http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...storyID=846949

Ed Huntress wrote:

In that light, I'd say the veterans' response was quite temperate.
They did not harm the offender nor take or destroy his property. They
exercised their first amendment right to "make a statement" with a bit
of duct tape and a sign. Tit for tat, I'd say.

I hope you don't mean that. "Making a statement" by holding someone against
their will, and all the rest of it, constitutes kidnapping under the law.
It's a felony everywhere in the United States. It also constitutes battery
(and probably assault, depending upon the circumstances), but kidnapping is
the felony.

The question I have is whether the kid went willingly. I wouldn't object to
what was done to him if, in his more sober moment, he thought it was fair
and went along willingly. If he didn't, I'd arrest the participants, get a
change of venue, and prosecute them for felony kidnapping.

He was offered the option of having the cops called, a one on one with
a vet or sitting in the chair. He chose.

Finding a prosecutor who really did believe in the rule of law, and who
wasn't too much of a coward to bring the case, might be another matter.

Depends on what looks better for his career, usually.

BTW, the kid gets misdemeanor destruction of property, unless the flag was
worth enough to make it a felony. The case could be made for that,
considering what people had to go through to get that particular flag.

The kid didn't want the cops brought in. He chose.

David

"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

In that light, I'd say the veterans' response was quite temperate.
They did not harm the offender nor take or destroy his property. They
exercised their first amendment right to "make a statement" with a bit
of duct tape and a sign. Tit for tat, I'd say.

I hope you don't mean that. "Making a statement" by holding someone
against their will, and all the rest of it, constitutes kidnapping under
the law. It's a felony everywhere in the United States. It also
constitutes battery (and probably assault, depending upon the
circumstances), but kidnapping is the felony.

The question I have is whether the kid went willingly. I wouldn't object
to what was done to him if, in his more sober moment, he thought it was
fair and went along willingly. If he didn't, I'd arrest the participants,
get a change of venue, and prosecute them for felony kidnapping.

He was offered the option of having the cops called, a one on one with a
vet or sitting in the chair. He chose.

Of course, that's heresay. Since kidnapping in New York has no statute of
limitations, the kid may decide at some future time that what happened was
something different. Apparently there are dozens of witnesses to the taping
and humiliation. It would be interesting to know if there were any witnesses
to the "offer."


Finding a prosecutor who really did believe in the rule of law, and who
wasn't too much of a coward to bring the case, might be another matter.

Depends on what looks better for his career, usually.

BTW, the kid gets misdemeanor destruction of property, unless the flag
was worth enough to make it a felony. The case could be made for that,
considering what people had to go through to get that particular flag.

The kid didn't want the cops brought in. He chose.

Who really knows?

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not siding with the kid. But I'm opposed to a
few things in this world, and one of them is taking the law into one's own
hands.

That may not be what happened here. But when I heard that the guy
perpetrating this "display" turned down media offers and wouldn't name the
kid, my suspicions were raised. I wouldn't be surprised if he's being quiet
about it on the advice of an attorney. Even if he has a strong case in
court, and even if no one would prosecute in a criminal case, the kid could
raise one hell of a stink in a civil case.

All it would take is a lawyer looking for some face-time with the media and
a contingency deal for the lawsuit.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not siding with the kid. But I'm opposed to a
few things in this world, and one of them is taking the law into one's own
hands.



Someone please resolve for me the dichotomy of 'ignorance of the law
is no defense' with congress critters telling me they don't read the
bills because you need a team of lawyers to understand it.
Wes 2009

"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not siding with the kid. But I'm opposed to a
few things in this world, and one of them is taking the law into one's
own hands.



Someone please resolve for me the dichotomy of 'ignorance of the law
is no defense' with congress critters telling me they don't read the
bills because you need a team of lawyers to understand it.
Wes 2009

The principle is not exactly what some people think it is. In fact, in
Blackstone, the Latin phrase which means what you said ("ignorance of the
law excuses no one") was modified to "ignorance of the law which everyone
is bound to know, excuses no man." That's closer to what the law is in most
countries today, including the US.

There have been successful defenses based upon ignorance of the law. See
Cheek v. United States, USSC 1991, and Lambert v. California, USSC 1957.
They're very rare, because the hypothetical situations people imagine when
they ponder this question are rare. Most crimes are committed with
knowledge, or approximate knowledge, that a crime is being committed. If
it's a case of administrative law, which can be illogical to a layman, and
arcane, most people who would be in a position to violate the law are also
in a position to question what the law actually is -- businessmen should
inquire with their legal counsel about matters relating to tax law, for
example.

A key issue in some cases is intent, and that is further hinged on the
question of responsibility versus negligence. You aren't likely to find
yourself in commission of a crime about which you had no reason at all to
believe was a crime. More likely, it would be a case of "you should have
known better," or "you had enough at stake that you should have asked a
lawyer."

--
Ed Huntress

On Sep 29, 4:06*pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
In that light, I'd say the veterans' response was quite temperate.
They did not harm the offender nor take or destroy his property. They
exercised their first amendment right to "make a statement" with a bit
of duct tape and a sign. *Tit for tat, I'd say.

I hope you don't mean that. "Making a statement" by holding someone against
their will, and all the rest of it, constitutes kidnapping under the law.
It's a felony everywhere in the United States. It also constitutes battery
(and probably assault, depending upon the circumstances), but kidnapping is
the felony.

