Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Ben on September 26, 2009, 12:03:29 PM
-
Well, he was given three choices.... =D
--------------------
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=846181
Suspected flag burner pilloried
Alleged offender hunted down, ridiculed after incident at VFW post
By BOB GARDINIER AND HUMBERTO MARTÃNEZ, Staff writer
Click byline for more stories by writer.
First published: Saturday, September 26, 2009
VALLEY FALLS -- The young man was given three choices: get turned over to the police, go one-on-one in a fight with a seasoned war veteran, or be duct-taped to a flagpole for six hours with a sign around his neck identifying his alleged crime: flag burning.
It was the third option that would still have the small town buzzing a week after a 21-year-old was hunted down and forced to endure a public humiliation with its roots dating to the Middle Ages. Members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 1938 were incensed enough to tie up the man last Sunday after they accused him of setting the flag in front of their building on fire.
Post Commander Nick Normile, a Vietnam War veteran, said the man came into the post's bar Sept. 18 on Poplar Avenue and was eventually turned away for not having a proper ID.
Apparently angered, the young man, who Normile did not want to name, cut the rope of the American flag flying overhead and used a cigarette lighter to set it on fire, Normile and others said.
The man sat pilloried as the village had its fall youth soccer picnic with a long parade of children passing in front of him.
"He'll never disrespect the flag again, I can tell you that," Normile said.
Normile said the flag had at one point flown over U.S. troops in Iraq had special significance.
Veterans, both local and nationwide, responded to the event as accountings were posted online to the official VFW Facebook page and national Web site. Comments posted supported the act and added ideas for further punishment.
Other nearby business owners said they knew of the event but refused to give an accounting. Unconfirmed reports by citizens said the alleged flag-burner was a relative of a previous commander of the post.
Calls made to the alleged flag burner and a spokesman for the national VFW organization for comments were not returned. The Rensselaer County Sheriffs office confirmed knowledge of the event, but said they were not involved. State Police in Brunswick were contacted, but a trooper said no record of the event could be found.
The flag will be disposed of at a formal ceremony, Normile said.
-
Bravo! Good for them. Hopefully a little public humiliation will teach somebody a lesson. It sounds like any investigation is lost in a sea of red tape =D
-
Burning a flag is a much lesser offense than assaulting a person.
-
Burning a flag is a much lesser offense than assaulting a person.
Nobody assaulted him. They just gave him a choice. He chose to be duct taped to a pole for six hours rather than be prosecuted for his vandalism.
-
Burning a flag is a much lesser offense than assaulting a person.
Agreed.
Charge the guy with whatever form of 'malicious destruction of property' they have on the books. Sentence him to some community service, maybe make him clean up and post flags on veterans' graves. Make him pay for a new flag.
While I honestly do understand (and share) the anger those vets feel, they should have simply turned him over to the police. What they did was wrong.
Oh, and challenging him to a fistfight over an insult? Are you kidding me? That kind of behavior is for teenagers, prisoners and low-life street gangs, not men and women of our armed forces. I expect them to behave better than that. =|
Flame away.
-
Flame I will. Your objection makes no sense. Why don't you respect the hooligan's freedom of choice? And what's wrong with boxing?
-
Agreed.
Charge the guy with whatever form of 'malicious destruction of property' they have on the books. Sentence him to some community service, maybe make him clean up and post flags on veterans' graves. Make him pay for a new flag.
While I honestly do understand (and share) the anger those vets feel, they should have simply turned him over to the police. What they did was wrong.
Oh, and challenging him to a fistfight over an insult? Are you kidding me? That kind of behavior is for teenagers, prisoners and low-life street gangs, not men and women of our armed forces. I expect them to behave better than that. =|
Flame away.
No need to flame when you've already thoroughly embarrassed yourself. Ridiculing patriots for being patriots? You're a better person than that.
For added emphasis I quote YOUR personal tagline...
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. -Mark Twain
Brad
-
They should have called the police and pressed charges. What they did was immature and shows a lack of discipline and self control. That said, it IS pretty dang funny.
