Justice served?

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=846181

Burning your own flag? I do not agree, but technically not illegal. Burning the property of another? He got less than he deserved.

I couldn't find the link, but in Sunday's paper there was a follow up. Locals applaud it, State and local police have no records of it happening.

Hmmm... 1 on 1 with someone pissed off, a cop or sit on a flag pole?

Great. Vigilantism and mob rule.

If t were a crime they should've reported the guy to the police and let them handle it. Doesn't sound like the guy ever saw a policemen much less a judge.

I'm going to say yes... but probably not for the reason you think...

A good, solid old fashioned humiliation in front of your peers is excellent punishment for a "mischief" crime caused by a little too much to drink and a temper. It doesn't ruin his life or cause financial hardship but it sends a message he won't soon forget. I like it.

I'm sure you will get plenty of folks who want him drawn and quartered for his high crime of treason but the flag was just the object he happened on that would incite the guys who pissed him off. If he were in a Lions Club, he'd of kicked over the lion statue... Its just really a little aggravated vandalism. I'm not saying vandalism isn't serious - but this is more of a "boys will be boys" crime than if he were to have busted out the windows of all the cars in the lot. I think its fittingly punished by a good cuff upside the head or a little pillory and restitution.

I kind of wish they would bring back stocks for misdermeanors.. let somebody serve 8 hours a day for a couple of weeks in front of the police station (or city hall) I am sure crime would go down

Obviously the Police had knowledge of the event yet have no "official" report, protecting them from reprisals should somebody decide this was an act of vigilantism. I suspect the youths parent were also aware and in agreement of the punishment.

These days such an act must be done in a CYA (cover your arse) manner, yet these type methods are effective. If it was my kid I would absolutely have agreed with this form of punishment.

Act like a knucklehead, get treated like a knucklehead, but do not ruin his future over a stupid moment.

The meaning of Vigilante does not apply to this situation, this is an effective legal alternative to using the criminal justice system

"Vigilante justice" is sometimes spurred on by the perception that criminal punishment is either nonexistent or insufficient for the crime. Some people see their governments as ineffective in enforcing the law; thus, such individuals fulfill the like-minded wishes of the community. In other instances, a person may choose a role of vigilante as a result of personal experience as opposed to a social demand.

The guy got off easy. The sacrifices made by the men inside that VFW hall are the reason this moron has the right to burn his own flag. Burning theirs is stupid, disrespectful and illegal. Boo-berkeleying-hoo, they taped him to a flag pole for a few hours. The concept of shame needs to make a return to public life if society is to avoid becoming an idiocracy and this is a fine start.

Will wrote: Boo-berkeleying-hoo, they taped him to a flag pole for a few hours.

I don't think anyone is boo hooing for the kid, but the guy who was quoted as saying he will never disrespect the flag again I hopefully right. Or, this is going to reinforce whatever disrespect the kid had in the first place, and now the kid may come back and burn the hall down. (not that I don't think the little berkeleyer got what he desereved, he had it coming)

Joey

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.

I will never condone vigilante justice. However, if this account is correct and he was given the opportunity to choose how he responded to the allegations, than I'm fine with it.

The punishment fit the crime. If he were innocent, he could have chosen to be turned over to the authorities and argue his case in a formal matter.

as this becomes more and more public the repercussions are probably going to be more than the VFW will be able to stand... don't get me wrong... I think he got what he deserved....

but in this day - n - age some berkeleyer of an ACLU a$$hat will get hold of the story and the SWHIF...

especially if the Prez mouthes off about it

I agree that the punishment fit the crime. I believe more that the lesson learned here is respect of others property more so than flag burning. If it was his flag he is free to burn it if he wants. Considering the flag he burned has a history, he's extremely lucky he didn't get hurt. The VFW members were very patient and handled it very calmly. I know vets that would have strung him up in place of the flag. And I'm making this statement as retired military (Army) and a vet.

Strangely, what bothers me the most is that he didn't burn it for any political or social agenda...but just because they wouldn't let him drink in the bar.