The question I have is whether the kid went willingly. I wouldn't object to
what was done to him if, in his more sober moment, he thought it was fair
and went along willingly. If he didn't, I'd arrest the participants, get a
change of venue, and prosecute them for felony kidnapping.

He was offered the option of having the cops called, a one on one with
a vet or sitting in the chair. He chose.

Finding a prosecutor who really did believe in the rule of law, and who
wasn't too much of a coward to bring the case, might be another matter.

Depends on what looks better for his career, usually.

BTW, the kid gets misdemeanor destruction of property, unless the flag was
worth enough to make it a felony. The case could be made for that,
considering what people had to go through to get that particular flag.

The kid didn't want the cops brought in. He chose.

David

Where did you get that information (about the kid choosing this
punishment instead of calling the cops)? Or is this another case of a
winger making up his own set of facts to fit his agenda?

The kid ought to press charges, and see how his misdemeanor vandalism
stacks up against their felony kidnapping. What's next? "String 'em
up'?

These guys, with their great respect for the country and its rules and
laws, stepped WAY out of bounds.

Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not siding with the kid. But I'm opposed to a
few things in this world, and one of them is taking the law into one's
own hands.


Someone please resolve for me the dichotomy of 'ignorance of the law
is no defense' with congress critters telling me they don't read the
bills because you need a team of lawyers to understand it.
Wes 2009

The principle is not exactly what some people think it is. In fact, in
Blackstone, the Latin phrase which means what you said ("ignorance of the
law excuses no one") was modified to "ignorance of the law which everyone
is bound to know, excuses no man." That's closer to what the law is in most
countries today, including the US.

There have been successful defenses based upon ignorance of the law. See
Cheek v. United States, USSC 1991, and Lambert v. California, USSC 1957.
They're very rare, because the hypothetical situations people imagine when
they ponder this question are rare. Most crimes are committed with
knowledge, or approximate knowledge, that a crime is being committed. If
it's a case of administrative law, which can be illogical to a layman, and
arcane, most people who would be in a position to violate the law are also
in a position to question what the law actually is -- businessmen should
inquire with their legal counsel about matters relating to tax law, for
example.

A key issue in some cases is intent, and that is further hinged on the
question of responsibility versus negligence. You aren't likely to find
yourself in commission of a crime about which you had no reason at all to
believe was a crime. More likely, it would be a case of "you should have
known better," or "you had enough at stake that you should have asked a
lawyer."


I was going the other way with this one, Ed.

Quote me:

Ignorance is the ONLY excuse for many laws

"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not siding with the kid. But I'm opposed to a
few things in this world, and one of them is taking the law into one's
own hands.



Someone please resolve for me the dichotomy of 'ignorance of the law
is no defense' with congress critters telling me they don't read the
bills because you need a team of lawyers to understand it.
Wes 2009

I do believe a majority of congress is composed of lawyers that
are sufficiently incompentent to make a living at lawyering. That
is why they need a team of lawyers to tell them what they did.

Who has time to read a law when your busy playing golf and boozing with a
lobbyist ? G

Best Regards
Tom.

rangerssuck wrote:
On Sep 29, 4:06 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:

He was offered the option of having the cops called, a one on one with
a vet or sitting in the chair. He chose.

Finding a prosecutor who really did believe in the rule of law, and who
wasn't too much of a coward to bring the case, might be another matter.
Depends on what looks better for his career, usually.

BTW, the kid gets misdemeanor destruction of property, unless the flag was
worth enough to make it a felony. The case could be made for that,
considering what people had to go through to get that particular flag.
The kid didn't want the cops brought in. He chose.

David

Where did you get that information (about the kid choosing this
punishment instead of calling the cops)? Or is this another case of a
winger making up his own set of facts to fit his agenda?

It was in the original post and all the news reports that I saw.

The kid ought to press charges, and see how his misdemeanor vandalism
stacks up against their felony kidnapping. What's next? "String 'em
up'?

He chose. They didn't force him to do anything or hold him against his
will. And they used duct tape, not string....

These guys, with their great respect for the country and its rules and
laws, stepped WAY out of bounds.

Maybe, but they did offer him a choice and he chose to sit in a chair
rather than pay a fine for a misdemeanor.

David

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:43:20 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

In that light, I'd say the veterans' response was quite temperate.
They did not harm the offender nor take or destroy his property. They
exercised their first amendment right to "make a statement" with a bit
of duct tape and a sign. Tit for tat, I'd say.

I hope you don't mean that. "Making a statement" by holding someone
against their will, and all the rest of it, constitutes kidnapping under
the law. It's a felony everywhere in the United States. It also
constitutes battery (and probably assault, depending upon the
circumstances), but kidnapping is the felony.

The question I have is whether the kid went willingly. I wouldn't object
to what was done to him if, in his more sober moment, he thought it was
fair and went along willingly. If he didn't, I'd arrest the participants,
get a change of venue, and prosecute them for felony kidnapping.

He was offered the option of having the cops called, a one on one with a
vet or sitting in the chair. He chose.

Of course, that's heresay. Since kidnapping in New York has no statute of
limitations, the kid may decide at some future time that what happened was
something different. Apparently there are dozens of witnesses to the taping
and humiliation. It would be interesting to know if there were any witnesses
to the "offer."

Do you imagine that there are no members of that VFW post that would
attest that they witnessed the offer?

