Awesome punishment for flag burning

[JetGirl]

Quit whining. Go somewhere else to be a victim.

By the way... you better hold tight and not let go of that tiger's tail. There's teeth in the other end.
Just a friendly heads up.

 

[SavageEagle]

 

[Bill of Rights]

Let's keep it civil, no name calling, please. It hasn't happened yet, but it's come close.

2ADMNLOVER, I see what you're saying. If we go the opposite direction, then the police must be called for any and every little thing that occurs. Kid steals a toy or a piece of candy from a small town, everybody-knows-everybody store and gets caught, the store owner can't just call his parents (who will likely be far more harsh than the law will!) and have the kid pay for the item. In your example of the truck mirror, sure, you can call and give those options to the father. If I'm that father, as soon as the law arrives, I'll make the offer to pay for your truck mirror. If you refuse and want to take me to court over it, I'll repeat the same offer there. I'll be out the same amount either way. You'll be paying court costs and probably attorney fees as well. "Your Honor, my offer from the day this happened still stands. I'm willing to pay for his mirror. Involving the courts was completely unnecessary, and any expenses he's incurred by doing so have been his own choice." Dog pooping in the yard? Sure, you can call the cops. They'll likely roll their eyes, I'll come over, clean up the poop, and wish you a nice day. Heck, I might even buy you a bag of grass seed to make up for the damage.

We are a civilized nation. Sometimes, I think that may be our downfall. We're so civilized, we have to call someone else to deal with all of the interactions between us that are slightly less than positive.

Remember as well that in the eyes of the anti-gun and "on the fence about guns" folks, we who carry our protection with us and are willing to use it are sometimes thought of as "vigilantes", too. How often do we get upset to see in the newspaper where a person defending his home is referred to the prosecutor who will decide whether or not to file charges against the homeowner?

So where do we draw the line? I'm not sure I know. I can't say we draw it at the point of violent crime, because that means we can't address those situations ourselves. After all, when the criminal chooses to attack an intended victim, he has decided someone is getting hurt or killed that day, and our job is just to make sure it's not us. Sound familiar? That's a negotiation just the same as happened at that VFW post. Maybe we draw the line at "it's not an immediate threat", but if we do that, then the kid stealing candy in my above example gets a criminal record. I don't think that's right either, to permanently mark someone a criminal for some minor act, nor is that justice, to my way of thinking. I'd prefer to think that we still possess the ability to work things out between ourselves, rather than reinforce the nanny-state-paradigm where we fall into the "ummmm!!!I'm gonna TELLLLLLL!" sort of response to wrongdoing. Much better, I think, to come to a mutually acceptable solution and only involve the law when we're at loggerheads.

On a related subject (this thread,) I've re-read some of my posts and I see how they might have come across as snarky or sarcastic, and this was never my intention in this thread. If you've taken them that way, you have my apologies for that tone. I can sometimes be both of those things, but usually, I think I do a good job of doing so only when I intend to. This was not one of those times.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[JetGirl]

So where do we draw the line? I'm not sure I know.

How about not drawing one until there is vigilantism.
They didn't track the guy down and beat the tar out of him. THAT would be considered a vigilante act.

They offered choices and he picked. If he'd wanted the cops to intercede on his behalf, he'd have had it. I don't think that's generally offered by your neighborhood vigilante thug.


YMMV

 

[steveh_131]

Frankly, your wrong. Vigilantes are everybody's business. History shows that mob rule has a way of growing and spiralling out of control. And to claim that a person faced with an angry mob of thugs with no respect for the law actually had a choice is fantasy at best.

I've said my piece. I'm not going to say more. He was wrong for burning someone else's flag, they were wrong in their disrespect for the law, and for the flag they claim to have been protecting.

What are you even talking about? What "mob"? What "thugs"?

These guys owned a flag. It could have been a car. It could have been a TV. It could have been any piece of private property.

He damaged their private property. They had the OPTION of calling the police and pressing charges, or settling it themselves. What if they had asked for an apology instead of calling the police? Does that make them a mob? Or vigilantes? What if they had asked him to pay for the damage? Still a mob?

All they did was ask him to pay for the damage to their property, in the form of public humiliation. Since the flag had sentimental value, there was no way to repay the damage monetarily. This seems like an honorable and reasonable compromise compared to jail time.

Or are you just trolling? In that case, never mind. Troll away.

 

[nighthawk80]

Or are you just trolling? In that case, never mind. Troll away.

Joe has been here long enough for others to know that he is not a troll. He is just expressing his view/opinion on the matter. He, as others on here, are good people. They are just passionate at time on how they percieve a certain situation. There is nothing wrong with that!!

So you might limit your troll calling to someone who don't have that many posts/time on this forum.

 

[steveh_131]

So you might limit your troll calling to someone who don't have that many posts/time on this forum.

It was a legit question, not name-calling. You can have a high post count and still enjoy picking fights with people on the internet (A.K.A. "Trolling").

 

[Fletch]

It was a legit question, not name-calling. You can have a high post count and still enjoy picking fights with people on the internet (A.K.A. "Trolling").

