By GI Korea on February 27th, 2012 at 3:53 am

Bad Idea To Burn Flag In Front of VFW

• Teadrinker
  7:51 am on February 27th, 2012 1

  Lesson in patriotism my @ss. Even I, a foreigner who’s spent no more than 72 hours total in all pf my life in the US, can see that they unlawfully detained the guy in order to prevent him from exercising his first amendment rights. Yeah, they should be proud of themselves. They don’t stand for freedom of expression.

  Was the guy a jerk? Sure, but your law is clear: even jerks can express themselves.

• tbonetylr
  8:06 am on February 27th, 2012 2

  As I’ve said before, VFW bars are an embarrassment to the U.S. Other than that let’s start taking a closer look at the “recreation/MWR” activities on base.

• Jeff
  10:11 am on February 27th, 2012 3

  Actions have consequences. So his first amemdment rights expand into theft of another’s property? Yes, the VFW Commander could be charged with unlawful detention, maybe. Remember the guy ‘volunteered’ to sit there. Freedom of expression? I think the VFW Commander was expressing his opinion by using the guy as performance art.

• Teadrinker
  10:20 am on February 27th, 2012 4

  #3,

  “Actions have consequences…”

  “I think the VFW Commander was expressing his opinion by using the guy as performance art.”

  You’re contradicting yourself.

  If the guy stole the flag, then…Sure, they could claim it was a citizen’s arrest. But the whole “lesson in patriotism” and “we don’t stand for burning the flag”…BS for the reason’s I’ve already mentioned.

• kushibo
  10:38 am on February 27th, 2012 5

  Freedom of expression, yes, but arson and damage to private property are not freedom of expression.

  What the VFW people did in response was clearly unlawful (“volunteering” under duress isn’t volunteering). They should have called the police about the arson and damage to private property and had the police handle it. Instead, they made themselves look like tools.

• Jeff
  10:39 am on February 27th, 2012 6

  No contradiction. Both did something that could very well bite them in the a$$. The performance art comment was sarcastic.

  How did he ‘unlawfully detain’ the guy if he volunteered?

  I think he learned the error of his act. Let’s see if anything follows this story. I wonder if some of the people that took photos protected his identity.

• kushibo
  11:13 am on February 27th, 2012 7

  Jeff wrote:
  

  How did he ‘unlawfully detain’ the guy if he volunteered?

  Volunteering under duress is not volunteering.

  “Disgrace to American flag, we can’t tolerate that.” Yup, can’t tolerate freedom of speech now, can we? This guy’s angry and he wants to make things even.

  Anyway, here’s the duress part. The incident happened “last Friday” where the young man “got angry, walked over to the flagpole, lowered flag and set it on fire.”

  Okay, and the VFW guy was “so incensed that he hunted the man down.” But he didn’t find him right away, when motions would still be high; he found him on Sunday, and that’ when he duct-taped him to the flagpole.

  “I gave him a few options, and let’s say he volunteered to sit out here duct-taped to the pole,” he tells the camera.

  Yeah, “let’s say” he volunteered. That’s euphemistic speech for something he’s not telling us. That could be anything from threats of violence to merely saying, if you don’t do this, then we’re going to report this to the police.

  Kudos to the guy for doing the police’s job for them, but then they should have handed him over. Instead, he makes himself look like a jackboot.

• Jeff
  12:38 pm on February 27th, 2012 8

  So, his stealing the flag and destroying it is just fine with you both right?

  If the guy isn’t worried about his rights being violated why should anyone else care?

  All in all the burning man was stupid, drunk or not and the duct taper took a huge risk by being a vigilante. They need a beer summit, I hope they both bring IDs.

• Jeff
  12:39 pm on February 27th, 2012 9

  Retraction, not ‘both’.

• setnaffa
  12:46 pm on February 27th, 2012 10

  Thugs of any description (flag-burners and duct-tapers) are equally detestable.

• kushibo
  12:47 pm on February 27th, 2012 11

  Jeff wrote:
  

  So, his stealing the flag and destroying it is just fine with you both right?

  Jeff, please tell me your illiteracy act is some sort of performance art. I specifically wrote:
  

  Freedom of expression, yes, but arson and damage to private property are not freedom of expression.

  What the VFW people did in response was clearly unlawful (“volunteering” under duress isn’t volunteering). They should have called the police about the arson and damage to private property and had the police handle it. Instead, they made themselves look like tools.

  There. I bolded the key words so you could skip over the others.

  And who’s not to say the guy wasn’t worried about his rights being violated? He was met by someone who by his own admission was “incensed” and “hunted down” the flag burner, and who was also willing to break the law himself. In such a situation, “volunteering” to be tied up is not volunteering.