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not siding with the kid. But I'm opposed to a
few things in this world, and one of them is taking the law into one's own
hands.

It's a small town, Ed. They didn't need a herd of lawyers and a gaggle
of government to sort out the matter of an ill-considered
disrespectful act by a town kid who'd overindulged and had a tantrum.
His elders made it clear to him that his vandalism was not acceptable
behavior. The "kidnapped" kid was right there in plain
sight,obviously not harmed and in no peril of being harmed. There's no
indication that he was gagged or rendered speechless, nor that he
publicly proclaimed any objection to his treatment.

"Law in own hands" perhaps, but closer to tough love than any form of
vigilantism. Kid screwed up, town elders jacked him up. Small town
bidness, none of ours.

That may not be what happened here. But when I heard that the guy
perpetrating this "display" turned down media offers and wouldn't name the
kid, my suspicions were raised. I wouldn't be surprised if he's being quiet
about it on the advice of an attorney.

This behavior is entirely in character for an NCO vet (sans attorney)
who provided a bit of character-building guidance and counsel behind
the barracks to a number of young wiseguys and screwups over the
years.

Even if he has a strong case in court, and even if no one would prosecute in a criminal case, the kid could
raise one hell of a stink in a civil case.

Perhaps he could try, but I strongly doubt that he will.

All it would take is a lawyer looking for some face-time with the media and
a contingency deal for the lawsuit.

The lawyer would certainly not be from Valley Falls, pop 476. The kid
would have to be complicit. He may want to continue living there.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:36:31 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"cavelamb" wrote in message
om...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not siding with the kid. But I'm opposed to a
few things in this world, and one of them is taking the law into one's
own hands.



Someone please resolve for me the dichotomy of 'ignorance of the law
is no defense' with congress critters telling me they don't read the
bills because you need a team of lawyers to understand it.
Wes 2009

The principle is not exactly what some people think it is. In fact, in
Blackstone, the Latin phrase which means what you said ("ignorance of the
law excuses no one") was modified to "ignorance of the law which everyone
is bound to know, excuses no man." That's closer to what the law is in most
countries today, including the US.

There have been successful defenses based upon ignorance of the law. See
Cheek v. United States, USSC 1991, and Lambert v. California, USSC 1957.
They're very rare, because the hypothetical situations people imagine when
they ponder this question are rare. Most crimes are committed with
knowledge, or approximate knowledge, that a crime is being committed. If
it's a case of administrative law, which can be illogical to a layman, and
arcane, most people who would be in a position to violate the law are also
in a position to question what the law actually is -- businessmen should
inquire with their legal counsel about matters relating to tax law, for
example.

A key issue in some cases is intent, and that is further hinged on the
question of responsibility versus negligence. You aren't likely to find
yourself in commission of a crime about which you had no reason at all to
believe was a crime. More likely, it would be a case of "you should have
known better," or "you had enough at stake that you should have asked a
lawyer."

None of which addresses Wes's valid question. What do legislators have
to do that is more important than reading and understanding the
legislation they vote to pass or not?

Don Foreman wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:36:31 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not siding with the kid. But I'm opposed to a
few things in this world, and one of them is taking the law into one's
own hands.


Someone please resolve for me the dichotomy of 'ignorance of the law
is no defense' with congress critters telling me they don't read the
bills because you need a team of lawyers to understand it.
Wes 2009
The principle is not exactly what some people think it is. In fact, in
Blackstone, the Latin phrase which means what you said ("ignorance of the
law excuses no one") was modified to "ignorance of the law which everyone
is bound to know, excuses no man." That's closer to what the law is in most
countries today, including the US.

There have been successful defenses based upon ignorance of the law. See
Cheek v. United States, USSC 1991, and Lambert v. California, USSC 1957.
They're very rare, because the hypothetical situations people imagine when
they ponder this question are rare. Most crimes are committed with
knowledge, or approximate knowledge, that a crime is being committed. If
it's a case of administrative law, which can be illogical to a layman, and
arcane, most people who would be in a position to violate the law are also
in a position to question what the law actually is -- businessmen should
inquire with their legal counsel about matters relating to tax law, for
example.

A key issue in some cases is intent, and that is further hinged on the
question of responsibility versus negligence. You aren't likely to find
yourself in commission of a crime about which you had no reason at all to
believe was a crime. More likely, it would be a case of "you should have
known better," or "you had enough at stake that you should have asked a
lawyer."

None of which addresses Wes's valid question. What do legislators have
to do that is more important than reading and understanding the
legislation they vote to pass or not?


Get re-elected

You don't judge a law by what good it will do if properly administered:
You judge it by what harm it will do if improperly administered.

-- Lyndon Johnson (?) (or maybe just me)

On Sep 30, 12:06*am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Sep 29, 4:06 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
He was offered the option of having the cops called, a one on one with
a vet or sitting in the chair. He chose.

Finding a prosecutor who really did believe in the rule of law, and who
wasn't too much of a coward to bring the case, might be another matter.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:20:25 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:36:31 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"cavelamb" wrote in message
news:09CdnVbNlae2C1_XnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@earthlink. com...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not siding with the kid. But I'm opposed to a
few things in this world, and one of them is taking the law into one's
own hands.



