>I want proof that a kindly elderly gentleman called the Dunkin Donuts manager a nigger. Don't need any. The way the law is written, it doesn't even really matter if the victim said the word nigger. If the attacker *believed* he heard the word nigger, that's all it requires for the law: **the interpretation a person has from an encounter is what is recognized by the law.** For example, you can be at work, a new nigger starts working, and he's wearing really baggy clothing- but the environment you're working in has a lot of shit that can snag clothing and get someone hurt. So a White guy goes up to this nigger and politely suggests "Hey man, you should wear tighter fitting clothing here so you don't get hurt." That nigger can go to HR and say "That White man, he said I should wear tighter clothes, he's a racist, he knows black people wear baggy clothing, he even *threatened to hurt me* if I didn't dress the way he said!" Boom, White man fired, possible lawsuit for the nigger, no proof required. The White guy can even deny that this interaction happened, no audio or video proof of it- and the company/law will still side with the nigger. Laws are meant to be *objective,* all feelings removed. But for "minorities", the lesser beings that need special treatment just to stand a chance, the law has been manipulated so that *their feelings* on any given incident is what matters. Welcome to Clown Court. **JUDGES NEED TO START BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE. I'M SICK OF THEM BEING ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH MAKING THESE ABSURD DECISIONS THAT LEAD TO MORE DEATHS AND DAMAGES, BUT THE JUDGES ARE UNTOUCHABLE.**