Hell, the only reason I come to message boards is to pick fights with people.

 

[LPMan59]

i respect the guy's right to burn the flag (though i wouldnt respect him afterwards), but he destroyed private property and i think he got his just deserves.

but in this day of tort law, he will probably sue for wrongful imprisonment and will get a settlement. he will argue that he agreed to it, but was unable to withdraw his consent (was his mouth taped?) or that they were unwilling to listen to him and therefore his rights were violated- which was a greater evil than his willful destruction of private property.

what a punk. i think he should have thrown down with a vet. if he's got the balls to burn their flag, then he should have the guts to go toe to toe with them.

 

[JetGirl]

Hell, the only reason I come to message boards is to pick fights with people.

And it's why we love you.

 

[Jay]

My Cathy's Clown reference in post 58 was out of line. Apologies for having to be reminded of that, but thanks for doing so.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

BOR , no need for apologies man , we're good .

I think the burning of the flag clouds / overshadows the issue of citizens administering punishment as they see fit .

In this case the BG was dealing with folks with some morals , lucky for him .

I HATE the idea of us becoming a nanny state where everyone tells on each other for every little thing .

As we all know "common sense" is no longer common and there's no accounting for some folks morals or lack of respect for another's' life .

Looking over some of the posts here it looks like this guy was lucky he picked the right crowed to do this to .

 

[Fletch]

I HATE the idea of us becoming a nanny state where everyone tells on each other for every little thing .

I agree, and I think that those who believe it is government which holds us together need to take a closer look.

 

[SirRealism]

Betcha this guy won't do the same thing again.

 

[1032JBT]

As an LEO who could be called to (and have been on a different level) a situation like this.........I have no issues with how it was handled. He had the option of the police getting involved and considering the picture was taken in the daylight and one can only assume the guy was at the bar at night, I would say he had the chance to call the police on his own if he wanted to.

I look at it as he entered into a civil agreement with the VFW to "pay" for the flag. If he chose to do what happened to him......thats his choice. Now if they had just snatched him up and taped him to the pole, then we might have issues.....but as the story reads he chose his option.

As long as BOTH parties are good with the arrangement then it's a civil agreement in my book and one less case clogging up an already stopped up system.

 

[Bill of Rights]

BOR , no need for apologies man , we're good .

I think the burning of the flag clouds / overshadows the issue of citizens administering punishment as they see fit .

In this case the BG was dealing with folks with some morals , lucky for him .

I HATE the idea of us becoming a nanny state where everyone tells on each other for every little thing .

As we all know "common sense" is no longer common and there's no accounting for some folks morals or lack of respect for another's' life .

Looking over some of the posts here it looks like this guy was lucky he picked the right crowed to do this to .

Had he "picked a different crowd" and had he felt wronged, I'm quite certain he'd have called police himself as soon as he was freed.

Common sense has been described as uncommon since forever. Consider that this quote: "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." has been attributed to none other than Socrates, by Plato!

The way to avoid the Nanny state is to stop contributing to it... Children no longer need a nanny to wipe their bottoms when they're able to do it themselves, for example

Leave the issue of what property was destroyed out of it for the moment. Speaking for myself, that tends to *urinate* me off, too, but that's not what I'm addressing. If the VFW guys had entered into an arrangement for this guy to pay financially for some property of theirs that he destroyed, we would not be having this conversation because there would be no story and if there was, I doubt you would take issue with it. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken, of course.

FPD9317, a point of curiosity: One method of payment that was offered to this guy was a fight with one of the vets... Obviously, if it was inside the VFW hall, no one would have called you guys, but on the off chance that somehow you became aware of it, would you have had to stop that fight or allow it to continue as both parties were in agreement?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

I agree, and I think that those who believe it is government which holds us together need to take a closer look.

Betcha this guy won't do the same thing again.

Both true.

I do find Jefferson's quote, "It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all" somewhat applicable and tending to call your thought into question, Fletch, but I do agree with you that it is the people, not the government, that make a society cohesive. Government is a quasi-necessary evil that we have allowed to assume many more duties than are appropriate. It's funny... what we all wish to go away is the "nanny state", but that's a misnomer; as a child grows older, the nanny becomes less, not more involved in his/her life. I'm not sure there's a parallel to make a proper comparison.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Fletch]

Exactly, Bill. With all due respect to the LEO's and so forth, they constitute a woefully insignificant force if more than a tiny percentage of people were interested in causing mayhem. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of the people out there are simply more concerned with making a living and getting by than with doing harm to their fellow man. Most people just want to live and let live: let me do my business, earn my living, and take care of what's mine. Don't tell me what to do unless you're paying for it, don't mess with my stuff and my family, and I won't mess with yours. That's the social contract most of us signed on for, Rousseau be damned.

 

[Indecision]

Your rights do not extend to my Flag,. You could TRY to cut it down and burn it, but you wouldn't like the result.

+1 Cold day in hell when I let some chump destroy what I've fought for.