Someone please resolve for me the dichotomy of 'ignorance of the law
is no defense' with congress critters telling me they don't read the
bills because you need a team of lawyers to understand it.
Wes 2009

The principle is not exactly what some people think it is. In fact, in
Blackstone, the Latin phrase which means what you said ("ignorance of the
law excuses no one") was modified to "ignorance of the law which everyone
is bound to know, excuses no man." That's closer to what the law is in most
countries today, including the US.

There have been successful defenses based upon ignorance of the law. See
Cheek v. United States, USSC 1991, and Lambert v. California, USSC 1957.
They're very rare, because the hypothetical situations people imagine when
they ponder this question are rare. Most crimes are committed with
knowledge, or approximate knowledge, that a crime is being committed. If
it's a case of administrative law, which can be illogical to a layman, and
arcane, most people who would be in a position to violate the law are also
in a position to question what the law actually is -- businessmen should
inquire with their legal counsel about matters relating to tax law, for
example.

A key issue in some cases is intent, and that is further hinged on the
question of responsibility versus negligence. You aren't likely to find
yourself in commission of a crime about which you had no reason at all to
believe was a crime. More likely, it would be a case of "you should have
known better," or "you had enough at stake that you should have asked a
lawyer."

None of which addresses Wes's valid question. What do legislators have
to do that is more important than reading and understanding the
legislation they vote to pass or not?

A Freakin' Men! Conyers should have been censured, for his little
statement if not for the way it was delivered. The man is one step
short of the grave and sounded like he was fighting for words, as if
he'd just suffered a massive stroke. The shadow of the incumbent is a
powerful and nasty thing, wot?

--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

I must have the OP killfiled. Can someone please post me the original site
so I can read the story?

Steve

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:36:31 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"cavelamb" wrote in message
news:09CdnVbNlae2C1_XnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@earthlink. com...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not siding with the kid. But I'm opposed to
a
few things in this world, and one of them is taking the law into one's
own hands.



Someone please resolve for me the dichotomy of 'ignorance of the law
is no defense' with congress critters telling me they don't read the
bills because you need a team of lawyers to understand it.
Wes 2009

The principle is not exactly what some people think it is. In fact, in
Blackstone, the Latin phrase which means what you said ("ignorance of the
law excuses no one") was modified to "ignorance of the law which everyone
is bound to know, excuses no man." That's closer to what the law is in
most
countries today, including the US.

There have been successful defenses based upon ignorance of the law. See
Cheek v. United States, USSC 1991, and Lambert v. California, USSC 1957.
They're very rare, because the hypothetical situations people imagine when
they ponder this question are rare. Most crimes are committed with
knowledge, or approximate knowledge, that a crime is being committed. If
it's a case of administrative law, which can be illogical to a layman, and
arcane, most people who would be in a position to violate the law are also
in a position to question what the law actually is -- businessmen should
inquire with their legal counsel about matters relating to tax law, for
example.

A key issue in some cases is intent, and that is further hinged on the
question of responsibility versus negligence. You aren't likely to find
yourself in commission of a crime about which you had no reason at all to
believe was a crime. More likely, it would be a case of "you should have
known better," or "you had enough at stake that you should have asked a
lawyer."

None of which addresses Wes's valid question. What do legislators have
to do that is more important than reading and understanding the
legislation they vote to pass or not?

Aha. I see, after some searching, that you're referring to Wes's reference
to Conyer's statement in another thread. I rarely follow links if there is
no comment or description of what they're about, and I hadn't heard Conyer's
comment myself.

The answer to the question, I think, is that any bill that runs over 1,000
pages is a pile of junk. Conyers is right. And in retrospect, it looks like
Obama, in trying to avoid the buzzsaw that Hillary Clinton ran into nearly
two decades ago, has found *another* way to create a piece of nightmare
legislation.

I've read something like 160 pages of the thing, selectively, and it looks
like a horse designed by a committee. Turning the whole thing over to
Congressional committees was not the answer, either. It's so full of hedges
and compromises that it *would* take a team a lawyers days to figure out
exactly what it says.

I've been despairing about health care reform for a couple of months now. I
doubt if much is going to happen, because too many powerful interests don't
want anything to happen, in the first place. In the second place, any bill
this unwieldy is an invitation to fear and fear-mongering by those
interests, no matter what it contains. Nobody knows what kinds of traps and
pitfalls lie buried inside of it.

As for Congress voting on legislation they haven't read, that happens every
year, with the budget. It raises the question of whether this country is
governable in this complex age -- at least, with the structure of government
we now have. The real work is done by lobbyists and the bureaucracy, while
the legislative arms, mainly Congress, look more detached from it all the
time. They seem to vote by their sense of smell and the readings of the
polls.

It's probably going to take at least another couple of tries, IMO, and
another decade. In the meantime, we'll go broke if we don't do something, so
some patchwork bits and pieces will be enacted between now and then. Health
care could get worse. The entrenched financial interests, especially the
private insurance companies, don't care about that. They only care that the
money keeps flowing their way. And they've aligned their pitch with the
conservatives to make sure nothing much happens.

If I had to put my finger on one thing that has created this mess, I'd say
it was Obama's faith in bipartisanship. The insurance industry, Big Pharma,
and other medical interests have played that failed effort for all they're
worth, and they've almost succeeded in doing exactly what they wanted to
do -- stop the whole thing cold.

