Reno Vet Cuts Down Mexican Flag Flown Above American Flag

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I had to go back and find your post to read it. What you are saying makes no sense-- do you get to decide what is an "abuse" of the first amendment? You are missing the point of freedom of expression. You can't declare an expression of an ilalienable right as an "abuse" and ban it because you find it personally distasteful. That is what living in a free society is about, and that is exactly what makes it free. You should reanalyze what it is you are sworn to protect.

I am not trying to personally determine for the rest of the country what is right and wrong. I am no moral expert and should definitely not be. With that said, I am just attempting to present the case that maybe there are multiple interpretations.
Instead of going back of forth, let's call it at that, because of all the replies, nothing new has really been said. I am not saying my interpretation is right and the previous one is wrong. That's why I said I am no law expert, hell not even a law student. I'd actually love to hear from a large group of law students who have a firm grasp on government law.

as I go on, and as I feel like I am being 'attacked' (as much as one can be attacked in an online debate), I start to kind of defend myself and keep saying things I'd normally prefer not to.
Let me just say one thing: I will fight FOR whatever the laws are regarding freedoms, as that is my sworn duty. What I mean, is that I will not go against the laws that have been set forth, however if laws ever begin to go against the Constitution, then I will fight to keep the Constitution intact. However, that does not stop me from merely pondering if current interpretations are a little off.

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Constitutional Law is a great field to study, granted it does border on the realm of politics. I'd bet you'd find the opinions actually quite interesting. To put this topic to rest, flag desecration will be forever controversial but the veteran's actions should still be punished because the allowance of one case of vigilante justice would set a bad precedent on many forms of vigilante justice. Imagine a world where there's essentially no court system because people decide that they will act as judge and jury. In fact, you don't even need to imagine. There are plenty of countries that would suffice as great examples.

Oh, one last thing. Destrekor, if you want a good example of why so many people support flag burning within the First Amendment, take a look at what happened to the Chinese students in Hong Kong who burned the PROC flag when China retook control.

For purposes of upholding law, yes, the vet will likely be punished and should be since he is not protected by the law. It will be interesting to see if this turns into a case though. I actually hope it does.

and if someone wants to say I have just committed hypocrisy by stating what I just did in this post, then you are wrong. Morally, I believe the guy is in the right, based on the possibility that the current interpretations of the 1st Amendment are slightly wrong. That is not to say, however, that I against the legality of the situation. Legally, he may have committed a punishable offense.

And in all honesty, I actually do not know which way I'd stand, as to whether the interpretation (of the 1st Amendment that I presented earlier) should be the actual law, versus the current one. IMHO, both have their flaws, both major flaws actually. That's why cases involving the 1st Amendment on a scale such as Flag Desecration and things protected by the Freedom of Speech, should all be heard by the Supreme Court and not be held up to the current precedent, since every situation is different.

 

[montypythizzle]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: destrekor
oh come on. I fully support the proper freedoms, and understand everything I have said is not technically able to stand in a court. I know they are not rational, so don't confuse me with someone who is mindless and moronic. I have many things trapped in my mind and this is probably one of the things that should have stayed trapped.
I probably shouldn't attempt to rationalize what I have said either, it's not worth the effort nor will it ever appear rational to people who want to interpret the laws the way they currently have.

But let me just say this: the flag code deserves it's own protection, and should not be unconstitutional due to the First Amendment. Why? Because the First Amendment has been abused.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'm no law student, but I'm pretty sure it says peaceably assemble, and freedom of speech and freedom of press. It takes some stretching through rather interesting interpretations to read freedom of any actions desirable.
How the hell did the courts ever rule in favor of those that have chosen to not abide by the Flag Code and desecrate The Colors? Bullshit if you ask me. Thus how I say the 1st Amendment has been abused, and that blame lies on some sketchy lawyers that have defended certain people and have gotten cases taken to the Supreme Court. How the Supreme Court ever ruled in favor of the 'protesters', who knows. Maybe I need to study law a little more, and I make no claims of being a law student or one who knows all the intricacies of law.
So, instead of bashing me if I have misinterpreted everything here, how about peacefully correcting me?

