Dunkin Donuts manager punches customer to death after being called the n-word
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Dunkin Donuts manager punches customer to death after being called the n-word
A Black manager at a Dunkin’ in Florida who fatally punched an elderly, white customer who called him the N-word will not spend any time behind bars, and instead will serve two years of house arrest as part of his guilty plea.
Frustrated with the service at one of the donut store’s Tampa locations, Vonelle Cook, 77, marched into the store and berated the manager, calling him the N-word, police said.
The manager, 27-year-old Corey Pujols, who is Black, asked Cook not to say it again.
When Cook decided to call him the N-word a second time, Pujols hit him in the jaw. The older man became unconscious, falling backwards and hitting his head on the floor. He was dead three days later, according to Fox13 .
Pujols had originally been charged with aggravated manslaughter following the May 5, 2021 incident.
Prosecutors accepted a plea deal from the donut shop manager, who agreed to change his plea to guilty for a lesser charge of felony battery in exchange for a more lenient sentence.
On Monday a judge decided Pujols would serve two years of house arrest, complete 200 hours of community service and attend an anger management course.
Florida investigators said Cook had initially gone through the drive-thru, but was so angered about the lack of service he parked his car and entered the store to complain. Employees knew Cook as a frequent customer who was ‘regularly troublesome and abusive,’ according to a release from the State Attorney’s office.
Prosecutors said it was important there were consequences for Pujols’ actions, but also took into account Cook’s abusive behavior and ‘very troublesome criminal history,’ which included prison time.
They claimed this combination of factors made Cook an ‘unsympathetic victim.’
‘This outcome holds the defendant accountable while taking into account the totality of the circumstances—the aggressive approach and despicable racial slur used by the victim, along with the defendant’s age, lack of criminal record, and lack of intent to cause the victim’s death,’ Grayson Kamm, a spokesperson for the Hillsborough State Attorney’s Office, told Fox13 .
According to the autopsy report, Cook suffered a skull fracture and brain contusions from the fall. After he fell and became unconscious in Dunkin’, Tampa Fire Rescue transported him to an area hospital, where he died three days later.
Tags
Who is online
451 visitors
I dont condone the punching a 77 year old in the head. But I also dont understand a 77 year old calling a 27 year old the n word, twice.
meh, self defense...
"Fighting words".
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942) words "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."
No guilty.
That is an idiotic post.
You can argue that it was justified, but not that it was self defense.
I think it’s clear the word was taken into consideration, but generally, fighting words by themselves are not a defense to battery or manslaughter. I suppose an exception (or at least mitigation) might be if the words were considered unlawful, for example, if they amounted to disorderly conduct. But Chaplinsky is more about making such a law ok. That is, the government can make fighting words criminal. Otherwise, under the 1st Amendment, they would be protected speech, like simple profanity.
In fact, the passion of the moment - brought on by the insult - is part of what made this a manslaughter charge originally, and not murder.
But just being insulted doesn’t give a person permission to start throwing punches, which is why there was still a prosecution, and ultimately, a plea in this case.
I agree with you, but I understand the manager's feelings. The foul old man should have been escorted out of the door.
I think justice was served, tho
The foul old man should have been escorted out of the door.
you're right, my bad. goose/gander. it was justifiable homicide, since it was race related...
Take a look in the mirror, look at yourself
But don't you look too close
'Cause you just might see
The person that you hate the most
Lord, what's happenin' to this human race?
I can't even see one friendly face
Brothers fight brothers and sisters wink their eyes
While silver tongues bear fruits of poison lies
Just take a look at your children born innocent
Every boy and every girl
Denyin' themselves a real chance
To build a better world
Dear Lord, dear Lord, what's happenin' to your precious dream?
It's washin' away on a bloody bloody stream
Take a look at your children before it's too late
And tell them nobody wins when the prize is hate
Sounds fair. You shouldn't punch an old dude, but an old dude shouldn't call a much younger and physically capable black dude a nigger, twice. Especially not after he asks you not to say it again. I mean, you got a freebie, just take it. Plus the criminal backgrounds and whatnot, the old guy dying was no real loss to society. Too bad the guy that hit him (and justifiably so IMO) probably lost his job and is now going to have this shit following him around the rest of his life.
I would call it more understandable than justified, but I take your point. If you start shit it might take an unexpected turn.
If I were black and you called me that, that is a crack in the jaw. We are both aware of the history of that word here in America and what its use among white people historically, and even in modern times in most cases, means. A punch in the face is an appropriate response.
Honestly, if I had to arrest that guy, id let him have the cuffs in front, be comfortable.
I've been arrested twice in my life, but never been cuffed.