-
No need to flame when you've already embarrassed yourself by ridiculing patriots for being patriots.
I guess it depends on your definition of a patriot. Mine does not include acting immaturely or irrationally over insults. Including yours, but I'll give you an A for effort. =)
-
Flame I will. Your objection makes no sense. Why don't you respect the hooligan's freedom of choice? And what's wrong with boxing?
Nothing in my post says anything about disrepecting the hooligan's choice. My problem is that those choices were given to him. They should have turned him over to the police.
-
They should have called the police and pressed charges. What they did was immature and shows a lack of discipline and self control.
Incorrect. It shows they have motivation, focus, and a sense of self-worth they are willing to defend in the face of a society that currently shuns these as weaknesses rather than strengths.
Brad
-
I guess it depends on your definition of a patriot. Mine does not include acting immaturely or irrationally over insults.
Sigh. It's sad when standing your ground and fighting for what is right and true is now considered immature and irrational.
Brad
-
Sigh. It's sad when standing your ground and fighting for what is right and true is now considered immature and irrational.
Brad
I don't entirely disagree with you. Where we differ, I suppose, is where you draw that line. Taking action when it's needed is a sign of a true patriot, according to me. Doing so because one feels like it, not so much.
You obviously feel strongly about this topic Brad, so I thank you for your honesty and will leave it at that. We'll just have to agree to disagree. =)
-
I'm wondering when the kid is going to sue. Hopefully the VFW has a deep legal defense fund.
-
I'm wondering when the kid is going to sue. Hopefully the VFW has a deep legal defense fund.
He can't, or at least he won't have a foot to stand on if he tries. These old codgers had their wits about them when they acted. In giving HIM the choice of actions, choices which included three very different and distinct courses of action (including turning the matter over to the authorities), they placed the burden of responsibility in the kid's lap. He chose. They performed. End of story.
Brad
-
Brad, the kid will claim coercion, that he was forced to make that choice, perhaps while being improperly detained. Given today's litigious society, I cannot imagine the VFW getting a pass on a lawsuit.
-
Oh, they won't get a pass. I would be very surprised if there wasn't some form of future litigation relating to the incident.
What the VFW will have is an extremely strong case for their side. It's hard to make a coercion charge stick when the "victim" was given the choice of three very distinct actions, on of which was turning the incident over to authorities. They have a whole group of witnesses that will say, to a person, the perp willingly chose this action.
Brad
-
It would be interesting to see a follow-up to this story in six months or so.
In any event, the mental image of the kid duct taped to the pole is a nice one.
-
Brad, the kid will claim coercion, that he was forced to make that choice, perhaps while being improperly detained. Given today's litigious society, I cannot imagine the VFW getting a pass on a lawsuit.
Try vandalizing/shoplifting in any store, they can and will detain you. They can and will give you the choice of calling the police or paying restitution.
-
Meh, my heart will not bleed for the vandal.
He had his choice and he made it.
Frankly, I much prefer if folks can sort out their disagreements without involving gov't.
-
scanr, I am just saying "improperly detained" is an argument the kid will use in a potential lawsuit. I am not by any stretch feeling bad for the kid.
And store procedure pertaining to personnel detaining shoplifters, varies greatly by the corporation and locale. Some places do, some don't, for a variety of reasons.
-
Oh, and challenging him to a fistfight over an insult? Are you kidding me? That kind of behavior is for teenagers, prisoners and low-life street gangs, not men and women of our armed forces. I expect them to behave better than that. =|
I agree. Swords, or pistols at 10 paces, would have been more becoming of gentlemen.
-
I agree. Swords, or pistols at 10 paces, would have been more becoming of gentlemen.
^
=D =D =D
-
I guess it depends on your definition of a patriot. Mine does not include acting immaturely or irrationally over insults.
Immature? Irrational? That's so disconnected from reality, I'm not even sure how to address such an error. Anyway, burning someone else's American flag, especially at the VFW hall, is well beyond an insult.
Nothing in my post says anything about disrepecting the hooligan's choice. My problem is that those choices were given to him. They should have turned him over to the police.
