Lucky...

Well, I decide I'm not then, thx for agreeing. Contrary, if you were that 21YO kid, you want a guy to go toe-to-toe with those MFers. I know everyone accused is guilty, but what if he wasn't guilty of this crime? What if he was but didn't want to get his ass kicked? Shouldn't he have the right to due process? Or fuck the constitution?

Elusive behavior is yours. Not sure if you called me one or not, in my years if someone wanted to call me one they would just do it, so I assume you are not.

If you're such a man, clarify. Not if this or that, are you calling me a pussy in this thread?

I understand, you don't care about coercion, constitutional due process, thuggery; you;re just here to defend the vets regardless of any/all laws. As well, I really think your understanding of statute is limited anyway. Address coercion as Iposted it in regard to the VFWer.

Thx for more participation and thx for ignoring the definition of coercion and the known statements of the VFWer that threats were made. Fun to be able to cherrypick. ATTENTION, ATTENTION EVERYONE! Let it be known that in this thread and only in this thread and no where else in the real world, that the word OPTIONS really means threats. OK, now that we have that out of the way, please continue with your tirade on the evils of cops and the locals who are also known as "necks" and "turds". I just opened another Guinness and popped some pop corn, this looks like its gonna be an amusing tale gang. Please, continue your tale. When a forced option includes threats of violence, they're one in the same, at least in reality. Another point, the statement byu teh VFWer was something like, "fight a vet." Who says that? No one, it's mor elike, 'we'll beat your ass.' The VFWer certainly calmed down his rhetoric for the sake of the media. Please continue your ingoring of COERCION, it's fun to watch selective cherrypicking.

Sure, anyone with a prior conviction, I say we just have the right to threaten them at will. In fact, the word, "outlaw" used to mean since you operated as a law breaker you were outside thje protection of teh law. Now this is: A) about me B) about taxation????? How am I for the threat of violence in order to redistribute wealth. Since you must tangent, pls tell me how. I'll just let you tell you how. Again, to further your tangent: Great, you can cut-n-paste; super proud of you, now tie in increased taxes to threats or coercion. Hell, you could be a fine, fine president like Reagan or GWB and under those major tax cuts if you fail to pay taxes you will be jailed ,etc. So how are tax increases about threats, intimidation and coercion? Are you saying any taxes are about the above? That's what's difficult about answering cut-n-pasters, they are extremely ambiguous. Your own words are confusing you? TRANSLATION: You have nothing to add, cannot address coercion. Thx for playing.

Thx for more participation and thx for ignoring the definition of coercion and the known statements of the VFWer that threats were made. Fun to be able to cherrypick.

There you go assuming again. Why don't you go ahead and tell us how the cops feel? As far as anyone knows they are just fine with how the case resolved itself. Yes, it would make for a hell of a civil case. Except the kid was a willing participant and he has refused to press charges. Both are sure signs that he feels no wrong has been done. I've posted the definition of coercion several times, ignored everytime, the kid no longer became a willing participant when threats were made. Of course you won't address that.

Sure, anyone with a prior conviction, I say we just have the right to threaten them at will. In fact, the word, "outlaw" used to mean since you operated as a law breaker you were outside thje protection of teh law. Now this is: A) about me B) about taxation????? How am I for the threat of violence in order to redistribute wealth. Since you must tangent, pls tell me how. I'll just let you tell you how. Again, to further your tangent: Great, you can cut-n-paste; super proud of you, now tie in increased taxes to threats or coercion. Hell, you could be a fine, fine president like Reagan or GWB and under those major tax cuts if you fail to pay taxes you will be jailed ,etc. So how are tax increases about threats, intimidation and coercion? Are you saying any taxes are about the above? That's what's difficult about answering cut-n-pasters, they are extremely ambiguous.

And the cops feel exactly how about this? I got in a car accident 3 years ago, this chick was texting and ran a light. She alos had a ticket 9 months prior for running a light at 38 in a 45..... not texting there, no. Anyway, this cop comes out and talks to her for 45 mins, a different cop takes ny info and leaves, then the first cop says, "Ok sir, you can go now." I said, "Statements, are you going to take statements?" He said, "No, I'm not citing anyone, so not statements are needed." Anyway, it got worse from there. Point is, if you feel cops are objecctive then you have had little experienc with them. I've had them refuse to take a report - no report / no crime. As for willing participant, if I get guys to surround you, give you the choice of rendering all your money or getting beat, you surrender your cash and I walk away saying it was consensual. That's the logic you're losing. The cops stated so? The vet also said they gave him the option of a beating or a taping, textbook coercion. I believe the entire story except the part about offerring to call the cops. I think was a throw in to cover their ass and act as if they gave the kid an out. I wish I was there when Clem and Jeb and the rest of the assholes showed up. I would have said they need to find the nuts to break in and see how that works for them. If the cops came I would tell the kid to say nothing. Now if the guys showed up in a civil manner, I would suggest the kid needs to cooperate reasonably. Obvioulsy you can't replace the sentiment of the flag, but if he could financially repay them for it he should. They don't, nor do they care what you think. We're here to discuss this amongst us, this is not for them.