I agree with needing the return of public humiliation. And also major WTF over why the flag was burned.

In reply to neon4891:

To the extent there is any rationality at all, I suspect the thought process looks something like:

Vets refuse booze to idiot, which pisses him off. Idiot decides to do something that will piss of the Vets. Nothing pisses off most veterans like a good flag burning.

Screw it, I would have chosen the fighting option only if boxing gloves were provided.

Gotta love sidewalk justice!

Salanis wrote:

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.

I will never condone vigilante justice. However, if this account is correct and he was given the opportunity to choose how he responded to the allegations, than I'm fine with it. The punishment fit the crime. If he were innocent, he could have chosen to be turned over to the authorities and argue his case in a formal matter.

agreed.

deveous9 wrote: Screw it, I would have chosen the fighting option only if boxing gloves were provided.

"boxing gloves? i didn't need no boxing gloves when i kill't fiddy men! they took my shins, though"

aussiesmg wrote: The meaning of Vigilante does not apply to this situation, this is an effective legal alternative to using the criminal justice system "Vigilante justice" is sometimes spurred on by the perception that criminal punishment is either nonexistent or insufficient for the crime. Some people see their governments as ineffective in enforcing the law; thus, such individuals fulfill the like-minded wishes of the community. In other instances, a person may choose a role of vigilante as a result of personal experience as opposed to a social demand.

Er..wrong. Here's the definition:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com said: vigilante n. someone who takes the law into his/her own hands by trying and/or punishing another person without any legal authority. In the 1800s groups of vigilantes dispensed "frontier justice" by holding trials of accused horse-thieves, rustlers and shooters, and then promptly hanging the accused if "convicted." A mother who shoots the alleged molester of her child is a vigilante.

These guys didn't have a legal authority. Therefore they are vigilantes.

My problem with it is what if these guys went off half-cocked? Did they get the right guy? What if they decided the accused should be ritualistically raped instead of duct taped to a pole?

Example: One of the veterans comes out and see's that his buick is scratched down the side. All the way down to the metal. He see's some punk kid standing around the place all day with a screwdriver in his hand. Does he snatch said kid up and chain him to the car with a sign around his neck? What if the kid was innocent and was just tuning his go-cart carb? Why not dispense some "justice". They got away with it once? Besides, you know that kid was up to no good or at least got away with something...

It's mob rule. There is no law so the whims of the mob are what's applied. I don't like it myself. It's not rational.

If the kid has chosen the boxing match, kicked the old fart's butt, and then he had a heart attack...who'd be on the hook then? The old guys who thought it was a good idea or the kid who was forced to choose? Who would be jailed for the old guy's death? The kid had a choice but it wasn't much of one.

Thorny issue. A bad way to run a Republic. We have laws for a reason. We all agree they are valid and fair, supposedly. It's not just up to 10 drunk guys who who fought a war 40 years ago. Oh crap. Maybe it is..in a larger sense.

Stocks and such. Wow. You guys like living like Puritans? Maybe we should start chopping the hands off of thieves too? What would your punishment be for masturbation?

Strizzo wrote: "boxing gloves? i didn't need no boxing gloves when i kill't fiddy men! they took my shins, though"

King Of The Hill is awesome.

King of the Hill Rules!

wbjones wrote: especially if the Prez mouthes off about it

whoa

Xceler8x wrote: Maybe we should start chopping the hands off of thieves too?

Absolutely.

Shawn

Xceler8x wrote: It's mob rule. There is no law so the whims of the mob are what's applied. I don't like it myself. It's not rational. ... Thorny issue. A bad way to run a Republic. We have laws for a reason. We all agree they are valid and fair, supposedly. It's not just up to 10 drunk guys who who fought a war 40 years ago. Oh crap. Maybe it is..in a larger sense.

One of the reasons why we have the system of government we do. See, our governmental system is not designed to enact the will of the majority on the minority. It is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the masses.