I was being a bit facetious, there. But the kid chose to be taped to the pole. Why not let him?
-
Immature? Irrational? That's so disconnected from reality, I'm not even sure how to address such an error.
No, it's not. It's simply an opinion that differs from yours. But of course, it's easier to try and discredit the person whose opinion it is, than to formulate an argument against the opinion. That's two people now! :O
On that note, I've made my point(s), and will bow out of this conversation before it degenerates even further. PM me if you wish.
-
No, it's not. It's simply an opinion that differs from yours. But of course, it's easier to try and discredit the person whose opinion it is, than to formulate an argument against the opinion. That's two people now! :O
On that note, I've made my point(s), and will bow out of this conversation before it degenerates even further. PM me if you wish.
What? ??? I'm sorry, but you're just looking for ad hominem where it doesn't exist. I said that your comments were disconnected from reality. How is that "degenerate"? Again, I'm not sure how to address an "opinion" that simply has no connection to the facts.
-
I don't care what anyone says, they behaved immaturely and stupidly. Challenge to a fist fight Yeah, real mature. They can get sued, and they WILL lose or settle if they are. You can't take the law into your own hands after a crime has been committed; it just doesn't fly in court. I definetly agree with the sentiment, but you have to follow the rules of society, that's what makes the western world better than all the rest of the world.
Of course the guy is a jerk and should be tossed in a cell for 3 months and forced to pay 20x the value of the flag back. Followed up by AA for the next couple years.. I guarantee you he was intoxicated or has a drug/alcohol problem, I also guarantee you that there were previous problems between this character and the hall..
-
I don't care what anyone says, they behaved immaturely and stupidly. Challenge to a fist fight Yeah, real mature. They can get sued, and they WILL lose or settle if they are. You can't take the law into your own hands after a crime has been committed; it just doesn't fly in court. I definetly agree with the sentiment, but you have to follow the rules of society, that's what makes the western world better than all the rest of the world.
Of course the guy is a jerk and should be tossed in a cell for 3 months and forced to pay 20x the value of the flag back. Followed up by AA for the next couple years.. I guarantee you he was intoxicated or has a drug/alcohol problem, I also guarantee you that there were previous problems between this character and the hall..
And I have to disagree.
We rely far too much on the courts and lawyers in this society. Social disapprobation is a far better tool.
We need MORE public shamings.
-
Social disapprobation a useful tool? Have you ever been to, say, high school?
-
I agree. Swords, or pistols at 10 paces, would have been more becoming of gentlemen.
Call me a Neanderthal, but there's a lot to be said for asking someone to step outside in order to defend one's honor, or the honor of a lady. Obviously there is a fine and varying line between one kind of "vigilantism" and another, but calling the cops or a lawyer (no offense to the lawyers on board) for every little thing is what has led us to being the rude and litigious society that we are.
See the title of our forum. Knowing you might get popped in the nose should be all that's needed to keep you from doing crass and stupid things. Knowing you can "tattle" and sue for just about anything will make you more prone to being a jackass.
-
Gentlemen of VFW, I salute you.
-
I would note here I am in great favor of legalizing formal dueling.
-
Social disapprobation a useful tool? Have you ever been to, say, high school?
Do you often start arguments by proving your opponents point? Also note, children being vicious to each other has no relation to the use of shame as a punishment. Anymore than bullies beating up other kids relates to the use of flogging as a form of punishment.
-
My point is this: Social misapprobation, by definition, is not assigned based on any kind of legal or even rational system. While the State may attempt to direct with (by publicly shaming criminals), it is not fully controllable. In the times where punishments were public, there were often occasions when crowds would become enraged and assault the executioners to free the criminal, even when those same people had previously demanded his punishment.
Add to this the tendency of people - not just in high-school, but in any kind of group environment - the military (at least where I served), even some workplaces and small town, to single people out for exclusion and hatred for being different, and using that as any kind of tool for justice become... very iffy at best. People express 'social disapprobation' of pagans, strippers, and hippie protestors. What kind of method is that to make society better?