And why does proper flag conduct deserve it's own code? The very people that you so highly revere didn't determine that the flag needs it's own protection. They left the Amendments open so that it is widely applicable. Freedom of speech includes freedom of expression. Hanging a flag whichever way you want to is covered under freedom of expression. It doesn't make any difference if someone is offended by another's expression. The whole point of that amendment is that unpopular sentiments are protected because the oppression of those basic rights is what leads to dictators.

you apparently misunderstand me, as I am far from favoring the removal of the basic rights afforded all citizens of this land. HOWEVER, I dare say, freedom of expression through actions is something you have to interpret, as it is not listed. I fully agree all should have the ability to peacefully protest, to say nearly whatever they want, and print nearly anything they want... but expression beyond those means, the only one obviously being left, through actions, was left out of that list. There are only three things a human can do to express oneself: write, talk, or act. Why would two things be listed as protected freedoms, but not the third? These are things that must be interpreted, and if only our forefathers were still around to shed light on this subject.

Oh, and an amendment has been drafted but has never been passed: The Flag Desecration Amendment.

I personally think the authors left that third method of expression out, as they probably felt it could open up the First Amendment to abuse through people's actions that would and should normally be criminal and punishable.
You tread a fine line when you start interpreting specific things that were not originally there. Who is to say what someone else interprets is wrong but your interpretation is right? This is why there should be no interpretations, and live by what is presented in the document itself. Don't add things that are not there, as then you are created law without proper authorization.

It's strange that you separate actions out from talking and writing. Are those both not actions people take to express themselves? I guess what you're trying to say is that certain types of physical actions aren't as justifiable as others. The only way for you to make that change is through your vote.

Oh, as a side note, it was originally illegal to desecrate the flag and was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court. People are pushing to have flag desecration laws put back in place, so the topic is always up for debate. I'm not saying you're wrong in your beliefs other than the fact that the veteran shouldn't have the right to destroy someone else's property because it offends them.

Here's the Supreme Court case regarding flag burning:
United States v. Eichman
The decision was a 5-4 decision, so even amongst the Supreme Court Justices, it was controversial. I wish I could post the opinions from each of the Justices but alas, Westlaw costs money.

I know about the case, but I had not known it was a 5-4 decision. Makes me relieved then, as I understand the topic being hot and somewhat controversial at times, and to find that it's even a hot topic within the Supreme Court.
And hmm, I wish I could read the opinions. As boring as it is to read statements from Supreme Court Justices, these are reports I'd love to read. I hate law studies and thus why I definitely don't claim to know all the ins and outs of law, but this is one area of law in which I definitely hold interest.

I think they should reinstate the laws, within reason.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: montypythizzle

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: destrekor
oh come on. I fully support the proper freedoms, and understand everything I have said is not technically able to stand in a court. I know they are not rational, so don't confuse me with someone who is mindless and moronic. I have many things trapped in my mind and this is probably one of the things that should have stayed trapped.
I probably shouldn't attempt to rationalize what I have said either, it's not worth the effort nor will it ever appear rational to people who want to interpret the laws the way they currently have.

But let me just say this: the flag code deserves it's own protection, and should not be unconstitutional due to the First Amendment. Why? Because the First Amendment has been abused.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'm no law student, but I'm pretty sure it says peaceably assemble, and freedom of speech and freedom of press. It takes some stretching through rather interesting interpretations to read freedom of any actions desirable.
How the hell did the courts ever rule in favor of those that have chosen to not abide by the Flag Code and desecrate The Colors? Bullshit if you ask me. Thus how I say the 1st Amendment has been abused, and that blame lies on some sketchy lawyers that have defended certain people and have gotten cases taken to the Supreme Court. How the Supreme Court ever ruled in favor of the 'protesters', who knows. Maybe I need to study law a little more, and I make no claims of being a law student or one who knows all the intricacies of law.
So, instead of bashing me if I have misinterpreted everything here, how about peacefully correcting me?

