Suspected flag burner pilloried

[Chris]

He's a fool.  Contrast what he said there with what he posted in another thread...

That makes no sense, but I know what you're trying to say.  I never said that any of that was ok.  You assumed I thought it was.  My point was that the VFW broke the law too.  Vigilantism is illegal.

BTW, good to see you again. 

[Deuce]

His crime of vandalism still doesn't justify tying him up like that. They should have turned him over to the police and had him charged with trespassing, vandalism, etc. Would arson stick or does that have to be a building?

His own flag on his own property would have fallen under free speech. I would fight for his right to do that, although avoiding the temptation to punch him would be a challenge...

Freedom is a right. It's not a privilege granted to us by nice soldiers and politicians. Power is not granted to our government to take away our  freedom of speech, even speech we despise. If we let the government tell us we can't burn an American flag, what's next? They start deciding what clothes we wear, what color we paint our houses, or what church to go to?

We salute the brave men and women who ensure that we have such freedoms, but they don't grant those freedoms.

[thundley4]

His crime of vandalism still doesn't justify tying him up like that. They should have turned him over to the police and had him charged with trespassing, vandalism, etc. Would arson stick or does that have to be a building?

The scumbag was given the choice of being publicly humiliated as he was or of being turned into the police.  He chose his own punishment.

[Deuce]

The scumbag was given the choice of being publicly humiliated as he was or of being turned into the police.  He chose his own punishment.

A fair point, but that choice was coerced. He chose the humiliation because he thought it was the easier of the two bad choices. It's still unlawful detainment.

Plus, I would have given him the opposite of whichever he chose :D

[djones520]

A fair point, but that choice was coerced. He chose the humiliation because he thought it was the easier of the two bad choices. It's still unlawful detainment.

Plus, I would have given him the opposite of whichever he chose :D

How do you unlawfully detain someone who volunteered to do it?

[TheSarge]

A fair point, but that choice was coerced. He chose the humiliation because he thought it was the easier of the two bad choices. It's still unlawful detainment.

So let him go to the police and file a complaint.

Plus, I would have given him the opposite of whichever he chose :D

He got what he deserved.

[Chris_]

A fair point, but that choice was coerced. He chose the humiliation because he thought it was the easier of the two bad choices. It's still unlawful detainment.   

How exactly is it unlawful if he got to choose?

Plus, I would have given him the opposite of whichever he chose :D

If he had chosen to go to the police, you would have tied him up???  WTH???  THAT would be unlawful detainment. 

[Deuce]

That last part was a joke. Since he'd naturally choose the option that is less disagreeable, giving him the other option would be harsher.

To tie him up was still unlawful detainment because they coerced him into doing it. A more extreme example: if I say "Hey lady have sex with me or I'll hurt your child," it's still rape.

[NHSparky]

That last part was a joke. Since he'd naturally choose the option that is less disagreeable, giving him the other option would be harsher.

To tie him up was still unlawful detainment because they coerced him into doing it. A more extreme example: if I say "Hey lady have sex with me or I'll hurt your child," it's still rape.

And both the choices you gave were illegal.  If he consented to being detained versus being turned in to police, then he's going to have a difficult time claiming unlawful detention.  Therein lies the flaw in your logic.

[Deuce]

It's still coercion.

Fine, legal example.

"Have sex with me lady or I'll tell your husband you've been cheating on him."

Cheating isn't illegal, nor is telling the husband. It's still coerced sex and therefore rape.

Coerced detainment is still unlawful. Coerced consent is not consent.

Of course, I'm no lawyer.

[NHSparky]

Of course, I'm no lawyer.

Yeah, we kinda gathered that.  Look up the definition of "duress" and get back to us, will ya?

[Crazy Horse]

It's still coercion.

Fine, legal example.

"Have sex with me lady or I'll tell your husband you've been cheating on him."

Cheating isn't illegal, nor is telling the husband. It's still coerced sex and therefore rape.

Coerced detainment is still unlawful. Coerced consent is not consent.

Of course, I'm no lawyer.

That's true, your not a lawyer.  Using your logic, all people that say "I love you too" so they can have sex are committing rape.

Actually Adultery is illegal in many states.  

So is it coercion when a cop gives you a ticket???  I mean you have to make a choice of just pay it or appear in court............the choice is yours............just like the idjit was given by the VFW.

[Chris_]

It's still coercion.

Only to an idiot.  Care to elaborate?  How was this coersion done?  He had 3 choices.  Where is the evidence that they forced him to pick this option over the other 2?