It looks to me like Obama is wising up to the fact that he's going to have
to be more like LBJ to get anything done. I hope it's not too late. But a
50-page bill can be sold and defended; a 1,000-page bill cannot. If the Dems
get over their infatuation with making nice-nice with the Republicans,
there's just a slim chance they can get something worthwhile done. If they
can't, we're screwed.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:42:21 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:

I must have the OP killfiled. Can someone please post me the original site
so I can read the story?

Steve

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...storyID=846949

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:42:21 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:

I must have the OP killfiled. Can someone please post me the original
site
so I can read the story?

Steve

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...storyID=846949


ty, sir.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:42:21 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:

I must have the OP killfiled. Can someone please post me the original
site
so I can read the story?

Steve

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...storyID=846949

Sounds like the VFW guys handled it admirably, and the offender manned up,
too.

Nuff said.

Steve

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:29:35 -0600, the infamous "SteveB"
scrawled the following:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:42:21 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:

I must have the OP killfiled. Can someone please post me the original
site
so I can read the story?

Steve

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...storyID=846949

Sounds like the VFW guys handled it admirably, and the offender manned up,
too.

Nuff said.

Yeah, Ed went off the deep end yet again this month. shrug

--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

So, now you're quoting a "reporter" who made **** up. Don't believe
everything you read on the internet.

Better than that, don't believe everything you think.

"vinny@work" wrote in message
...

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Dan wrote:

sittingduck wrote:
Kirk Gordon wrote:

None of us will ever be free
until we realize that patriotism is a rational, reasoned commitment
to
something that makes sense, and not a license to use slogans and
flags
to justify destructive nonsense.

Your average flag waver can go ahead and stick that flag right up
their ass.
It will keep their heads company.

Patriotic symbols have their place, but many use them like religion.
As long
as they have that to cling to, they can conveniently ignore logic,
reason,
and facts.

...and their OWN misbehavior.

Dan


I see that all the cowards and losers have spoken their small minds.
YAWN...


The fact that he did that has to be seperated from what was done to him.
Those people are not judges. Its no different than watching cops beat
people up.
Maybe they deserved it, but the cops have no power to judge and exact
sentence. If they did they would be in prison, where the people who taped
him up should be.

This has nothing to do with being patriotic or anything. Some dumbass did
something stupid and should of been arrested, maybe even sued.
But that's it.

I think that if there were more incidents of this "instant justice" so long
as it is not excessive, that this country would be a better place in about
twenty minutes. Respect is long gone. Manners are long gone. Morals are
long gone. And as long as people say, "Oh my kid wouldn't do something like
that" and "I'll discipline my own children (yeah, like that's going to
happen)" and "Society does not have the right to punish my child", we're
going to be in the ******** we are in. There need to be more on the spot
instant tune ups for some of these smart little ****ers who think no one can
do anything, and Mom and Dad will rescue them. So, they remain perpetual
adolescents.

Why, I remember the nuns at Catholic school wearing kids asses out with
belts. And they'd smack you with those rulers and pointers as well as any
Muslim doing a caning. Or with whatever they had in their hands. Even
public school teachers and officials taking belts to kids. They didn't take
**** out of kids back then. I remember one kid took a swing at a wrestling
coach ...... what a mistake that was. The coach decked him and told the
parents if they wanted to press charges, go right ahead, he had a class of
witnesses who would state he was defending himself from assault by their
ducktailed punk kid. The kid ended up in prison for most of his adult life.
Of course that was back when MOST kids treated their elders and superiors
with respect, and the kid got it again once they got home.

So, we did what we did, and we got what we got.

The NEA.

Steve

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:57:03 -0500, "Karl Townsend"
wrote:

Hmmm. A young man made a mistake. The local folks decided on proper
punishment, and he took it like a man. End of case.

I think that about sums it up.

SteveB wrote:

So, now you're quoting a "reporter" who made **** up. Don't believe
everything you read on the internet.

Better than that, don't believe everything you think.


Neither does Ed. He's trolling, as usual.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

SteveB wrote:

So, now you're quoting a "reporter" who made **** up. Don't believe
everything you read on the internet.

Better than that, don't believe everything you think.


Neither does Ed. He's trolling, as usual.

I see you stoopped in to take a dump, Michael. Plumbing backed up again?



--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

Do you wear that around your neck? You should. And then look in the mirror.

--
Ed Huntress

Cliff wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:29:02 -0400, "vinny@work" wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...
Dan wrote:
sittingduck wrote:
Kirk Gordon wrote:

None of us will ever be free
until we realize that patriotism is a rational, reasoned commitment to
something that makes sense, and not a license to use slogans and flags
to justify destructive nonsense.
Your average flag waver can go ahead and stick that flag right up their
ass.
It will keep their heads company.

Patriotic symbols have their place, but many use them like religion. As
long
as they have that to cling to, they can conveniently ignore logic,
reason,
and facts.
...and their OWN misbehavior.

Dan

I see that all the cowards and losers have spoken their small minds.
YAWN...

The fact that he did that has to be seperated from what was done to him.

Flag burning is legal.

If it's your own flag, otherwise it's destruction of private property.

David

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:33:19 -0600, the infamous "SteveB"
scrawled the following:


"vinny@work" wrote in message
...

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Dan wrote:

sittingduck wrote:
Kirk Gordon wrote:

None of us will ever be free
until we realize that patriotism is a rational, reasoned commitment
to
something that makes sense, and not a license to use slogans and
flags
to justify destructive nonsense.