And why does proper flag conduct deserve it's own code? The very people that you so highly revere didn't determine that the flag needs it's own protection. They left the Amendments open so that it is widely applicable. Freedom of speech includes freedom of expression. Hanging a flag whichever way you want to is covered under freedom of expression. It doesn't make any difference if someone is offended by another's expression. The whole point of that amendment is that unpopular sentiments are protected because the oppression of those basic rights is what leads to dictators.

you apparently misunderstand me, as I am far from favoring the removal of the basic rights afforded all citizens of this land. HOWEVER, I dare say, freedom of expression through actions is something you have to interpret, as it is not listed. I fully agree all should have the ability to peacefully protest, to say nearly whatever they want, and print nearly anything they want... but expression beyond those means, the only one obviously being left, through actions, was left out of that list. There are only three things a human can do to express oneself: write, talk, or act. Why would two things be listed as protected freedoms, but not the third? These are things that must be interpreted, and if only our forefathers were still around to shed light on this subject.

Oh, and an amendment has been drafted but has never been passed: The Flag Desecration Amendment.

I personally think the authors left that third method of expression out, as they probably felt it could open up the First Amendment to abuse through people's actions that would and should normally be criminal and punishable.
You tread a fine line when you start interpreting specific things that were not originally there. Who is to say what someone else interprets is wrong but your interpretation is right? This is why there should be no interpretations, and live by what is presented in the document itself. Don't add things that are not there, as then you are created law without proper authorization.

It's strange that you separate actions out from talking and writing. Are those both not actions people take to express themselves? I guess what you're trying to say is that certain types of physical actions aren't as justifiable as others. The only way for you to make that change is through your vote.

Oh, as a side note, it was originally illegal to desecrate the flag and was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court. People are pushing to have flag desecration laws put back in place, so the topic is always up for debate. I'm not saying you're wrong in your beliefs other than the fact that the veteran shouldn't have the right to destroy someone else's property because it offends them.

Here's the Supreme Court case regarding flag burning:
United States v. Eichman
The decision was a 5-4 decision, so even amongst the Supreme Court Justices, it was controversial. I wish I could post the opinions from each of the Justices but alas, Westlaw costs money.

I know about the case, but I had not known it was a 5-4 decision. Makes me relieved then, as I understand the topic being hot and somewhat controversial at times, and to find that it's even a hot topic within the Supreme Court.
And hmm, I wish I could read the opinions. As boring as it is to read statements from Supreme Court Justices, these are reports I'd love to read. I hate law studies and thus why I definitely don't claim to know all the ins and outs of law, but this is one area of law in which I definitely hold interest.

I think they should reinstate the laws, within reason.

See, that's what's great, because they could easily do 'within reason', by simply hearing each case instead of using precedents. That way, based on the situation, they can determine the legality. Specifically, if it were reinstated, and each case reviewed, then punishments could vary based on the severity and the reasoning behind the offense. Such as, peaceful protest w/flag burning, flag lower than another, etc etc.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: thepd7
Oh yeah I forgot about the 1st amendment that let's me do/say anything I want.

Well I am off to the elementary school to go scream at kids to fuck themselves, cops can't tell me not to because I have freedom of speech from the first amendment!

Yet another amazing display of poorly formed logic. How do you even come to the conclusion that going to a school and yelling obscenities is the equivalent of a person flying a flag incorrectly and not illegally on private property.

Okay fine, I will stay on my own property and yell obscenities at small children, are you happy now? If I do that it's the EXACT same thing as what that bar did.

Point is, it can't be illegal for me to tell kids to fuck off because of the first amendment, right? I mean, I have freedom of speech, right? Just like that bar has the freedom of speech to put the Mexican flag above the American flag.