The legal system with its pre-agreed-upon punishment is far more predictable. If you can prove someone hurt another person or their property, fine them or put them in prison or execute them. If they haven't, leave them the hell alone.
-
My point is this: Social misapprobation, by definition, is not assigned based on any kind of legal or even rational system. While the State may attempt to direct with (by publicly shaming criminals), it is not fully controllable. In the times where punishments were public, there were often occasions when crowds would become enraged and assault the executioners to free the criminal, even when those same people had previously demanded his punishment.
Add to this the tendency of people - not just in high-school, but in any kind of group environment, to single people out for exclusion and hatred for being different, and using that as any kind of tool for justice become... very iffy at best.
The legal system with its pre-agreed-upon punishment is far more predictable. If you can prove someone hurt another person or their property, fine them or put them in prison or execute them. If they haven't, leave them the hell alone.
What the hell are you talking about? How is punishing a criminal for their action "singling someone out for exclusion and hatred because they are different?" Also, public shaming/flogging etc can be every bit as much a part of the pre-agreed-u[pon punishment of the legal system as anything else. Why are fines, prison, and execution the only legitimate methods of punishment, especially since they are (as you ourself have pointed out) not terribly effective?
-
I don't have a problem with public flogging as much as with the idea of replacing legal punishment with society shaming someone.
Furthermore, I contend that the modern prison system works. Western societies - including America - are actually remarkably SAFE as compared to both the rest of the world, and the previous 199,000 years of recorded human history.
-
I don't care what anyone says, they behaved immaturely and stupidly. Challenge to a fist fight Yeah, real mature.
First you impersonate the President, and then you say that boxing is immature? I'm not sure I understand.
You can't take the law into your own hands after a crime has been committed; it just doesn't fly in court.
Then the flag-burner has no case? After all, the decision was his. How does he sue them for something in which he participated? If what they did was wrong, how does he escape blame? He was as instrumental in the situation as were they.
-
Social disapprobation a useful tool? Have you ever been to, say, high school?
thats ironic in ways you will never realize
-
thats ironic in ways you will never realize
Happily I went to a high school that was not like that. =D
Mind, the first three months of it was in a public high school, but generally, no, my high school years were paradise compared to what many people experience.
-
if the kid is smart he'll shut up and try to live it down or move.
i remember a "peace demonstration" in new york that got a visit from the hard hats on a construction site nearby. let the beatings begin
-
i remember a "peace demonstration" in new york that got a visit from the hard hats on a construction site nearby
I shudder to ask what happened.
-
I don't have a problem with public flogging as much as with the idea of replacing legal punishment with society shaming someone.
Furthermore, I contend that the modern prison system works. Western societies - including America - are actually remarkably SAFE as compared to both the rest of the world, and the previous 199,000 years of recorded human history.
So you are saying that there is no deterrent aspect to something being regarded by society as a whole as shameful? Really?
What historic records are you thinking of as being almost 200k years old?
-
Nothing in my post says anything about disrepecting the hooligan's choice. My problem is that those choices were given to him. They should have turned him over to the police.
That was one of the choices.
He chose otherwise. Case closed.
-
So you are saying that there is no deterrent aspect to something being regarded by society as a whole as shameful? Really?
No, I'm saying it's a bad idea to rely on society's collective understanding of 'shamefulness' as our way to prevent actually criminal activities. I'd rather depend on, you know, courts and juries.
This is both for fear of society regarding things as shameful which I see nothing wrong with, and for fear of certain subcultures that actually glorify anti-social behavior.
What historic records are you thinking of as being almost 200k years old?
Obviously, there are no detailed crecords per se of the primitive society, so I was incorrect in referring to it as recorded.
But I think I'm generally correct in saying that modern Western civilization is doing comparatively well in deterring actual violence and other crimes against the citizen.
-
You can't take the law into your own hands after a crime has been committed; it just doesn't fly in court.
The law is in our hands, we have simply authorized police officers to act as agents of the state on our behalf. In the absence of law enforcement, we are still able to be proactive in many circumstances.
