public without repercussions from regular citizens. He has every legal right to say what he did, but he is not immune to repercussions of those who heard him say it.

Many people do not seem to understand it. It's a head banging exercise. So often people say "it's my right" but they do not understand it.

a reply to: kruphix

Have you noticed that most people are not excusing or defending what he said (in fact, most have condemned it as inappropriate and racist), but rather his right to say it?

Like it or not, the conversation was private and was "overheard" by a person not being addressed by the speaker.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: brandiwine14
I did not even realize that the gossipmonger was a waitress.

The original story on TV news is that the witness was a waitress and resident of the town. The stories online just say 'witness' and don't have the 'waitress' title. So it's now unclear if is is a waitress who saw this or not. Maybe it is. Maybe it's not.

This has now been dropped from the news and so we don't know.

It's strange that the national TV picked it up anyways.
It's just a small town issue.

Town resident Jane O'Toole, who moved to Wolfeboro four months ago

4 months?

I wonder how many in the community even know this person.

originally posted by: brandiwine14
Sure, people can be upset but what happens when it is their turn? We have all said shameful things in the moment of anger, I dare anyone to tell me they never said something they later thought was over the top.

Absolutely! I agree with that. But if I were in an elected office and said something loudly that offended those who elected me, I would fully expect to hear about it. Besides, he didn't think it was "over the top". He has had ample opportunity to apologize for it and has stubbornly refused and reiterated his thoughts (which is his right). But it shows he doesn't think it was over the top.

Words have just never bothered me, I find it shameful that our society is so easily offended. It is like people forget that there are so many other important things going on in the world, why bother with some old man who said the N word.

I absolutely see your point, and if it was just some old man, I would agree completely. People DO get offended too easily (which is their right). But this guy is an elected official, charged with serving the people... I think that gives his constituents the right to ask him to step down.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Like it or not, the conversation was private and was "overheard" by a person not being addressed by the speaker.

He was pontificating loudly in a public place. That is NOT a private conversation.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

And he has no presumption of privacy in a restaurant, a public place. Therefore, although he has every right to say what he chooses, he has every responsibility to deal with fall out.

i would like to see someone address my post above. i think it's pertinent to this discussion.

my brother-in-law and sister-in-law, when they were kids, got into a debate while i was taking care of them. my sister-in-law called my brother-in-law a fool. this resulted in my brother-in-law threatening her with the wrath of their mother, who had instructed them not to call each other "fools" because jesus had said that saying that would put them in danger of hell fire. i suggested that the actual word used, wasn't the problem, but the intent of the heart. if your intent is to insinuate that the person you disagree with is an idiot or stupid, simply because they don't agree with your opinion, is the actual issue, in that leaping to that conclusion would also have a reciprocal feeling of hatred or judgement that was perhaps ill-founded or misplaced.

so what's really happening when a person uses an insult to refer to another individual, is not a simple matter of race. it's multi-faceted.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I see you are still coming from a place of ignorance on this topic. No one is being fined, imprisoned, or arrested for this. No such laws exist.

Not sure where you are from, but we have a constitution in america that ensures that.

Ok, so there are no hate speech laws in the US? That's odd, I just did a search HERE and a load information comes up. I guess the search engines like DuckDuckGo which gets its search information from Google must be ignorant too? Go figure...

Cheers - Dave

please. Seriously. Read about the topic. I beg you.

It is impossible to debate this when people havent even bothered to read the details of the case. I still fail to understand why so many of you defending this are the same ones who dont know where it took place, the details surrounding it, etc.

No one here is being charged with anything. That means....wait for it.....your entire post is irrelevant!

originally posted by: undo
i think it's pertinent to this discussion.

I don't. I think it's a silly side-stepping of the issue.

As far as privacy goes, Jane O'Toole says:

"It was not like I was eavesdropping on a table next to me or a table across the room... He was very loud."
...
And he became angry when WMUR recorded the confrontation, referring to reporter Nick Spinetto as a "nosy individual,"

When Spinetto responded that he was a reporter doing his job, Copeland fired back, "I know what you are. You're a skunk. Goodbye,"

Source

Sounds like a bitter, angry old man.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

what is the intent of laws against hate speech? notice the word "hate" there? hate is a state of emotion that is manifesting in the form of insulting speech. i think it's applicable.