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: thepd7
Oh yeah I forgot about the 1st amendment that let's me do/say anything I want.

No one ever said that. Just because you are an idiot and don't understand things doesn't mean you should engage in hilarious hyperbole in an attempt to prove a point.

The First Amendment is limited. Just not in relation to this event.

Why is it not limited in this event but it is in my example? Also, why aren't you intelligent enough to do anything other than call me an "idiot"?

 

[Mill]

Point is, it can't be illegal for me to tell kids to fuck off because of the first amendment, right? I mean, I have freedom of speech, right? Just like that bar has the freedom of speech to put the Mexican flag above the American flag.

Obscene speech is not protected speech. You should have learned that in High School.

Why is it not limited in this event but it is in my example? Also, why aren't you intelligent enough to do anything other than call me an "idiot"?

Because the Supreme Court has said that free speech can be limited. Obscene speech is limited, speech causing a riot or a major disturbance is limited.

Some old vet getting hacked off and cutting down a flag sounds like one individual's problem. I didn't see 60 people out there throwing bottles. Besides, Flag burning and desecration are protected acts.

Uhh, didn't you just say I lacked intelligence? Pot? Kettle? Yep.

Anyway, I think this sums it up:

Province/State: Texas.

Yep. Figures.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: thepd7
Oh yeah I forgot about the 1st amendment that let's me do/say anything I want.

Well I am off to the elementary school to go scream at kids to fuck themselves, cops can't tell me not to because I have freedom of speech from the first amendment!

Yet another amazing display of poorly formed logic. How do you even come to the conclusion that going to a school and yelling obscenities is the equivalent of a person flying a flag incorrectly and not illegally on private property.

Okay fine, I will stay on my own property and yell obscenities at small children, are you happy now? If I do that it's the EXACT same thing as what that bar did.

Point is, it can't be illegal for me to tell kids to fuck off because of the first amendment, right? I mean, I have freedom of speech, right? Just like that bar has the freedom of speech to put the Mexican flag above the American flag.

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: thepd7
Oh yeah I forgot about the 1st amendment that let's me do/say anything I want.

No one ever said that. Just because you are an idiot and don't understand things doesn't mean you should engage in hilarious hyperbole in an attempt to prove a point.

The First Amendment is limited. Just not in relation to this event.

Why is it not limited in this event but it is in my example? Also, why aren't you intelligent enough to do anything other than call me an "idiot"?

Pretty much, you need to do a little more research before posting anymore about this topic. Mill already posted why your post is meaningless.

 

[FlashG]

All I can say is that its about time someone stood up for our country. Personally I don't give a damn if anyone agrees with me or not.

 

[Hacp]

The guy who cut the flag didn't get shot? If someone decided to vandalize my property, he'd be dead(By way of Kitchen Knife).

 

[Bateluer]

This guy is my hero.

 

[Chaotic42]

It pisses me off, but it seems that the bar owner was within his right. People should protest in front of the bar and Jim Brossard should appologize.

 

[911paramedic]

Originally posted by: montypythizzle

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: alien42
who cares?

Im sure a Vet would.

and a vet is more american than i am?
whatever (and i dont want to hear that i am disrespecting a vet because i am not)

They have also fought for their country, not sit around on the internets. You would protect your house if you bought it or worked for it. Eh, I guess you would defend your rents basement though.

We are very tightly knit when it comes to the flag. Colors, when the flag is raised and lowered, everybody faces the flag and salutes it until the ceremony is completed. There is also the "Color Guard", who are in charge of the flag and the colors ceremony and it's proper storage.

When you are a veteran, and see the US flag disrespected in such a way, you would do the same. It's total BS, If you are that proud of Mexico stay in Mexico. If you want to be a Mexican American, you fly the US flag.