As for the OP, I believe I would have rather roughly held the young man until authorities arrived, i.e. put him to the ground and sat on him.
-
And I have to disagree.
We rely far too much on the courts and lawyers in this society. Social disapprobation is a far better tool.
We need MORE public shamings.
This. ^^^
More of this. ^^^
Less of this: (https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.harvard.edu%2Fnews%2Fimages-cms%2Fdersh_web.jpg&hash=97eacb4ec0dbceed2df68470ac6453061303cd12)
My point is this: Social misapprobation, by definition, is not assigned based on any kind of legal or even rational system.
Au contraire. Tradition and other social conduct is most times quite rational. Folks didn't just pull folkways, mores, and such out of their fourth points of contact. There was a process over a good amount of time that resulted in certain relationships between action/reaction and such.
We might have to break out our fainting couch nowadays, since we have been conditioned to lawyer-ize everything, but there are rational bases for most public shaming.
While the State may attempt to direct with (by publicly shaming criminals), it is not fully controllable. In the times where punishments were public, there were often occasions when crowds would become enraged and assault the executioners to free the criminal, even when those same people had previously demanded his punishment.
Uh, we were talking about public shaming, not public execution.
Also, I don't want it controlled by the State. I want the "public dander" to be a rival power that demands respect form the state.
Add to this the tendency of people - not just in high-school, but in any kind of group environment - the military (at least where I served), even some workplaces and small town, to single people out for exclusion and hatred for being different, and using that as any kind of tool for justice become... very iffy at best. People express 'social disapprobation' of pagans, strippers, and hippie protestors. What kind of method is that to make society better?
First off, if someone chooses to take on counter-cultural habits, beliefs, etc., they are getting what they asked for WRT exclusion, etc. It is the "counter-" part, here. They are setting themselves apart & acting different. So, they are treated differently.
We have freedom of expression, so they can express what they please. But, there is no freedom to get invited to all the cool parties after using that freedom to mock the popular cliques.
I think the atrophy of public shaming and other social tools is tied to the growth of government power into every sphere. If people can't or won't police their own selves via self-discipline and keeping the community standards, police will be provided from on high. And they won't live next door or have their own behavior checked by the community's standards.
-
First off, if someone chooses to take on counter-cultural habits, beliefs, etc., they are getting what they asked for WRT exclusion, etc. It is the "counter-" part, here. They are setting themselves apart & acting different. So, they are treated differently.
You do realize this is a giant circular reasoning moment?
Tradition and other social conduct is most times quite rational.
Consider the 'traditional' behavior of people outside the very narrow circle of the Christian-Western world. Their traditions do not condemn bribe-taking as much as they condemn, say, 'immodest' clothing. There are entire countries where accepting services from someone and taking weeks and months to pay for them is seen as normal and meets with cultural acceptance, and countries where slicing the face and head of your infant child with a straight razor is perfectly normal and encouraged, and I note I'm talking about comparatively sane nations like Israel and Lebanon.
There's absolutely no rational reason for people to stone other people for driving on Saturday. Nothing. None whatsoever that you can provide.
A lot of human traditions are leftovers from a time period when something made sense given the social and scientific knowledge at the time, and which no longer makes sense now. The clothing of Orthodox Jews (and the particular way in which they perform circumcision), for example, made perfect sense when it was first introduced. Perfectly no sense now.
Social taboos are called taboos because they're quite often entirely irrational and magical in nature. Leftists view hunters as some form of primitive throwbacks who kill animals for pleasure. For these people, hunting is entirely unacceptable.
I much prefer lawyers. At least when a law is enacted, I get to fight against it, and maybe it gets shot down in the legislature, or thrown out in court. And then if I am charged, I get a day in court, with an attorney to defend me.
How can you fight a wide-spread public prejudice?
If people can't or won't police their own selves via self-discipline and keeping the community standards, police will be provided from on high
False dichotomy.
-
Great thread!
The Rensselaer County Sheriffs office confirmed knowledge of the event, but said they were not involved. State Police in Brunswick were contacted, but a trooper said no record of the event could be found.