If you're going to try to tell me the cops are about justice, I think we're arguing differnt issues here. They know of teh matter and aren't pursuing it. Cops refuse to write things all the time. You're the one ok with 1 side of the story, not me. Not true. What do you call of group of country folk roundin up the posse to get that guy? Necks works, but since you have no argument to the fact, you make it about me. You could actually address my claim of coercion: Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced. I've only posted it a bunch of times to be ignored. 1) We have 1 side of the story 2) We have an admission that these guys threatened this kid to get compliance. You can look the other way to those and make it about me, I'm ok with that. OK, so educate me as to what the kid said. Oh, you can't. Educate me as to how offering up violence as an option to gain compliance not being coercion based on any reasonable definition of the word. We do know the VFWer admitted that he gave the kid an option of beating or taping. Right, because you've chosen to ignore the accounts of threats which were coercion. Those were not under question, the article stated the old guy offered to fight a vet or get taped, he threw in there that calling the cops was an option too, I don't believe that, but even if true, it doesn't discount the violence threat you igniore. I'm the one quoting the article, you want to infer the kid lit the fire and that it's not coercion when you offer to beat someone's ass if they don't submit.

He's entered a high-speed wobble. Escape is impossible. Thx for your participaation, it's invaluable.

Sure it is, we have a vid clip of the VFWers actions, they teamed up and according to them he confessed. In the law, which nothing here was within the law, that confession is meaningless. Just like torture, as I think you've written, torture just gets the tortured to say whatever it will take to make the pain stop. There was no evidence the kid burned the flag. When you have a video confession that this group hunted down a man, offered him 1 of 3 choices of which at least 1 was violence, there is a case a prosecutor could fall to sleep on and win. The video and/or the article didn't quote the VFWer as saying they gave him 3 choices or which 1 was violence? Hmm, do I have to go look it up? I found that between the video presentation and the direcct quotes in the article that the VFWers offered up violence as an option so the kid would submit to the taping to the pole. I'm just curious why you don't address the definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced. Wiki is encyclopedic. I don't wonder why you refuse to address the definition, it's a lock. No, I don't have a legal standing am I'm pretty sure the cops aren't interested; I think we know how the coips feeel about this. This would make a hell of a civil case.

Yea, us Constitutionalists wanting due process, wanting the idea of posses, lynch mobs or whatever we can metaphorically describe these groups of thugs that go around and inject their own version of justice to be brought to justice. Funny how the Constitutional thing is interchangeable and you can drop it one minute and wave it around the next. Talk about flip-flopping.

There was no evidence as to him burning the flag other than he was refused a drink. Is it rational to believe that every person cut off at the bar would resort to flag burning? Not to me. The only evidence that his taping to the pole was voluntary was the word of an abductor who also stated there was the offer of violence too. Since you refuse to address the definition, here it is again: 1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance. 2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force. I would like to, but no one is talking, so I have to conclude that most of the information is inconclusive other than these guys banded together to hunt thius kid down and offered him to be tied up or beaten. They admitted they offered him to be tied up or beat, with coercion there is no choice, hence isn't voluntary. That's why they illegally detained and coerced him, BY WAY OF THEIR OWN WORDS. You believe the VFWers, w/o hearing the other side, so yes you do. It's the same methodology as they used in the south, tell and be burned. Bill, I convicted this guy BASED ON HIS OWN WORDS - HE STATED THE OFFER WAS BEATING, COPS OR POLE. I find questionable the cops offer, they could have just done that if they wanted to, they needed his coerced permission to tape him up. Even if the cops was an option, they still used the threat of physical violence, that makes it coercion.

Taping someone to pole at the threat of violence is a harm, not to metion the potential harm (criminal negligence). And people who intimidate others with force are turds, even tho they might also be (ex) military members. Einstein, I'm a vet, I think vets are awesome. Aside from that, being a vet does not give you license to hunt people down. I did not approve of the flag burning. That flag was sacred. I have no issue with burning your own flag if it's legal. Hey, no I wasn't. I guess you're out of gas so you defer to making it about me.

I'm the only one saying I really don't and I don't want DP to be ruled on "what probably happened."

What am I denying? That a group of thungs hunted down a person and decided to go vigilante on him? You're in denial of that.