Your average flag waver can go ahead and stick that flag right up
their ass.
It will keep their heads company.

Patriotic symbols have their place, but many use them like religion.
As long
as they have that to cling to, they can conveniently ignore logic,
reason,
and facts.

...and their OWN misbehavior.

Dan


I see that all the cowards and losers have spoken their small minds.
YAWN...


The fact that he did that has to be seperated from what was done to him.
Those people are not judges. Its no different than watching cops beat
people up.
Maybe they deserved it, but the cops have no power to judge and exact
sentence. If they did they would be in prison, where the people who taped
him up should be.

This has nothing to do with being patriotic or anything. Some dumbass did
something stupid and should of been arrested, maybe even sued.
But that's it.

I think that if there were more incidents of this "instant justice" so long
as it is not excessive, that this country would be a better place in about
twenty minutes. Respect is long gone. Manners are long gone. Morals are
long gone. And as long as people say, "Oh my kid wouldn't do something like
that" and "I'll discipline my own children (yeah, like that's going to
happen)" and "Society does not have the right to punish my child", we're
going to be in the ******** we are in. There need to be more on the spot
instant tune ups for some of these smart little ****ers who think no one can
do anything, and Mom and Dad will rescue them. So, they remain perpetual
adolescents.

Why, I remember the nuns at Catholic school wearing kids asses out with
belts. And they'd smack you with those rulers and pointers as well as any
Muslim doing a caning. Or with whatever they had in their hands. Even
public school teachers and officials taking belts to kids. They didn't take
**** out of kids back then. I remember one kid took a swing at a wrestling
coach ...... what a mistake that was. The coach decked him and told the
parents if they wanted to press charges, go right ahead, he had a class of
witnesses who would state he was defending himself from assault by their
ducktailed punk kid. The kid ended up in prison for most of his adult life.
Of course that was back when MOST kids treated their elders and superiors
with respect, and the kid got it again once they got home.

I was going to question your answering a small mind who would say
"should of been arrested" but your answer was one which should be
heard by everyone; in the USA at minimum. Bravo! clap, clap, clap
You nailed it right on the button.


So, we did what we did, and we got what we got.

The NEA.

And the whole world suffers for it.

--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

On Oct 1, 12:33*am, "SteveB" wrote:
"vinny@work" wrote in message

...







"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
om...

Dan wrote:

sittingduck wrote:
Kirk Gordon wrote:

None of us will ever be free
until we realize that patriotism is a rational, reasoned commitment
to
something that makes sense, and not a license to use slogans and
flags
to justify destructive nonsense.

Your average flag waver can go ahead and stick that flag right up
their ass.
It will keep their heads company.

Patriotic symbols have their place, but many use them like religion..
As long
as they have that to cling to, they can conveniently ignore logic,
reason,
and facts.

...and their OWN misbehavior.

Dan

* I see that all the cowards and losers have spoken their small minds.
YAWN...

The fact that he did that has to be seperated from what was done to him..
Those people are not judges. Its no different than watching cops beat
people up.
Maybe they deserved it, but the cops have no power to judge and exact
sentence. If they did they would be in prison, where the people who taped
him up should be.

This has nothing to do with being patriotic or anything. Some dumbass did
something stupid and should of been arrested, maybe even sued.
But that's it.

I think that if there were more incidents of this "instant justice" so long
as it is not excessive, that this country would be a better place in about
twenty minutes. *Respect is long gone. *

Right. And who do you suggest would do the decision making about what
is, and is not, "excessive?" Isn't that why we have due process? Or
are you one of those who think the world came to a screeching halt
after the writing of the second amendment? What's next, lynch mobs?

Manners are long gone. *Morals are
long gone. *And as long as people say, "Oh my kid wouldn't do something like
that" and "I'll discipline my own children (yeah, like that's going to
happen)" and "Society does not have the right to punish my child", we're
going to be in the ******** we are in. *There need to be more on the spot
instant tune ups for some of these smart little ****ers who think no one can
do anything, and Mom and Dad will rescue them. *So, they remain perpetual
adolescents.

Sure, and if a teacher, or, say, a store owner who caught YOUR kid
taking a five-finger discount (or, how about a store owner who THOUGHT
he caught your kid), kicked the crap out of YOUR kid, what would you
do?

Society most certainly DOES have the right to punish your child - we
call those things laws, due process, the justice system. Other
individuals most certainly do NOT have the right to take matters into
their own hands.


Why, I remember the nuns at Catholic school wearing kids asses out with
belts. *And they'd smack you with those rulers and pointers as well as any
Muslim doing a caning. *Or with whatever they had in their hands. *Even
public school teachers and officials taking belts to kids. *They didn't take
**** out of kids back then. *I remember one kid took a swing at a wrestling
coach ...... what a mistake that was. *The coach decked him and told the
parents if they wanted to press charges, go right ahead, he had a class of
witnesses who would state he was defending himself from assault by their
ducktailed punk kid. *The kid ended up in prison for most of his adult life.
Of course that was back when MOST kids treated their elders and superiors
with respect, and the kid got it again once they got home.

Oh yeah, the good old days. Yeah, I wish we lived in one of those
great countries where they cut of the hands of burglars and stone
prostitutes. Oh, wait, GWB decided to bomb them into being just like
us...


So, we did what we did, and we got what we got.