Any bets on whether or the Sheriff's report gets lost? =D
He was offered the opportunity to go to the police, and he declined. Did he think he'd somehow walk away from his actions?
-
Somebody walks up and punches the guy in the nose? Fine with me. He accidentally sets himself on fire while burning the flag, like that putz in Pakistan, I laugh inside.
I don't want to see him turned over to the police. I don't want him to be bullied by a group into a fight or public humiliation/wrongful confinement. The VFW is an honorable group, but group bully tactics are tools of the enemy. I detest people that burn flags, but they need to exist. Burning a flag and living is proof that the flag still represents American values. I've raised and struck the the colors many times in the military. I've folded flags for family members, the same flag I put on a co-worker's coffin. I believe in the flag and the country behind it rather fervently. But I don't like nationalism that seeks to suppress its antithesis. I understand that the VFW guys are heavily invested in what the flag means to them, some probably a lot more than me, and can name more friends laid to rest under the flag. Even so, the piece of crap has a right to do his thing.
-
Somebody walks up and punches the guy in the nose? Fine with me. He accidentally sets himself on fire while burning the flag, like that putz in Pakistan, I laugh inside.
I don't want to see him turned over to the police. I don't want him to be bullied by a group into a fight or public humiliation/wrongful confinement. The VFW is an honorable group, but group bully tactics are tools of the enemy. I detest people that burn flags, but they need to exist. Burning a flag and living is proof that the flag still represents American values. I've raised and struck the the colors many times in the military. I've folded flags for family members, the same flag I put on a co-worker's coffin. I believe in the flag and the country behind it rather fervently. But I don't like nationalism that seeks to suppress its antithesis. I understand that the VFW guys are heavily invested in what the flag means to them, some probably a lot more than me, and can name more friends laid to rest under the flag. Even so, the piece of crap has a right to do his thing.
Normally I'd agree with you, but it wasn't his flag. It was the VFW's flag. He destroyed someone else's property.
-
I also think flag-burning (while detestable), should be legal. However...
Somebody walks up and punches the guy in the nose? Fine with me.
So assaulting him is fine with you (even when you seem to think he was burning his own flag), but giving him the choice of public humiliation or prosecution is unacceptable "bullying"? Think about that for a minute.
I don't want him to be bullied by a group into a fight or public humiliation/wrongful confinement.
Then be assured that did not happen.
I detest people that burn flags, but they need to exist.
How so? ???
-
group bully tactics are tools of the enemy.
Name one military that doesn't use the strategy of ganging up on, intimidating, and collectively beating the crap out of its enemies.
-
Name one military that doesn't use the strategy of ganging up on, intimidating, and collectively beating the crap out of its enemies.
The French?
-
So assaulting him is fine with you (even when you seem to think he was burning his own flag), but giving him the choice of public humiliation or prosecution is unacceptable "bullying"? Think about that for a minute.
Sure, stupid should have consequences. Does not excuse premeditated group action. Now, my reading comp. fail, it was the VFWs flag, send him to the cops for destruction of property.
Name one military that doesn't use the strategy of ganging up on, intimidating, and collectively beating the crap out of its enemies.
Nobody involved was in the military in the context of the current action. When I think group intimidation I think school bullies, union thugs, and past failed states that adored their ultra-nationalist groups.
-
past failed states
Again, the French come to mind.
(Not picking on your screen name, BTW. Just can't pass up a chance to bully the French. :lol: )
-
I was going more for the stealth godwin actually. I quit French military jokes because it makes the mods mad. The only frog in me is of Hugenot descent who got wise and got out long ago, so don't worry, you can't offend me.
-
I quit French military jokes because it makes the mods mad. The only frog in me is of Hugenot descent who got wise and got out long ago, so don't worry, you can't offend me.