Fine, legal example.

"Have sex with me lady or I'll tell your husband you've been cheating on him."

Cheating isn't illegal, nor is telling the husband. It's still coerced sex and therefore rape.

Slander is illegal, and so is libel, moron.

Coerced detainment is still unlawful. Coerced consent is not consent.

Of course, I'm no lawyer.

Obviously.

[Ptarmigan]

It's still coercion.

He was given a choice. He made the choice. In court, the jurors or judge determines one's fate.

Fine, legal example.

"Have sex with me lady or I'll tell your husband you've been cheating on him."

Cheating isn't illegal, nor is telling the husband. It's still coerced sex and therefore rape.

Chearing is illegal and is in the books. It is rarely enforced though.

Coerced detainment is still unlawful. Coerced consent is not consent.

Of course, I'm no lawyer.

He was not coerced once again.

[TheSarge]

That last part was a joke. Since he'd naturally choose the option that is less disagreeable, giving him the other option would be harsher.

Not in this day and age with out politically correct law enforcement agencies.

To tie him up was still unlawful detainment because they coerced him into doing it. A more extreme example: if I say "Hey lady have sex with me or I'll hurt your child," it's still rape.

That's crap and you know it.  It's an apples and orages comparison.

[Deuce]

Dictionary says..

Duress

1 : forcibe restraint or restriction
2 : compulsion by threat; specifically : unlawful constraint

Coerce

1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious — W. R. Inge>
2 : to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>
3 : to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>

His other options were physical violence or arrest. That seems like a threat to me. The legal argument could be made that he was coerced into being tied up. It's a blurry line, I'll admit, and ultimately it would be up to the jury. (who would likely not be sympathetic to him after his crimes)

So to summarize my opinion:

Jackass who commits crimes should have been turned over to the police instead. Tying him up is a legally shaky thing to do and could have resulted in charges placed against his "captors." The criminal record alone could put him in a hot spot when he has to explain it at his next job interview. He deserves something a little more long-term.

Try to separate yourself from how offensive flag burning is. His only actual crime was vandalism and trespass.

"If a jerk burns a flag, America is not threatened. If a jerk burns a flag, democracy is not under siege. If a jerk burns a flag, freedom is not at risk and we are not threatened. My colleagues, we are offended; and to change our Constitution because someone offends us is, in itself, unconscionable,"

-- Rep. Gary Ackerman

Had he burned his own flag on his own property, I would have to let him express himself. I'd be pissed. I'd say all sorts of nasty things to him that I can't write here. But he's got a right to do it.

[Chris_]

Dictionary says..

Duress
Coerce

We're all really impressed that you know how to cut & paste from a dictionary.   

His other options were physical violence or arrest. That seems like a threat to me. The legal argument could be made that he was coerced into being tied up. It's a blurry line, I'll admit, and ultimately it would be up to the jury. (who would likely not be sympathetic to him after his crimes)

Still waiting for evidence of the coersion.

So to summarize my opinion:

Jackass who commits crimes should have been turned over to the police instead.

Once again....it was HIS choice.  The gave him an option...one that would not show up on a police record.

Tying him up is a legally shaky thing to do and could have resulted in charges placed against his "captors."

Again, what law was broken?  Look up the word "volunteer" in your dictioinary.

The criminal record alone could put him in a hot spot when he has to explain it at his next job interview.

He also made the choice to burn the flag.  Choices have consequences.

He deserves something a little more long-term.

Humiliation in a small town can last a long time.

Try to separate yourself from how offensive flag burning is. His only actual crime was vandalism and trespass.

...and he was given 3 choices of the consequences to follow.

Had he burned his own flag on his own property, I would have to let him express himself. I'd be pissed. I'd say all sorts of nasty things to him that I can't write here. But he's got a right to do it.

That's a lame-ass argument.  He didn't burn his own flag, moron.  He burned someone else's.

[rich_t]

Do we have another new chew toy?

[Chris_]

Do we have another new chew toy?

This one's DUmber than the last one.  He/she has a dictionary, but has no idea what the words mean.

[Chris_]

I wish we could have a special section in here and call it chew toys

[dandi]

His other options were physical violence or arrest. That seems like a threat to me. The legal argument could be made that he was coerced into being tied up. It's a blurry line, I'll admit, and ultimately it would be up to the jury. (who would likely not be sympathetic to him after his crimes)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/volunteer

volunteer

1. a person who voluntarily offers himself or herself for a service or undertaking.