Consequences for his chosen actions, just like the idiot who called him names suffered the consequences of HIS actions.
Seems to me the manager got off pretty easy.
Yep. Shitty situation for everyone but the law is the law and someone has to get arrested in that situation.
Fairly if you ask me.
I didn't.
But for the life of me, I can't abide killing someone for calling me a name--no matter WHAT the name was.
Some liberals will cheer this and make excuses, but the same people will gripe when someone gets shot by a homeowner breaking into their house!
Don't care.
Congrats He didn't mean to kill him, he punched him for the other convict calling him a nigger, twice.
I know, I read the article, and all that was in it.
I didn't say the manager meant to kill him--mainly because I don't believe it. And I think the old guy deserved to get punched.
Getting punched and getting killed are two completely different things.
No prison time at all seems light to me.
I prefer people who don't use the "n" word and I also prefer people who are able to keep their emotions in check.
no jail time?
Good.
For killing someone older and weaker; and more importantly white and male. What country do you think you live in now?
Reverse the roles as he is getting charged with murder and a hate crime by the federal government.
Welcome to two tier justice in the US.
Wow, that's some delusional shit right there Ronin. It's sadly obvious that you have no clue WTF you're talking about.
Carry on.
First off, he didn't mean to kill the convict, the intent wasn't there. Secondly he didn't initiate the confrontation, the convict did. Thirdly, the convict had a history of being a dick to people at that store. Fourthly the convict called the manage a nigger, to his face, and the manager told him not to call him that again.
The convict called him that again, to his face, and got punched. Fully legit IMO.
I would say the same if the race situation was reversed.
And, we should nevermind that no white person was ever convicted of killing a black person in deep southern courts for a few hundred years...
That changed significantly when Democrats began to lose power in the South.
For someone who is supposedly older and meant to be wiser, what a foul mouthed old sod.. obviously must have been dragged up and a feral to boot...
Yes unfortunate it cost him his life, but some what self inflicted..
In this day and age using that word what in the hell did he expect..a bunch of roses...
If he hadn't said it, he wouldn't be dead.
PS: Have you ever thought of migrating, you don't seem a very happy Vegemite in the States...is there anything you do actually like over there ??
Lol... do you seriously not see what you did there?
I see I responded to what I considered a stupid post.
What did you see?
You do not understand what happened in the south, and across the country. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is very instructive.
Although it appeared that many Democrats in the south voted against the Civil Rights Act, and Republicans in the north voted for it, there is more to the story. The Civil Rights Act vote broke down on liberal /conservative lines. The south was the h0tbed of conservatism at that time and southern senators and congressmen of both parties voted against the bill. At that time there was such a thing as liberal or moderate Republicans in the north and those people voted overwhelmingly for the bill, as did the northern Democrats.
It was conservatives of both parties that opposed civil rights legislation, mainly from the south because that is where the bulk of conservatives were at that time.
That is false. Of course.
No one is talking about the Civil Rights Act.
Im trying to explain reality to you. Evidently it is not working.
Stick to what you know. Reality ain't it.
Can you explain how a poster can say that no whites were convicted of murdering blacks in the South for a few hundred years and me pointing out that changed when Democrats began to lose their grip on power in the South is wrong?
Or is it your posit that no whites have been convicted for killing blacks in the South still?
And then relate how your little jaunt down Civil Rights Lane relates to a damn thing I stated.
It still is.
And to your point:
1964 Civil Rights Act Vote By party and region
The House of Representatives:
Note that four Representatives voted Present while 13 did not vote.
The Senate:
Notice how 100% of Southern Republicans voted against the civil rights act? Sure, there weren't that many at the time, but the conservative Republicans in the South at that time were more loyal to segregation than even Southern Democrats.
And of course also to note, there were a total of 199 Democrats and 163 Republicans who voted in support of the civil rights act versus 103 Southern Democrats and 12 Southern Republicans who against it. So the claim by Republicans that they were the ones who passed the civil rights act is total hogwash, there were far more Democrats voting for it than Republicans.
NO ONE was mentioning the Civil Rights Act except JR as a deflection to what I posted.
Carry on.
Racial prejudice was not a product of the Democratic Party, it is the product of political /social ideology we call racism. It is much more attributable to the liberal/conservative breakdown than to party breakdown.
This was the point of mentioning the Civil Rights Act, but you dont get it.
Carry on.
What a lot of people fail to understand is that the majority of southern congresspeople were democrats, but an even bigger majority of them were conservatives. There were quite a few conservative Democrats in those days, and there were also liberal Republicans (in the north).