Oh, ok..... great, my bad, let's reword it so as to be more pallatable. OK, if a group of necks approached you and demanded all of your money or they would beat you down, YOUR CHOICE, then you chose to give up your money, they left: I guess there was no crime since it was your choice, right? And trial, procedure, due process is what I get to enjoy in the US, apparently not your US. The media would love it, the cops would then drop the case on the necks and press his. I've had prosecutors do the excat thing. The necks intimidate via force, the cops/prosecutors do it via legal intimdation. Again, I ask what it might be like to have the story from both sides. That's the responsible / intelligent thing to do.

Yea, you're right, almost all cops are flaming liberals, flag burning haters. Don't let the haircut fool ya, they really are just plain leftists. No conspiracy, as I wrote, I've had cops decide not to write my complaint a few times, not to take a report as it involved one of their own. Right, I think the neck embellished about the call the cops part, everything else is true, esp the part about the, 'let us tie you to the pole or get beat down.' The kid not disputing it then or later had most to do with intimidation. You don't likey my defintion of coercion? Didn't see a comment on it.

What I stated was that you convicted him w/o hearing his side, I didn't mean judicially convicted and you know that. Let me be more basic: You already believe he: 1) Burned the flag 2) Agreed to being taped to a pole I like to hear what people have to say on all sides, look at any evidence - you know, the scientific model. Based upon one side of a story. And it's people like you who hear 1 side of a story and believe it wholesale. Not sure you're real knowledgeable about courtroom / legal processes, but that's called hearsay. If you can't cross-examine it, it's hearsay, with a few exceotiuons like excited utterance, etc. Hell, we didn't even hear from the other side. I wonder why blacks in the south during the 60's didn't report events? Hmm, must have been no crimes committed against them. co⋅er⋅cion  /koʊˈɜrʃən/ –noun 1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance. 2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force. BILL, IS IT REALLY SO HARD TO SEE THIS WAS A MATTER OF CORECION BY THE STATEMENTS OF THE TURDS THAT HUNTED HIM DOWN?

Sure, anyone with a prior conviction, I say we just have the right to threaten them at will. In fact, the word, "outlaw" used to mean since you operated as a law breaker you were outside thje protection of teh law. Now this is: A) about me B) about taxation????? How am I for the threat of violence in order to redistribute wealth. Since you must tangent, pls tell me how.

If I held a gun to your head and said you can give me your money or I can kill you, so then you give me your money and I walk away saying you chose to give me your money, therefore it wasn't a crime, the choice was yours, you had another option and you chose that one. Ever got to the cops and have them refuse to write a police report? I have. Or the if you push it the cops will say, ;ok, we write the report and then arrest you. Bill, if you think the kid wasn't intimidated by the group of necks then I don't know what to tell you. It hasn't been reported that he has. Bill, there were 3 options, 1 was violence and that was from the side of the abductors. Just think if we had the whole story from both sides. The 3 options isn't in debate and 1 was violence; that's garden variety coercion.

I wonder what the cops would do if anyone came in to report an assault like this? This was redneckville, NY, right? Hmmmm, which way do cops lean? I could impart several personal stories or post probably 100's where cops are biased toward the good ole boys, but you would just dismiss them. It could also be that the kid is too afraid to go to the cops for fear of other repraisal. The truth in my opinion is that the kid did burn the flag, the necks hunted him down and probably said you can fight that big MF over there or we can tape you to that pole for 6 hours. I believe the call the cops option was an afterthought when talking to the media. To me that is the most likely series of events and statements. If the necks wanted to call the cops they would have, it just doesn't have the ring of truth that cops were ever an option.

Let's be sure that we didn't hear the other 2 sides of the story: the tapees and the truth. So even if we go by the abductor we know that violence was on teh table to coerce him into taking one of the other 2. And I'm not convinced the police option was even offered or they would have likely opted for that one before approaching him if that was in their desire. Once violence is offered, all bets are off. You are assuming everyone whose side has been presented has lied. Since the flag burner chose to be taped instead of facing the cops (who would have been VERY interested in hearing of threats of violence) I, for one, assume the vets are telling the truth and the burner would not tell a significantly differing version. Everyone? All I read was the head redneck who told his story. And you've already convicted him w/o hearing his side, not 1 word. I wonder why we convict innocent people? The captor said he chose to be taped after one of the other options was violence. Let's not speak for the alleged flag burner. Right, and it's fine that you do, don't demand I believe them. Most stories have a degree of truth to them. Even if the captor is telling the truth, he still did threaten violence as an option. 2 assumptions: - The kid was the burner - The kid would tell the same story. And I'm the bad guy here because I want the whole story and to not make wild assumptions?