The NEA.

Right. Teachers are the root of all evil.


Steve

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:57:03 -0500, "Karl Townsend"
wrote:

Hmmm. A young man made a mistake. The local folks decided on proper
punishment, and he took it like a man. End of case.

I think that about sums it up.

One time, IIRC, Paul Harvey had on a piece on the radio about George
Washington, IIRC, or from about that era. (I say that a lot, so pardon me.
Mainly because I want to appear human about not remembering exactly, not
saying that everything I say is Gospel truth, and eliminating the need for
the anal to pick apart my post later.)

This was a very succinct (Characterized by clear, precise expression in few
words) description of how criminals should be handled, and how punishments
should be meted out. IIRC (that term again), the death penalty should be
carried out in less than seven days. It outlined crimes and the punishment
therefore. There was also some wording on the need for swift and consistent
justice in order to preserve the fabric and structure of society. It set
the punishment for rape, murder, etc.

Does anyone know of that document? I'd like to read it again. Will do a
little looking and see if I can find it.

Steve

rangerssuck wrote in rec.crafts.metalworking:

In this particular case, a professional reporter would have backed up
that "he was given a choice" statement with a properly attributed
quote. He did not, therefore we are left with a choice to either
believe that what the reporter wrote was true (without having a clue
who this reporter is), or believing that he made it up because it's
either what sounded good to him or it's what he thought he heard.


"Officially" - though I've often had serious doubts - reporters are
considered to be "human" and, thus, tend to hear what thay *want* to hear
and write their stories with the "spin" demanded by their editors. GRIN


--
I used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules.

"SteveB" wrote in rec.crafts.metalworking:

I think that if there were more incidents of this "instant justice" so
long as it is not excessive, that this country would be a better place
in about twenty minutes. Respect is long gone. Manners are long
gone. Morals are long gone. And as long as people say, "Oh my kid
wouldn't do something like that" and "I'll discipline my own children
(yeah, like that's going to happen)" and "Society does not have the
right to punish my child", we're going to be in the ******** we are
in. There need to be more on the spot instant tune ups for some of
these smart little ****ers who think no one can do anything, and Mom
and Dad will rescue them. So, they remain perpetual adolescents.

Why, I remember the nuns at Catholic school wearing kids asses out
with belts. And they'd smack you with those rulers and pointers as
well as any Muslim doing a caning. Or with whatever they had in their
hands. Even public school teachers and officials taking belts to
kids. They didn't take **** out of kids back then. I remember one
kid took a swing at a wrestling coach ...... what a mistake that was.
The coach decked him and told the parents if they wanted to press
charges, go right ahead, he had a class of witnesses who would state
he was defending himself from assault by their ducktailed punk kid.
The kid ended up in prison for most of his adult life. Of course that
was back when MOST kids treated their elders and superiors with
respect, and the kid got it again once they got home.

So, we did what we did, and we got what we got.


Ear-splitting, 200db+ cheering

Bravo, Steve!

Bravissimo Bravo!!!!!


--
I used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules.

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:57:03 -0500, "Karl Townsend"
wrote:

Hmmm. A young man made a mistake. The local folks decided on proper
punishment, and he took it like a man. End of case.

I think that about sums it up.

One time, IIRC, Paul Harvey had on a piece on the radio about George
Washington, IIRC, or from about that era. (I say that a lot, so pardon
me. Mainly because I want to appear human about not remembering exactly,
not saying that everything I say is Gospel truth, and eliminating the need
for the anal to pick apart my post later.)

This was a very succinct (Characterized by clear, precise expression in
few words) description of how criminals should be handled, and how
punishments should be meted out. IIRC (that term again), the death
penalty should be carried out in less than seven days. It outlined crimes
and the punishment therefore. There was also some wording on the need for
swift and consistent justice in order to preserve the fabric and structure
of society. It set the punishment for rape, murder, etc.

Does anyone know of that document? I'd like to read it again. Will do a
little looking and see if I can find it.

Steve

'Don't know what he was referring to, but I suspect Washington was referring
to justice under the law, not "justice" meted out by some yahoo who just
walked out of a VFW bar.

Hey, I did some checking on New York law and I see that there is plenty of
good reason for the good folks of Valley Falls to keep their mouths shut.
g If they claim that the flag is worth more than $250, it's a misprision
(failure to report a felony) not to report it to police. That's a felony
itself, which carries a prison term of up to three years for each individual
who knew about it.

But the real kicker is this: In six states, (New York being a little vague
on this point, but it appears that the principle applies), it IS a felony to
coerce someone to "perform work or other service, or to perform an act they
would not otherwise perform voluntarily" by threatening to turn them in to
the law. Who would have guessed? It applies only to non-law-officers.

The origin of the law was to prevent employers from coercing their
illegal-immigrant employees to work overtime, or whatever. But that isn't
what the laws say. They're pretty broad, and apply to ANY threat to "turn
someone in," as a coercion to get them to do something or not do something.

Veddy interesting. So if the flag was worth less than $250, all they had on
the kid was a misdemeanor. If they claim it was worth more, they could go to
prison themselves.