Simple question which I realize I won't get a simple answer to:
Were Democrats in control of the South for well over a hundred years?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
How is what I wrote wrong, JR--without giving me some long song and dance about the CRA which ONLY you brought up for some strange, unknown "reason"?
The truth is that the majority of Democrats of all persuasions were vehemently against the CRA of 1964. The manager should have ignored the asshole and asked him to leave. Violence is never a better option.
[deleted]
I will try one last time. Those people werent racist trash because they were Democrats. They were racist trash because they were conservative southerners at a time when that led to open racism.
Once is a great start.
I didn't write that they were. But it is simply undeniable that the Democrats controlled the South.
Dude, just read wtf I responded TO and figure it out instead of going off course.
Progressive southerners were racist trash too.
So being an ex-convict makes assault that results in death OK. Have to remember that.
All depends on who is doing the killing and the races of the people involved.
Do your homework as to how the Act evolved...and to the Southern Senate Democrat's filibuster.
I know all about it.
At that time the majority of southern legislators were conservatives and a majority of those were southern Democrats.
People opposed the CRA because they were racist conservatives from the south, not because they were Democrats. As DP pointed out, not a single southern Republican voted yes for the bill.
But....they were Southern DEMOCRATS, calling them "conservatives" is simply cute wordplay
So in your world, conservatives voted for LBJ's big society programs?
Yep. Johnson wheeled and dealed with them. It wasnt quite yet clear then that conservatives would leave the Democratic Party.
The southerners didnt vote against the CRA because they were Democrats. That is just ridiculous. The vast majority of northern Democrats voted for the bill.
The usual attempt to distance the Democratic Party from the very people they embraced for decades when it meant a secure base of power to retain Congress.
Lol...Why would he have to? For instance, Medicare/medicaid passed by a margin of almost 200 votes in the House and with 70 votes in the Senate.
It's a diversion. Don't fall for it.
190 out of the 199 northern Democrats who were in Congress at the time voted YES for the Civil Rights Act. That is 95.4%
On what possible basis are you claiming that being a Democrat resulted in a "no" vote?
Most of the no votes came from southerners of both parties.
You can stay deluded if you want but the facts are the facts.
This whole thread seems like a diversion and not at all about any article....
Let's try this on for size:
I know that already, and it is silly to think that I don't.
What are you reading in my posts, seriously? Where did I say that? STOP INVENTING CRAP YOU WANT ME TO SAY AND STOP ARGUING WHAT YOU INVENTED. It is intellectually dishonest and lazy.
Duh. Just another piss-poor argument having NOTHING--ABSOLUTELY NOTHING-- to do with what I wrote.
Exactly how far down this rabbit hole are you willing to go?
More trolling.
You have claimed repeatedly that the Democratic Party is responsible for racism. I have shown you, and Dismayed Patriot showed you that your belief is nonsense. Geographic location and personal ideology perpetuated racism , not a political party.
Were the party affiliation responsible for racism , more than 4.6% of northern Democrats would have voted against the Civil Rights Act.
You are out of gas. Again.
Fuck off with that crap.
I asked you once to LOOK at the post I initially responded to. Then look at MY response to that post. All the rest is you running down some rabbit hole talking about WHAT NO ONE ELSE IS.
I clearly explained to you why your belief that the Democratic Party is racist is nonsense. That is all I can do.
I cant make you smarter.
I see you failed to read again.
Good job chasing rabbits, though!
Well then it's going to get awful quiet around here.
the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed the House with 78% of Republicans voting for it with 60% of Democrats in favor. It passed the Senate with 82% of Republicans in favor, 69% of Democrats voted for it
FACT CHECK: ‘More Republicans Voted For The Civil Rights Act As A Percentage Than Democrats’ | Check Your Fact
An ex-con was killed by a policeman in Minneapolis and that caused all kinds of problems. Just a reminder
Is it your contention that the parties still have the same makeup today?
There was not a single southern Republican that voted yes for the Civil Rights Act. None.
There is no percentage lower than zero.
The voting for the Civil Rights Act can be explained on a geographical and political ideology basis, not on a party basis.
In 1964 there were a lot of conservative southern Democrats in office. When they voted no it brought the democrats percentage of yes votes down.
I'll end with this - a higher percentage of northern Democrats than northern Republicans voted yes, and a higher percentage of southern Democrats than southern Republicans voted yes.
77 or not you don't verbally use very demeaning language and then do it again after being asked not to.
Just an old thug.
Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you. This guy should be on death row! If you can't control yourself you need to be locked the fuck up.
Most of us have been called abhorrent names in our life but we haven't murdered anyone because of it. If you support no jail time for this man [deleted]
Jesus fuck dude. Talk about ignoring the circumstances entirely. If it was you would you want me to pass that same judgement?