Fisty can do it since APS is sending 'im to hell anyways. =D
Also, Alsace-Lorraine decent here. Family left there in... the 1590s, I think. First to fall, last to be liberated. :rolleyes: =D
My personal opinion (in addition to bringing back dueling)? As long as options were given, who's to blame of the outcome aside from the perp? If I got caught for vandalism, I think I'd also opt for an hour or two in the stocks instead of prison time. Going "one-on-one in a fight with a seasoned war veteran" is akin to getting the electric chair during a thunderstorm: you might not be sent to your maker, but you probably will.
-
you can't offend me.
Just give us time.
-
Normally I'd agree with you, but it wasn't his flag. It was the VFW's flag. He destroyed someone else's property.
BINGO!
and for mb
http://www.reason.com/news/show/126869.html
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=then_no_one_would_be_a_democrat_anymore_
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firsttracksonline.com%2Fboards%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fworthless_thread_without_pics.gif&hash=894aa26df223df23cb5be8c42ab02c7d630edd21)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftimesunion.com%2F%2FShared%2FGraphics%2FNewsDB%2F0926_flagburner_.jpg&hash=30c3c8cb2662eb19d4829b79e50602db7b1b51d3)
I don't know not only did they offer him a choice, they gave him a chair to sit on.
And since when is being ducttaped to a pole the act of pillory?
I always thought it was this:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fa%2Fa7%2FPillory_9105377.jpg&hash=77aa4a1ae1e624edde6e18ac0626042f01fb49f2)
-
Nobody involved was in the military in the context of the current action. When I think group intimidation I think school bullies, union thugs, and past failed states that adored their ultra-nationalist groups.
A big difference here is that with say union thugs in front of a Town Hall meeting, you have one group attempting to stop another group from a legal activity. In the VFW case, you had someone that committed a crime by destroying property. Unlike what I suspect union thugs would offer (or not), the VFW gave him the clear choice of having the police handle the situation. If I were an innocent person, I would insist on that choice. This person did not. He clearly felt his best deal was public humiliation. His choice. In many ways the VFW acted the opposite of how bullies would act. They allowed him to somewhat cowboy up for his actions and also avoid an arrest record (or another hit on a current arrest record).
-
So I wonder if the perpetrator had chosen the fistfight option, and either the veteran or perpetrator died from the fight, if the VFW would still be lauded for their actions. Say for example, the veteran stumbled, struck his head on a concrete curb and died. Should all parties involved escape criminal and civil liability for this, because they had agreed on the fistfight?
-
Should all parties involved escape criminal and civil liability for this, because they had agreed on the fistfight?
If two people agree to engage in activity that could damage them, they should be prepared to face those consequences and no civil action should be pursued. At least that's how it should work in a civilized society.
Again, that's with both parties in agreement. There seems to be a divide in this thread regarding the perpetrator being given choices. If he had not been given a choice to have the police handle things and be done with it, I would be inclined to agree with those who call this vigilantism.
-
So I wonder if the perpetrator had chosen the fistfight option, and either the veteran or perpetrator died from the fight, if the VFW would still be lauded for their actions. Say for example, the veteran stumbled, struck his head on a concrete curb and died. Should all parties involved escape criminal and civil liability for this, because they had agreed on the fistfight?
Would it be different from any other impromptu sporting event that got out of hand?
-
Would it be different from any other impromptu sporting event that got out of hand?
Very much so, in the eyes of the law. An arranged fistfight is an intentional act which carries civil and criminal liability should something go awry. This would be different than a pure accident, which generally can carry civil liability, but not criminal, unless you were reckless or grossly negligent. I suspect that depending on the jurisdiction, manslaughter or murder charges would very likely accrue.
-
"An arranged fistfight" is different than a boxing match, then?
-
http://www.reason.com/news/show/126869.html
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=then_no_one_would_be_a_democrat_anymore_
I really hope you don't really think it is okay.
-
"An arranged fistfight" is different than a boxing match, then?
One such difference would be that a boxing match is arranged for a sporting purpose. The scenario here of the arranged fistfight was that it was being done for punishment for a crime, a privilege which the State generally reserves unto itself.