This really isn't that hard to understand.

Jackass who commits crimes should have been turned over to the police instead. Tying him up is a legally shaky thing to do and could have resulted in charges placed against his "captors." The criminal record alone could put him in a hot spot when he has to explain it at his next job interview. He deserves something a little more long-term.

What he volunteered for (option 3) is a far cry from what he should have gotten which would have been a healthy dose of option 2 followed by option 1 without his input.

Quite frankly, he chose what would be the easiest option to an immature idiot that has no shame.  I highly doubt this little princess was shamed into anything since he probably thinks the axis of the world runs through the top of his head and out of the crack of his ass.  To normal people it would be shameful; anyone who attempts to damage the property of others in a fit of pique is not a normal, functioning human being.

Try to separate yourself from how offensive flag burning is. His only actual crime was vandalism and trespass.

How offensive a bratty kid attempting to thumb his nose at the very people who protect his freedom has nothing to do with what he volunteered to do.

Had he burned his own flag on his own property, I would have to let him express himself. I'd be pissed. I'd say all sorts of nasty things to him that I can't write here. But he's got a right to do it.

Really?  What would you say?

[Deuce]

Choice 1: Jail. (jail is negative and therefore a threat)
Choice 2: Ass kicking (obviously a threat)
Choice 3: Humiliation.

He was threatened into option 3. Just because he technically had an option doesn't mean he wasn't coerced! Yes, he volunteered. While under threat of bodily harm or jail.

Kinda like how people volunteered when drafted in Vietnam, since their other options were jail or fleeing to Canada. They "chose" to be in the army, even if they were against the whole idea.

As for what I would say? I'd say pretty much what you said. He's a coward who doesn't understand in the least what that flag should represent to him. He doesn't understand just how many people have died to give him the right be such a little useless piece of flesh. He's got no sense of decency or respect for anything and deserves to die miserable and alone.

Except I'd use a lot more profanity.

Choices do have consequences, but I don't support kicking someones ass just because they do something offensive. It's a slippery slope when you decide that you should be the one dealing out punishment for breaking the law. What's next? Slap in the face for jaywalking? Maybe a slashed tire for running a red light. I know, let's just beat the crap out of anyone who offends me.

And yes, lug-nut, I KNOW HE DIDNT BURN HIS OWN FLAG. Reread the sentence you quoted. "Had he burned his own flag..."

HAD HE. IF HE HAD.

What he actually did was break the law (vandalism), and the law should handle it.

[dandi]

Kinda like how people volunteered when drafted in Vietnam, since their other options were jail or fleeing to Canada. They "chose" to be in the army, even if they were against the whole idea.

I'll have you know, you useless sack of ****, my daddy volunteered for active duty in 1966 and went to Vietnam because he believed in honorably executing his orders.  Just like I did for the past 22 years.  Pick another example.

Choices do have consequences, but I don't support kicking someones ass just because they do something offensive. It's a slippery slope when you decide that you should be the one dealing out punishment for breaking the law. What's next? Slap in the face for jaywalking? Maybe a slashed tire for running a red light. I know, let's just beat the crap out of anyone who offends me.

I don't, either, but I will absolutely exercise my rights to defend my private property from destruction.  This is a concept which appears to be completely lost upon you.

[Hawkgirl]

Choices do have consequences, but I don't support kicking someones ass just because they do something offensive. 

Sometimes you NEED to get your ass kicked in life.  You're about due. 

[TheSarge]

Choice 1: Jail. (jail is negative and therefore a threat)
Choice 2: Ass kicking (obviously a threat)
Choice 3: Humiliation.

He was threatened into option 3. Just because he technically had an option doesn't mean he wasn't coerced! Yes, he volunteered. While under threat of bodily harm or jail.

Here's a novel thought...this idiot could have avoided all of the above by not being a giant bag of douche and burning a damn U.S. flag.

Kinda like how people volunteered when drafted in Vietnam, since their other options were jail or fleeing to Canada. They "chose" to be in the army, even if they were against the whole idea.

Kid you should really engage your brain before you make stupid uneducated statements like that.

Choices do have consequences, but I don't support kicking someones ass just because they do something offensive. It's a slippery slope when you decide that you should be the one dealing out punishment for breaking the law. What's next? Slap in the face for jaywalking? Maybe a slashed tire for running a red light. I know, let's just beat the crap out of anyone who offends me.

You're broadbrush ideology belies your age.

What he actually did was break the law (vandalism), and the law should handle it.

Yet he chose not to.