Now, all of the nonsense aside, one more objectionable thing here is that
tying the kid to the pole with a sign around his neck was intended to
humiliate him. That's a stupid thing to do, and it's why they've taken
humiliation out of almost all of our laws -- except for some sexual
offences, etc. And that's because criminologists learned long ago that all
you can accomplish that way is to create an enemy who will never forget it;
who is more likely to act in even more anti-social ways in the future; and
generally to be a bad example of behavior for everyone concerned --
including the soccer kids who were watching all of it.

Under the law, the kid most likely would have gotten some community service.
Say, cleaning up the grounds around the VFW, and painting the hall, and
other stuff. The punishment would have been constructive. The kid would have
felt the punishment, but the direction in which he was being pushed would be
toward recognizing that justice and "correct" behavior are about acting
responsibly and positively. All he learned from this exercise is that the
VFW is a bunch of pricks. Trying to break and humiliate him, they probably
just created more trouble for the community.

That's why vigilantism is illegal. It's why we don't allow justice to be
meted out by yahoos with no legal authority, or checks and balances, or
appeal to higher authority. One hopes that Normile learned *his* lesson,
which is that illegal behavior, no matter how "just" one may think it is, is
going to attract a lot of unwanted attention. And maybe a prison term.

--
Ed Huntress

"SteveB" wrote in rec.crafts.metalworking:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:57:03 -0500, "Karl Townsend"
wrote:

Hmmm. A young man made a mistake. The local folks decided on proper
punishment, and he took it like a man. End of case.

I think that about sums it up.

One time, IIRC, Paul Harvey had on a piece on the radio about George
Washington, IIRC, or from about that era. (I say that a lot, so
pardon me. Mainly because I want to appear human about not remembering
exactly, not saying that everything I say is Gospel truth, and
eliminating the need for the anal to pick apart my post later.)

This was a very succinct (Characterized by clear, precise expression
in few words) description of how criminals should be handled, and how
punishments should be meted out. IIRC (that term again), the death
penalty should be carried out in less than seven days. It outlined
crimes and the punishment therefore. There was also some wording on
the need for swift and consistent justice in order to preserve the
fabric and structure of society. It set the punishment for rape,
murder, etc.

Does anyone know of that document? I'd like to read it again. Will
do a little looking and see if I can find it.

Steve




Try the second Book of the Bible: Exodus.

It's in the Covenant following the first 10 Commandments.

One of my favorites states that if a son strikes his father the son
shall be put to death. This one TRULY reinforces the earlier commandment
to "honor thy father and thy mother".


--
I used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules.

"EIsmith" wrote:

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...storyID=846949


Two wrongs do not make a right. In the end, I hope the law calls it a draw.

Wes

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

SteveB wrote:

So, now you're quoting a "reporter" who made **** up. Don't believe
everything you read on the internet.

Better than that, don't believe everything you think.


Neither does Ed. He's trolling, as usual.

I see you stoopped in to take a dump, Michael. Plumbing backed up again?


You have a fetish for pluged up pipes? No surprise, after eating all
those red pencils.


Do you wear that around your neck? You should. And then look in the mirror.


You make no sense, as usual.




--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

On Oct 1, 1:40*pm, "Eregon." wrote:
rangerssuck wrote in rec.crafts.metalworking:

In this particular case, a professional reporter would have backed up
that "he was given a choice" statement with a properly attributed
quote. He did not, therefore we are left with a choice to either
believe that what the reporter wrote was true (without having a clue
who this reporter is), or believing that he made it up because it's
either what sounded good to him or it's what he thought he heard.

"Officially" - though I've often had serious doubts - reporters are
considered to be "human" and, thus, tend to hear what thay *want* to hear
and write their stories with the "spin" demanded by their editors. GRIN

--
I used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules.

None of which brings their version of the story, which David relied on
to prove his point, any closer to the truth.

On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:07:06 -0400, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

"EIsmith" wrote:

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...storyID=846949


Two wrongs do not make a right. In the end, I hope the law calls it a draw.

OK, the first wrong was the kid burning a flag. Please discuss the
second wrong. I don't see one. The parties involved could have
kicked the **** out of him but didn't. They talked to him he accepted
a social punishment. I don't see any wrong in that, and am happy that
the kid learned from his mistake without any legal repercussion.

Let's hope the Left leaves it alone. Voluntary humiliation is no civil
rights offense.

--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

Wes wrote:
"EIsmith" wrote:

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...storyID=846949


Two wrongs do not make a right. In the end, I hope the law calls it
a draw.

They should just have called the cops and then let an actual judge offer the
kid his choice.
Happens all the time, especially in small communities.

--
John R. Carroll

Larry Jaques wrote:

Two wrongs do not make a right. In the end, I hope the law calls it a draw.

OK, the first wrong was the kid burning a flag. Please discuss the
second wrong. I don't see one. The parties involved could have
kicked the **** out of him but didn't.

No the parties involved could only stop him from continuing the activity. Kicking the
**** out of him turns it into assault and battery.


They talked to him he accepted
a social punishment. I don't see any wrong in that, and am happy that
the kid learned from his mistake without any legal repercussion.

The 21 year has a problem. Assuming this is his mode of behavior when drinking, he needs
attention. Today a flag, tomorrow he gets stupid with a moving vehicle.

That is something for the legal system.

Now my first read gut feeling was urrah! ******* got what he deserved but after I thought
about it, I think the problem is not solved, at least not the kids problem.

Consider this, the kid get razzed about this, gets drunk to deal with it and does
something else stupid which gets an innocent party killed the next time.

Wes


--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller