VFW members duct tape flag burner to flag pole

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think it involved a closet and him being the only one to come out...

Are you implying you're still in the closet?

Seriously, using threats to project a point, find resolve is ridiculous. I had a big MF back me against a wall in basic because I was doing a duty that wasnot mine and someone cried to him. That wouldn't happen today for a number of reasons. See, in civilization we go thru the courts. WHat happened here was a military siolution for a civilian problem and it looks as though they will get away with it, but if I were advising that 21 yo kid as the idiots walked up I would say:

- shut the door
- don't say anything
- if they persist to break in, get your gun and call the cops.

That's how we do it in the civilian world, if they want to impart military justice on a civilian then we'll use our forums and win.

Quit trying to militarize the world.

Which service were you in exactly?

Is that the best you can do? Go back and address the issues and wuit trying to duck under and ad hominem.

Actually I asked because it would help me understand where you are coming from. My first suspicion is you were never in or were in for just a short period of time...washed out of basic. If I am right then I'd catagorize you as another civilian with a hard on for the military. If I am wrong and you did serve your enlistment honorably then your argument would carry more weight as you'd have an intimate understanding on how things work in the military.

It's pretty easy to tell if someone is lieing about having been "in." First clue is they get defensive when asked about their service.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

And you should not assume I do not remember when things were so bad I wanted out. …

WTF are you talking about?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[warpedskydiver 0]

Hey man, what do you mean by that?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

No, I just felt like giving you shit...

Understand now?

I understood then, you called be a dick-smoker as a PA, now you're trying to backpeddal.

Quote

BTW your paragraph still was incoherent.

Well, please, we look at your word as gospel, you're not required to make a point, we'll just go on your word........ explain how. What are you unable to understand? And afte rthat, go back and respond to what you are trying to misdirecet away from with this ridiculousness.

Hwere's what I wrrote:

Just like military members, flag burners and protestors run the gammut. I protested the war at a local rally with some guys from the gym. One guy was one you or I wouldn't want to fuck with. So there is really no substance in your point here, just trying to make all military members teh patriotic ones and all nationalists the true patriots.i

Please, if anything is over your head, spell it out and I will explain. I guess I could have gone further to say your logic makes the claim that anyone skeptical of the 'US is perfect' model is a terrorist.

[warpedskydiver 0]

That if you think I am so one sided on issues regarding the military think again because I do have a great deal of insight and personal experience that might make me think contrary to what you might believe.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

No, I just felt like giving you shit...

Understand now?

I understood then, you called be a dick-smoker as a PA, now you're trying to backpeddal.

Quote

BTW your paragraph still was incoherent.

Well, please, we look at your word as gospel, you're not required to make a point, we'll just go on your word........ explain how. What are you unable to understand? And afte rthat, go back and respond to what you are trying to misdirecet away from with this ridiculousness.

Hwere's what I wrrote:

Just like military members, flag burners and protestors run the gammut. I protested the war at a local rally with some guys from the gym. One guy was one you or I wouldn't want to fuck with. So there is really no substance in your point here, just trying to make all military members teh patriotic ones and all nationalists the true patriots.i

Please, if anything is over your head, spell it out and I will explain. I guess I could have gone further to say your logic makes the claim that anyone skeptical of the 'US is perfect' model is a terrorist.

Yeah is there anyone here but you that can understand that fucking statement?


It is not so hard to actually form a sentence.

Try it some time.

[Krip 2]

What if this, what if that.

What if...... while the perp was duct taped to the flag pole a thunder storm blew in and the flag pole was struck by lightning.

What if while the perp was duct taped to the pole some one driving by was texting, ran off the road and struck the flag pole and killed the perp.

What if a right wing neo con ,,,,,,

What if this was a pole rather than a narrative

One Jump Wonder

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

That if you think I am so one sided on issues regarding the military think again because I do have a great deal of insight and personal experience that might make me think contrary to what you might believe.

I fail to see how that is relevant to my post, but if it makes you feel better to get that off your chest, I'm happy for you.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[wmw999 2,545]

I understand it.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Yeah is there anyone here but you that can understand that fucking statement?

After leveraging it out of you, the sentence in question was:

One guy was one you or I wouldn't want to fuck with.

- One guy = 1 person

- was one you or I wouldn't want to fuck with = most people woiuldn't want to fight.

Now, let's put it in context with the previous sentnce.

