Man Pilloried by Vets for Burning Flag

[Perd Hapley]

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? 

[KD5NRH]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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? 

[French G.]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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.    ) 

[French G.]

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.

[S. Williamson]

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. 

Also, Alsace-Lorraine decent here.  Family left there in... the 1590s, I think.  First to fall, last to be liberated.  :rolleyes:

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.

[KD5NRH]

you can't offend me.

Just give us time.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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_

[InfidelSerf]

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:

[Ben]

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).

[MillCreek]

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?

[Ben]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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?

[MillCreek]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

"An arranged fistfight" is different than a boxing match, then? 

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[MillCreek]

"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.

[Perd Hapley]

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. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

he was a putz for burning flag  a lil less one for taking his medicine. i haven't heard him him whine so far

[jackdanson]

"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)

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

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.

[RoadKingLarry]

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.

[Leatherneck]

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