If you had a bar in Mexico and flew the US flag above the Mexican flag, you would find yourself in a crappy jail on the receiving end of an impounded donkey.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

I would hope it turns into a discussion about the fact that we should have respect for Hispanic culture, but they should also respect the culture/rules in the country in which they are residing. I think people are afraid to stand up like Mr. Brossard did for fear of being called a bigot or a racist when in reality he displayed no such behavior.

lol


lol


ok I'm still lol

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: FlashG
All I can say is that its about time someone stood up for our country. Personally I don't give a damn if anyone agrees with me or not.

How in God's name are you standing up for your country by trouncing on someone else's rights? What the hell is wrong with you people?

In the Constitution just a goddamn piece of paper?

 

[DangerAardvark]

Bunch of flag-huggers in this thread...

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: mugs
The store owner was an idiot for flying the Mexican flag above the American flag. He had to realize how much hatred that would bring his way.

But on the other hand, the flag code is violated ALL THE TIME, even by supposedly patriotic people who fly their flags in front of their houses in the rain or at night unilluminated. Businesses violate the flag code ALL THE TIME by using flags in advertisements.

This isn't about the flag code.

how is it NOT about the flag code? There are certain portions of the flag code, that when violated, do not present much of an issue, even for veterans. Such as not lighting up the flag at night, flying the flag when it is beginning to tear due to wind damage, etc etc. These are things, that while frowned upon by many, are not worth putting up much fuss. My own parents have a flag that is one of those that hands off an outward extending pole from the porch, and it's not illuminated. They try and bring it in before storms, but don't always get the chance. Regardless, I don't fret because it's not something I would want to stress over.
HOWEVER, flying The Colors BENEATH another flag, NO MATTER WHAT FLAG IT IS, even if it's a State's flag, is highly offensive to many individuals.

You more or less made my point. It's not about the fact that he was "illegally" flying the flag. People really don't care so much about that - "patriotic" people do it all the time. It was more about the message he was sending by flying the Mexican flag over the American flag. I don't like that message, and I think the guy should go back to Mexico if he feels that way, but the first amendment protects his right to do it just like it protects a protester's right to burn the flag. This veteran may respect the flag, but he doesn't respect what it stands for.

how? no, I am not missing your point. it's quite obvious. But look at it this way.
Sure, that store owner has the right to do as he pleases (if he's not illegal, but I'll be nice and assume he is a citizen or at least has the proper rights to be here), but you have to be careful with the rights of the 1st Amendment. It's used too often as a 'do whatever you want pass', and I find that part in of itself disrespectful. However, this is not about that. Or actually, it is.
Think of it like this. He has the right to fly the flag in whatever way he chooses, but since it is such a glaring violation of the flag code (one that deserves action, imho), then that vet has the right to take it down and restore justice to The Colors.

You don't have to be careful with the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment is very, very clear. There's a reason the 1st amendment is the FIRST, and the flag code is an afterthought.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: FlashG
All I can say is that its about time someone stood up for our country. Personally I don't give a damn if anyone agrees with me or not.

How in God's name are you standing up for your country by trouncing on someone else's rights? What the hell is wrong with you people?

In the Constitution just a goddamn piece of paper?

Pretty much, these idiotic 'patriots' don't understand the irony of their stance on this issue, they'd gladly flush the constitution down the toilet just to stick it to Mexicans. If someone came to my house and tried that sh*t on MY private property, they'd see a shotgun blast to the face.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Bunch of flag-huggers in this thread...

I know about 400K peeps from 1941-1945 and 58K people from around 1965-1970 that would respect that trend.

 

[Goosemaster]

oh shi!t...he stole their American flag and no one said sh!t

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: FlashG
All I can say is that its about time someone stood up for our country. Personally I don't give a damn if anyone agrees with me or not.

How in God's name are you standing up for your country by trouncing on someone else's rights? What the hell is wrong with you people?

In the Constitution just a goddamn piece of paper?