• kushibo
  12:48 pm on February 27th, 2012 12

  Jeff wrote:
  

  Retraction, not ‘both’.

  Oh, okay. Well, then ignore the snarky first half of #11, but I still emphasize that what the guy did was not really voluntary when faced with an angry person who had hunted him down and was willing to break the law to make him a lesson.

• setnaffa
  2:13 pm on February 27th, 2012 13

  So “thievin’ flag burners” should understand their misdeeds may incite others. As with anyone else who uses “fighting words” or equivalent symbolism…

  Next time the VFW guy might be met by a mob of anarchists willing to torch the bar. And where does it end?

• kushibo
  2:24 pm on February 27th, 2012 14

  Yes, they should understand that some see it as fighting words. But this was not merely a case of the flag burner burning his own flag, he took someone else’s flag — and a prized flag at that — and burned it. It was destruction of property and maybe arson, fineable at least and possibly jailable. Incensed or not, the VFW guy didn’t have any legal justification for doing what he did.

• John in CA
  3:08 pm on February 27th, 2012 15

  Ahh legal justification.

  That term reminds the current Superintendent of Education of Seoul. The one who was initially convicted for bribing a fellow candidate from running so that he could win the election to the post. Upon appeal the punishment was reduced to nil and the presiding judge practically called the offender a victim as he was ‘blackmailed’ into bribing…

• kangaji
  3:52 pm on February 27th, 2012 16

  Teadrinker has only spent less than 72 hours in the US? That actually explains a lot about his views on the superiority of many things Canadian.

• kangaji
  3:59 pm on February 27th, 2012 17

  I have yet to verify these claims by enjoying the pleasures of Canada myself.

• Retired GI
  6:18 pm on February 27th, 2012 18

  Freedom of expression does have its limits. If he burned his own flag, I don’t care. A drunk getting pissed because he can’t be served there has NOTHING to do with freedom of expression — NOTHING.

  Teadrinker and his 72 hours in America. I can nolonger take his liberal rants seriously.

  Duck taping was better than an ass whipping. There is a VFW in Angeles city where a phone call would have been made and —-

• Leon LaPorte
  7:47 pm on February 27th, 2012 19

  Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from repercussions regarding one’s actions.

• Leon LaPorte
  7:49 pm on February 27th, 2012 20

  To clarify:

  You have a right to wear a KKK outfit and carry a rebel battle flag (naval ensign) while walking around in Compton or South Chicago however, after you are beaten/killed; I think most would agree you brought it on yourself and label you a dumbass.

• Tom Langley
  11:03 pm on February 27th, 2012 21

  Well the guy is lucky that they didn’t treat him like those Korans in Afghanistan.

• Doug
  4:42 am on February 28th, 2012 22

  This is for teadrinker. Must be you think being in a country for 72hrs. qualifies you to be a citizen of a country as the constitution only covers citizens of the United States. To earn the right to have it cover rights on your behalf you must first be a citizen. Which by the way I wouldn’t apply if I was you after your posts here. One of the qualifications of becomeing an American citizen is to know the constitution and what it means and quite frankly you failed that already. Plus no one would want you for a friend. Probably why your here posting and not on something concerning your own country. Lost your right to do so did ya?

  What you have attempted to do is cover up the fact that the flag burner is very lucky he had an understanding person looking for him and not some one like yourself as he listened to the guy. Gave him a break and let him chose his own form of punishment and the guy gets off with out having an arrest record for doing something really stupid as committing arson while under the influence of booze. Big no-no here in the states and getting bigger the more the stupidity shines through.

  So even though you get off with your rant you really should remember just how big a fool it proves you to be and please don’t ever visit my country again. Keep you BS in your own country. Now I hope this comes late. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass when you leave my country

  Let this be a lesson for all who believe that some how the constitution covers others who are not citizens of the United States of America.

• roger that
  10:22 pm on March 2nd, 2012 23

  Yep that even make me mad when you considered that flage came from a fox hole under fire. Those young kids sitting in that dam hole for one day is to many. Take him, GWB, CONDIE there and let them sit on a new flag not colin he been there. Makes me sick to thing about those young presious lives got cought up in these rich men………..?

• Vince
  12:04 am on March 3rd, 2012 24

  To many or not to many… That is the question. Anyway-

  Where do we have foxholes over there? Just curious… Why were they dug in for so much time? Was this during the initial phase of the invasion?

  I think something got mis-translated. Not that what the douchenozzle did should be acceptable. He’s lucky he didn’t get an ass beating deluxe.

  In some states, the VFWs have to be open to the public because the establishment has pay insurance costs for any employees, part time or not.

  I visited a VFW in Illinois to stop in, meet and greet some other VFW members, and have a cold one. I was not only the ONLY VFW member in place, I was the only veteran.

  Oh well.

RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI