Lucky...

Well, that's OK then. No harm done. Guilty until proven innocent. We'll just execute all person's in even marginal cases, that way we're sure to get the guilty ones.

You don't need to prove your innocense, theoretically, you just have to establish error.

Taxing dead people is the best. They don't need and can't use the money where they are. If it's a gift, then let's call it a gift tax, that way it's much more pallatable.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

You shouldn't assume that some of us aren't veterans simply because we recognize what the VFW post commander did in response to the vandalism was also wrong. They can't help their binary mentality. It's 1's or 0's. Yes or no, black or white.

Are so out of gas that we have to resort to personal attacks? Another fine conservative tactic; when ya get stuck, just go for PA's as a distraction.

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.

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. OK, so I forgot the "n't" on wouldn't. Anything else you are unable to understand or is this the entire response to the whole post; a sort of way for you to duck 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.

Isn't it funny how conservatives only speak in binary 1 or 0? It's all one way or the other. I get it, with us or agaist us, just making an observation. Point is, I like most military members and respect their sacrifice too. I don't like irrational use of this precious body of people and machine, as with the last nutjob who was president, but I want a reasonable and strong military. As for tough, the US military as a whole is the toughest, as individuals they run the gammut. As for facial gestures, unfortunate you don't have a better argument. 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 would 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.

What if "ifs" were "fifths"? Everybody would be drunk. Nothing would lead me to think that the scenario you presented is what happened. Anyone can stretch and alter and misapply to support their position-you have yet to convince me that the way it was handled was not one of the best possible ways to resolve it. It's scary to me that people would prefer to pass their responsibilities to sweep their own porch to others. Even if it were a more serious crime-say someone broke in to my house. I would expect legal authorities to write the reports required, but I would expect his heirs to come clean up the bodily fluids he leaked on my carpet. As long as they did that, we're even. No need to start a civil suit for emotional distress or some bullshit like that. Handle your own business whenever possible, as much as possible. Authorities exist to protect the rights of those who can't protect their own. I wrote that before I found an article that stated just that: 3 choices: - fight - tape - cops Oppsee daisy, the 'what if' came to light, we don't have to hypothesize anymore. Uh, don't try to morph this issue into that of a home invasion/burglary. And I'm ok that you won't accept the legal definition of "Endagerment" it's all good, but a judge some day won't care either if you claim ignorance of the law.

YOU HEARD ONE SIDE OF THE STORY. Your logic derived from one side of the story. And how do you know he isn't complaining; the media isn't broadcasting it? Hmmm, wonder if you ever use that logai before/again; counting on teh media for all info? You really don't understand the law, do you? WHta if a dog came by and attacked him? What if killer bees came by? What if an armed person came by? Endangement doesn't occur when someone puts another or others in damger and then something happens, it occurs when someone puts another or others in danger, period. The potential was there for danger, he could have had a seizure, etc.....the list goes on. And I could throw a friend on a motorcycle ans go 150MPH and be arrested for endagerment even if we didn't crash and even if they consented; the crime is against the state, not the victim. Your lack of understanding of the law is compounded by your, "just do it any way you want" approach and wouldn't normally be upheld by the law. Perhaps UCMJ, but not civilian law. If dogs, bees, armed persons came by the taped indivual would not be in increased danger over aperosn not bound? Mkkk, that's NOT fucked up logic. And your reference to the VFW Commander are supported by your curent affiliation with the military, I was in too so I get you, but it is not recognized outside the military. But I love how you make an assumption from 1 side of the story. If we heard from teh taped individual and he said these guys approached me and said tehy were gonna tape me to the pole or beat my ass, you would be screaming LIAR. Wait, you;re conservative, so you would scream, YOU LIE. Well, I won't accept 1 side of the story, I understand you will since it wa sthe side you were predisposed to believe anyway. And as for "prove" any one my assertions, the taped individual was in danger and admittedly taped by the VFW man. 1. To expose to harm or danger; imperil. He was exposed to harm or danger. He could have had a seizure, dogs, bees and a myriad of other dangers could have come along that an untaped person could escape from. And there's this: http://www.wten.com/Global/story.asp?S=11190850 CLEM SAID: "I found him on Sunday and I duct taped him to the flag pole," Normile said bluntly. "He didn't deny it, said he was drunk. Let's just say he volunteered to sit out here duct taped to the pole." http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=846181&category=REGION The young man was given three choices: get turned over to the police, go one-on-one in a fight with a seasoned war veteran, or be duct-taped to a flagpole for six hours with a sign around his neck identifying his alleged crime: flag burning. It was the third option that would still have the small town buzzing a week after a 21-year-old was hunted down and forced to endure a public humiliation with its roots dating to the Middle Ages. A) As you can see by the sourcce I cited, there were 3 options: 1 - Call the cops 2 - Get taped to a flag pole 3 - Fight a veteran Violence was on the table, that constitutes violence, perhaps not in good ole boy military terms, but it is well within the civilian legal scope. THREATENING VIOLENCE IS VIOLENCE. B) Both parties believe it was fair based on one side of the story. Nice. He was threatened with a trained fighter beating his ass. Dunno what they teach ya there in the military. Hey, I heard they killed another abortion doctor; what's your take on that?

So if I hold a gun to your head, you peacefully give me all your money and I peacefully leave then we resolved the matter of me being broke? You're posturing old timer logic, it's 2009. That logic has been unsound and just not applied for decades in most civilized places. When you endanger people you don't endanger the other, you often involve many. Furthermore, I love how you're satisfied with a well-rounded 1-sided story; this is how attrocities happen in our justice system. What if the truth is the flag owners and friends hunted the burner down and said we can beat you or you can submit to being tied up. WHat if they had the wrong guy? There are laws, laws are codified and they have language that if violated constitute a crime. Just to say the good ole boys dealth with it reminds me of pre-Emancipation days.....scarry that people are ok with it.

He meant the 37th best. Of course the author of that passage was sarcastically transposing that to any die-hard Repblican and how the R's feel about it, not how he feels about it.

You can sit there and pound your hand on the table and demand the hard line of the law wasn't broken, hence no crime. We don't have witness statements here and can't see any evidence but that of which was given by the flag owner. Truth of the matter is, base dupon what we all know, the flag burner could be cited and arrested for at least: - vandalism - disorderly conduct - endangerment - open fire w/o a permit (or something to that effect) The flag owner could be cited and arrested for at least: - wrongful detention - possibly kidnapping - endangerment Even if all partoes agreed to what happened, the taped individual was placed in danger for 6 hours, so the alleged agreement does not absolve anyone on either side. Remember, it was a crime against teh state on both ends. I see, so my assumptions are all fucked up, but we should rally around your, "I think..." Truth is that a number of obvious crimes took place, they could both be arrested. Volunteering, as the flag owner states, doesn't mean he would have wanted to and it doesn't mean the burner wasn't placed in danger, he was. So now we have to accept your, "probably" as well? You apparently think the world of your views, everyone else's are just wrong. How about this, the flag owner may want to limit his liability, civilly and criminally by keeping the man's identity unknown.

I wonder how many people supported slavery abolition, women suffrage, and many, many other major changes? Yea, this is a win for elitist America; really defines what a toilet this country is when HC is apportioned or if you dare use ER, you're in debtor's prison.

When the VFW post commander said, ""To disgrace the American flag, we can't tolerate that," it shows that he places higher priority on a symbol than he does the first amendment. If he had complained about private property being destroyed, that would have been a little bit different. Instead of utilizing police services, the commander tracked the man down himself, as a vigilante. We'll never know what choices the man was given, or when they were given, so we'll likely never know exactly what laws were broken, if any. When I served, I swore to defend the Constitution, not to protect the flag. Part of defending the Constitution is defending the right to desecrate the flag. Didn't the flag belong to the VFW? The kid burned someone else's property. I can't have someone burning my gear. It wouldn't be protected by the 1st amendment either because it's mine. Would that be a different situation? No, it's vandalism. If it were attached to a structure, an occupied structure esp, he would be looking at damn near life. On one side we have vandalism, the other we have some form of illegal/wrongful detention. The 1st issues on both sides are kinda irrelevant IMO.

EXAMPLE: It's irrelevant either way, I just like to argue the point. I make a few typos, I used to run everything thru word, but it doesn't change how people respond, so I'm lazy. I probably was responsible for drifting this thread, however tax increases and HC are the issues now, altho not really correlated, they get the press as tho they are. Back to topic: The rich are running away, the class disparity is growing, time to bring it back a tad.

Hold the guy until cops get there. Simple really. Ok, fair enough answer. Unfortunately most of us live in the real world where not everything has to be settled by lawyers in a court room. Another irony; people who decide to handle things out of a courtroom, will end up handling things in a courtroom.