Pretty much, these idiotic 'patriots' don't understand the irony of their stance on this issue, they'd gladly flush the constitution down the toilet just to stick it to Mexicans. If someone came to my house and tried that sh*t on MY private property, they'd see a shotgun blast to the face.

you bloody fools only see something for face value, or hell, don't even wanna read what people have said.
go read my last couple of posts. I think the last one really clears things up, so you and DangerAardvark go take a look and come back after. I will NEVER just 'flush' the Constitution.
and don't just label me a patriot. Nationalists and patriots can be words that have negative connotations, especially since most who are go a few steps too far. I'm patriotic, and we'll leave it at that. I love my country and what is offered, but I'm rational. If you have no idea what I am talking about, then you need to brush up on your knowledge of Nationalists and Patriots. They are typically extremists.
Oh and your sig makes me think you have no idea how government and freedoms work. The Giuliani quote is rather truthful in how freedom works. You don't have free reign like it may imply. You can never have that freedom. That's called chaos. And doesn't last. There is discretion and authority controls the freedom.

 

[gwrober]

Originally posted by: kami333
Then he wads up the US flag and walks away with it.

sigh

It was on the news a couple nights ago I think, my gf and I didn't know who was being more retarded, the bar owner who didn't fly the flag correctly, the vet who called the news station and then had them tape him stealing an illegally flown flag, the TV crew that actually went out to tape something like that, all the TV stations who thought it was hot news, or the people being outraged by this when they can't fly their frayed mass produced in China flags themselves.

I bought all of my flags at Dixie Flag, here in San Antonio. Dixie Flag.

 

[Lithium381]

/me claps
good, for wanting respect from our culture, we certainly don't get any in return!

 

[Dean]

I love what the Vet did. I tip my hat to the guy. Laws or no laws, no matter what country you are in, the Flag representing that Country should take precedence over all others. It is a simple law of courtesy and etiquette.

I am glad to see their are some Americans sticking up for their Country.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Bunch of flag-huggers in this thread...

I know about 400K peeps from 1941-1945 and 58K people from around 1965-1970 that would respect that trend.

Doubtful. While I'm sure that most of those who served (in any time, let's not limit it to WWII and Vietnam) would be annoyed with a person choosing to do what the bar owner did, I'm likewise sure that most of them would understand that the foundation of this country is the ability of an individual to do as he pleases with his property. Respect for law trumps trivial gestures of "patriotism".

I disagree with what the bar owner did, but I will defend, to my death if necessary, his right to do it.

ZV

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Bunch of flag-huggers in this thread...

I know about 400K peeps from 1941-1945 and 58K people from around 1965-1970 that would respect that trend.

Doubtful. While I'm sure that most of those who served (in any time, let's not limit it to WWII and Vietnam) would be annoyed with a person choosing to do what the bar owner did, I'm likewise sure that most of them would understand that the foundation of this country is the ability of an individual to do as he pleases with his property. Respect for law trumps trivial gestures of "patriotism".

I disagree with what the bar owner did, but I will defend, to my death if necessary, his right to do it.

ZV

Pre-ACLU & PC neutering of the US, I don't think I'd put very much stock into that statement.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Bunch of flag-huggers in this thread...

I know about 400K peeps from 1941-1945 and 58K people from around 1965-1970 that would respect that trend.

Doubtful. While I'm sure that most of those who served (in any time, let's not limit it to WWII and Vietnam) would be annoyed with a person choosing to do what the bar owner did, I'm likewise sure that most of them would understand that the foundation of this country is the ability of an individual to do as he pleases with his property. Respect for law trumps trivial gestures of "patriotism".

I disagree with what the bar owner did, but I will defend, to my death if necessary, his right to do it.

ZV

Pre-ACLU & PC neutering of the US, I don't think I'd put very much stock into that statement.

Honorable men can differ. But I would have Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Revere, Paine, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, and the remainder of the Founding Fathers on my side of the argument.

ZV