If a 77 year old man calls you a name and you kill him, you are not a man, you are a weak pussy who can't control himself.
A coward beats an old man to death regardless of what was said.
A 77 year old should be wiser and know better...
Oh, definitely.
Being killed for being stupid and offensive might be a tad harsh, though.
I dare say most of us have done something stupid and offensive at one time or another to another human. I know I have.
And I am in no way equating what he said with stupid things we may have done in our lives.
He definitely deserved to get punched, but not killed.
But we must all learn to harness our anger instead of acting on impulses.
Calls you a nigger, in 2022...
Apparently. You just gotta take it... CUZ FORD TOUGH.
Anoon Texan..
Even I know what the N word in the States means..and I would never say it...I wouldn't dare too..and if I did would expect to get my head punched in..
No one would have expected this outcome and no doubt now wish it never happened on both sides...
Why on earth are you quoting someone else's words to me?
Do you have a comment to make, or are we all just supposed to pick random posts out and post them to each other now?
is THAT the game you want to play?
Well, one person is wishing, for sure!
3.2.4
Your turn!
Typo.
Calm yourself. I think we are in agreement here. Dumbass said something extremely stupid and got punch in the face for it.
Yeah.. not my quote
Okay, you accidently quoted someone else to me.
I know, it is mine. I figured you wanted to post random posts to each other, so I chose my own so no one would take offense.
k.
Maybe we all watch too much TV or movies. There is still a delusion, held by many, that a simple fist fight or a single punch are largely harmless. That is wrong. First of all, punching an old person (or anyone really) just one time could kill them. But very often, the fall to the ground - or impacting some object on the way down - finishes the job. And if it doesn’t, there’s always the brain damage.
I can’t help but feel that if people took the consequences of punching someone more seriously, we’d see less of it.
Nevertheless, I do sympathize with the defendant. Sometimes people can say things that just trigger us uncontrollably and we respond without thinking. We should want to do better, though. Because he couldn’t hold it together, this guy now has a conviction for a violent felony that will probably haunt him for the rest of his life. I would guess he lost his job also, but I haven’t seen any mention of that. Maybe they’re holding it for him?
Not to mention, living with the knowledge that he killed a person.
I think the biggest problem is the double standard, if a 77 year old Black Man harassed me and called me a racist cracker I'd get mad but if I punched him in the face and killed him how many people on this board would sympathize with the me. While it's good that we condemn racism and racist words and epitaphs the Law does not and should not make exceptions for violence in response to certain insults. Does anyone really believe that calling a black person the N word hurts their feelings more than it hurts someone like Forrest Gump to be called a Stupid Idiot. This Black Man did not punch that guy because being called an "N word" caused an uncontrollable rage in him, he did it because he's been conditioned to believe that over the top violence is an acceptable response to being called that word by a white person.
Racial prejudice and discrimination have not historically in the US been an equal two way street. That is quite obvious.
If someone calls you a cracker it does not have the same historical connotation that the n word does, nor should we be surprised by that fact.
It is just a fact of life that the main impetus for racial reconciliation must come from whites and there is rightfully a much higher burden on white people to effect change in the society.
Making excuses and exceptions doesn't help black people, it's just the soft racism of low expectations the Left is always pushing. Equality is what they need and that means Equal Expectations.
We are not yet at the stage as a society where black insults toward whites have the same historical or psychological impact as the other way around, nor should we be. Blacks didnt oppress whites for hundreds of years.
things should be same for both sides
Interesting. I hadn’t thought much about this part of it, but you have a good argument that this was a more premeditated act, and not “the heat of passion.” Challenging the old man to say it again (or threatening him if he does) may well have been a case of talking himself into the idea that it was ok to punch him.
I do think the plea is somewhat generous. I wonder if that was the offer or something Defendant’s lawyer managed to negotiate. Probably the latter - in which case: good lawyering.
I wonder if this guy is the type that goes around calling all his black friends nigga. Double standard. Enough said.
I remember an old episode of The Tonight Show. Little Richard was a guest and presented Carson with a pink dashiki. He put it on and used the N word. LR told Carson that he could use that word but Carson couldn't.
The title imo is misleading. It makes it seem that he continually punched him causing his death. The guy threw one punch.
I see what you are saying. Yeah they could have worded the headline better.
The old man could have had dementia or mental problems; but, he said a bad word so some think it is OK to hit him hard enough to kill him and get away with it
Yeah can't wait for the riots and the calls for this guys head................./S
He had problems, to include being a registered sex offender from 2008 convictions. https://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/sops/flyer.jsf?personNbr=71952
that is worse than calling somebody a name
His only problem was trying to walk upright.