Actually, there have been a great many manslaughter prosecutions and convictions over the decades due to the death of someone in a sporting event. Boxing, wrestling, football and rugby are the sports in which this has most frequently occurred. Because each case is prosecuted on the facts and law of a given jurisdiction, it is hard to make generalizations about it. Some jurisdictions treat this as just an inherent risk of the sport, and thus not actionable. Other jurisdictions say that the death of a participant is ipso facto recklessness or gross negligence and as such can be prosecuted as manslaughter at a minimum. As I crack open my old criminal textbook, which has not been open for decades, I see a whole lot of citations to British law around the turn of the last century in which the issue of manslaughter during a boxing match was first hashed out in the courts. Interesting. I should probably look up the case law here in Washington out of curiosity.
-
It seems pretty sporting to me.
Well, they didn't have any "fistfight," and for all we know they might have been pretty careful about it. Maybe they even had a boxing ring and some equipment. I imagine the fistfight idea was just thrown in there to satisfy one of the more hot-headed members of the group, anyway. We'll never know if it would have actually happened.
-
Meh, my heart will not bleed for the vandal.
He had his choice and he made it.
Frankly, I much prefer if folks can sort out their disagreements without involving gov't.
Yes, yes, and yes.
-
he was a putz for burning flag a lil less one for taking his medicine. i haven't heard him him whine so far
-
"An arranged fistfight" is different than a boxing match, then?
Yes, quite different. States that allow boxing and MMA have very strict rules regarding the setup of said matches with a ton rules surrounding them. You and I couldn't legally decide to meet up and box eachother for fun without going to state boards and going through all the legal hassle you have to go through to have a fight. We'd both be arrested for assault. Whether anything would stick is questionable, but it certainly could. This is why all these radio shows that want to have "grudge matches" have to jump through a bunch of hoops to actually get a fight on the air. (they usually can't even do it)
-
he was a putz for burning flag a lil less one for taking his medicine. i haven't heard him him whine so far
He's probably checking to see which gas station has the best prices.
-
While I don't have any moral objection to what the vets did I understand the potential legal and civil issues it raises. Personally I think they should have had him prosecuted, Arson, destruction of property, vandalism, terrorist acts... Whatever they could have stuck him with.
-
They should have just slapped the silly out of him and booted his ass out the door and told him never to com back. Maybe insert a "lecture" by a retired SNCO in there.
TC
-
You and I couldn't legally decide to meet up and box eachother for fun without going to state boards and going through all the legal hassle you have to go through to have a fight. We'd both be arrested for assault.
Don't you need one party to be willing to press charges against the other?
-
You and I couldn't legally decide to meet up and box eachother for fun without going to state boards and going through all the legal hassle you have to go through to have a fight. We'd both be arrested for assault.
Really?
Please name ONE state in which two people cannot meet each other and box FOR FUN, and in which they would be arrested for assault if they did. Cite statutory references.
-
Yes, quite different. States that allow boxing and MMA have very strict rules regarding the setup of said matches with a ton rules surrounding them. You and I couldn't legally decide to meet up and box eachother for fun without going to state boards and going through all the legal hassle you have to go through to have a fight. We'd both be arrested for assault. Whether anything would stick is questionable, but it certainly could. This is why all these radio shows that want to have "grudge matches" have to jump through a bunch of hoops to actually get a fight on the air. (they usually can't even do it)
Them ain't kosherized rules. :lol:
-
Really?
Please name ONE state in which two people cannot meet each other and box FOR FUN, and in which they would be arrested for assault if they did. Cite statutory references.
Technically, assault is usually legally defined as (illegal) threat...battery as any (illegal) "unwanted touching" or "use of force". The two terms frequently get comingled.
More likely, if a fight (without a "victim" claiming the other attacked him against his will) comes into the review of the police, to the problem level of them wanting to actually go through the hassle of an arrest and the subsequent paperwork, they'd charge under common "public order" statutes that can be essentially summarized as don't be an ahole in public, such as "creating a public disturbance" or "disorderly conduct".
-
If someone burned my flag, a severe beating, or worse, would transpire immediately. In this state I have the right to protect my family and property.....chris3