Posted on 09/26/2009 10:12:55 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
VALLEY FALLS -- 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. Members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 1938 were incensed enough to tie up the man last Sunday after they accused him of setting the flag in front of their building on fire.
Post Commander Nick Normile, a Vietnam War veteran, said the man came into the post's bar Sept. 18 on Poplar Avenue and was eventually turned away for not having a proper ID.
Apparently angered, the young man, who Normile did not want to name, cut the rope of the American flag flying overhead and used a cigarette lighter to set it on fire, Normile and others said.
The man sat pilloried as the village had its fall youth soccer picnic with a long parade of children passing in front of him.
"He'll never disrespect the flag again, I can tell you that," Normile said.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesunion.com ...
It has always perplexed me why an outlaw, one outside the law, has rights. The law is for the law-abiding. Step outside the law and it should be open season on the outlaw.
The affected individual made a free choice to be duct taped to a flag pole. Since he made the free choice, there was no "unlawful imprisonment".
Nice try. Thank you for playing. Better luck next time.
Wrong! Please read the article.
The first of three choices was to report the matter to the police department (no violence there). The second choice was a "voluntary" bout (voluntary means no coercion or extortion). The third choice involved no violence at all.
Thank you for playing. Please try again later.
As a taxpayer and as a patriotic citizen, I applaud VFW Post 1938 for finding a just, constructive, and mutually agreeable solution to this criminal act without burdening our troubled justice system.
Since the offender was given a choice of his punishment, the first of which was reporting the matter to the local police department, it can hardly be considered vigilantism.
Thank you for playing. Please try again later.
Oh, and just in case you don’t know who our current president is, he’s an eloquent, amiable, advocate of peace and understanding... and also a radical leftist Chicago thug. So keep on railing against flag burners. Forget about the deficit, insane monetary policy, medicare,and wars that are also helping to bankrupt the country. It doesn’t matter, because Republicans will never do anything about all that.
No doubt some will laud this, but I find it despicable.
Well, if that happens, the people involved may develop a small but vocal following. But nothing will come of it.
Wrong! Please read the article.
The offender burned a flag that did not belong to him. That is destruction of private property and/or theft and/or vandalism depending on the local laws.
Thank you for playing. Please try again later.
First, the “other side” uses profanity, like your use of the word “bull. . . . .”, we are better than that.
Second, the guy burned a flag that was not his property, therefore he acted illegally.
Let's take a deep breath... Now softly say to yourself, 'I am not a wimp.' Repeat until you feel better about yourself. You'll still be a wimpy little boy but the the sting will be gone. If you ever grow up, you won't have to do this anymore because you will understand what it means to be a man and will treat other men accordingly.
lol..how easily the emotive become what they fear...priceless..well done
This is the sort of thuggish behavior we accuse the other side of.
Please read the article.
The offender was offered one of three options. Reporting the incident to the local police was the first option. The offender turned down that option.
Since both the offended party and the offender agreed to the third option, all that happened was an amicable arrangement between two parties to compensate the one for his losses.
I know very well who the current president is.
Your tirade doesn’t change the fact that the guy at the center of the story burned someone else’s property without their permission.
That’s arson.
That’s different from burning a flag owned by the burner.
He was also availed the opportunity to take advantage of the established legal system, which he declined.
What the heck do “deficit, insane monetary policy, medicare,and wars” and do-nothing Republicans have to do with any of that?
I’m coming to the conclusion your screen-name should be “dr-huh”.
You are the one who doesn't get it. Please read the article.
There were no "fisticuffs".
Two parties agreed to an amicable resolution that did not involve criminal complaints, unnecessary tax-payer funded legal expenses, or violence. It was a perfect resolution.
Ahh... The high water mark of reasoned debate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.