I protested the war at a local rally with some guys from the gym. One guy was one you or I wouldn't want to fuck with.


See, I knew guys at the gym I go to, we decided to go to a local anti-Iraq War rally and one of those guys was and I'm sure still is fucking huge and tough. This is in response to your assertion that war protestors are pussies and/or military people are the only tough ones. I realize your purpose here is to duck out the other questions, but that asssertion was just 5th grade. If you need a sippy-cup we will assist you, just LMK.

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

I wrote that before I found an article that stated just that: 3 choices:

- fight
- tape
- cops

So, cops were an option-does that satisfy you?

Quote

Uh, don't try to morph this issue into that of a home invasion/burglary

But morphing it into rape didn't draw a peep from you.

Quote

judge some day

If I had an honorable judge he'd say "You'd get a better pattern if you used a Glock. Let's go out back and I'll let you shoot mine."

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

What if this, what if that.

What if...... while the perp was duct taped to the flag pole a thunder storm blew in and the flag pole was struck by lightning.

What if while the perp was duct taped to the pole some one driving by was texting, ran off the road and struck the flag pole and killed the perp.

What if a right wing neo con ,,,,,,

What if this was a pole rather than a narrative

Sorry to break it to you, but endangerment statutes make the assumption that these things can and do happen. Kind of like DUI laws, you can be cited for and most DUI's are based upon a matter where no one is harmed, but they could be when you drive drunk and endanger people.

WHat happened here is classic endangerment.

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

WHat happened here is classic endangerment

Most of the endangerment laws I've been able to find use the term "substantial risk" The person who chose to be restrained was under observation in a public place. Butterflies flying up his ass causing explosive constipation might be possible, but I don't think it's a "substantial" risk, much like that list of what-if's you're throwing out.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

So, cops were an option-does that satisfy you?

Violence was proposed, that's all it takes to meet legal definitions of:

- harassment
- threatening
- and a myriad of other charges

Furthermore, taping against a person's will is not peaceful either, so 2 of 3 are crimes. They don;t have the right to do anything but call the cops and / or sue.

Quote

But morphing it into rape didn't draw a peep from you.

Don't accuse me of what I didn't did say or do, hold me accountable for what I did. Are you guys so out of gas that you can't keep the posters straight? Once again:

Uh, don't try to morph this issue into that of a home invasion/burglary

YOu can John Wayne it all you want, but if this guy did burn their flag, that's AFU, but it's not home invasion/burglary.

Quote

If I had an honorable judge he'd say "You'd get a better pattern if you used a Glock. Let's go out back and I'll let you shoot mine."

Right, a judge would advocate vigillante justice. That's rich.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

WHat happened here is classic endangerment

Most of the endangerment laws I've been able to find use the term "substantial risk" The person who chose to be restrained was under observation in a public place. Butterflies flying up his ass causing explosive constipation might be possible, but I don't think it's a "substantial" risk, much like that list of what-if's you're throwing out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_endangerment

In US law, endangerment comprises several types of crimes involving conduct that is wrongful and reckless or wanton, and likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm to another person.

The offense is intended to prohibit and therefore deter reckless or wanton conduct that wrongfully creates a substantial risk of death or serious injury to others.

The law specifies several types of endangerment:

Child endangerment: placing a child in a potentially harmful situation, either through negligence or misconduct.
Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm or know that his conduct is substantially certain to cause that result. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.
Endangerment can range from a misdemeanor to a felony.



It could easily be misdemeanor endangerment.

And even if it couldn't, criminla negligence would be a slam dunk, it's a much lower standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence


It would depend upon the jury, they are the finder of fact and if they found there was substantial risk they could find for a conviction of reckless endangerment.

I keep thinking of this sad case where a dog was tied up outside as killer bees attacked and killed it, it couldn't get away.

If the taped had asthma that would contribute to endangerment. Also, with 3 options given, this could be kidnapping easily if he felt worried for his safety under coersion. Apparently in Mayberry rednecj RFD this won't be pursued and the cops would arrest the alleged burner anyway and refuse to charge the necks. I guess this is fun logic until it happens to you.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

but in California a person is not allowed to do that simply by calling up the DMV.

have you ever seen sites like publicdata.com?

--
Rob

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

but in California a person is not allowed to do that simply by calling up the DMV.

have you ever seen sites like publicdata.com?

And did you read this bit on the front page of the web site you just linked?

Quote

Use of information contained herein must be done in accordance with the agreed upon terms and conditions. Please be aware that many US lawmakers have made certain access to Public Records illegal and it is your responsibility to be aware of which Public Records you may view legally.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[futuredivot 0]

The definitions still include "substantial" and "foreseeable"

It could be interpreted as a lot of things but no reasonable person would interpret it as a chargable offense.
IF the taped had asthma, scabies, or the damn clap-he should have picked another option.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[quade 4]

Quote

The definitions still include "substantial" and "foreseeable"

It could be interpreted as a lot of things but no reasonable person would interpret it as a chargable offense.
IF the taped had asthma, scabies, or the damn clap-he should have picked another option.

If a person is duct taped to a flag pole in front of a VFW hall with a sign around his neck saying he was a flag burner, would it not be "foreseeable" that somebody might walk by and punch him or otherwise abuse him? I'm not saying that's what happened, but if you discount that as a foreseeable possibility, I think you probably suffer from a lack of imagination.

If you've been following the comments on other web sites about this, a surprising number of people have said the man should have been lit on fire.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

It could be interpreted as a lot of things but no reasonable person would interpret it as a chargable offense.

If the taped were to establish that he had asthma or any other health condition it could be immediately proven. I think it's reasnable to assume being bound to a pole is a substantial risk and it is easily forseeable that it could have led to catastrophic harm. We can go back and forth onthis all day.

As well, even if it didn't make that standard, it is a slam dunk for criminal negligence. And we haven't even visited the kidnapping issues and elements.

So tell me of your legal experience in any way. Just wonder where you draw your vast understanding of legal reasoning and reasonableness.

Quote

IF the taped had asthma, scabies, or the damn clap-he should have picked another option.

And that's where the kidnapping came in, he was given options rather than reporting their claims.

There are 3 sides to every story; side A, side B and the truth. If the VFWers claim they gave him 3 options, might it have been 2? Get your ass kicked or taped; the 3rd option was thrown in at the end. If they went to all that trouble, Mr Reasonable, I don't think they wanted to call the cops or they would have. The story we know is the one from your sweetheart, the truth is likely more the other way at least a little, perhaps a lot.

Love how you're ok with what little we have.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

The definitions still include "substantial" and "foreseeable"

It could be interpreted as a lot of things but no reasonable person would interpret it as a chargable offense.
IF the taped had asthma, scabies, or the damn clap-he should have picked another option.

If a person is duct taped to a flag pole in front of a VFW hall with a sign around his neck saying he was a flag burner, would it not be "foreseeable" that somebody might walk by and punch him or otherwise abuse him? I'm not saying that's what happened, but if you discount that as a foreseeable possibility, I think you probably suffer from a lack of imagination.

I didn't even think about it from that end, I was looking at more natural disasters. The possibilities are endless to what could have happened to him.

[LouDiamond 1]

I see you went back and edited your post so I won't address the "one side of the story" and the lions, tigers and bears histrionics.

What I will throw out there for everyone to consider is this, as we could sit here and continue to argue this endlessly plus this whole thread has actually become quite comical.

No matter which side of this event you place yourself on ask yourself this:

What is happening and or happened in the REAL WORLD with this situation and what was the outcome?

That's all that REALLY matters.

All the shit house lawyers on here spouting off about laws and quoting definitions and "what if's" doesn't amount to squat and doesn't change what actually happened in the REAL WORLD in regards to this event.


Hopefully, if you objectively sit down and look at this, and I know that will be hard for some of you to do, you will come to the conclusion that the people who really do have authority (aka the law) over this situation have made the appropriate decisions and thats how it is regardless of what you or I think.

I'm sure this will illicit cries of how jacked up the legal system is yada yada yada, doesn't make it right,so on , so forth, it doesn't make it right, I was abused as a child, people stole my lunch money, you're all conservatives/liberals/democrats/communists/Nazis and so on.


But ya know what, thats life, thats reality, live in the now....deal with it.

and may everyone have a great day today, I'm gonna go skydive

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

What is happening and or happened in the REAL WORLD with this situation and what was the outcome?

That's all that REALLY matters.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're now claiming that the ends justify the means.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Didn't I say that like 4 pages ago? Remember the collective "you" and "I"?


Gotta go, I'm on a call.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Didn't I say that like 4 pages ago? Remember the collective "you" and "I"?

My mistake. I thought that statement was superseded by your subsequent posts in the thread.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!