Man Accused Of Punching, Kicking War Protester Who Was Carrying a Defaced U.S. Flag

WISC-TV ^

[Ronaldus Magnus]

WAUSAU, Wis. -- A man upset that a war protester was parading around downtown Wausau with a defaced American flag is facing a disorderly conduct charge after attacking the demonstrator.

The incident happened Monday afternoon outside the Marathon County Courthouse. Mike Wallschlaeger of Mosine carried an upside down flag with "EMPIRE" written across it.

A fellow demonstrator says a man got out of his car, tried to grab the flag, then pushed Wallschlaeger to the ground, punched and kicked him.

Wausau Police Chief William Brandimore says the right to free speech is protected, but disorderly conduct is not.

[Stone Mountain]

This is particularly so AS THE RESPONDING OFFICERS CITED BOTH PARTIES. It wasn't until the intervention of the Police Chief in which charges were not pressed, or were dropped from one of the parties, the apparent instigator.

Has this been sourced yet? Just wondering.

In any case, I don't understand why it's a problem just charging one of them - they acted in different ways. If it went down the way the article was written, it makes sense to me to charge the driver with disorderly if they didn't want to press something as serious as an assault charge.

[jjm2111]

"Judge: $5 fine. Next."

We wish. He'll prolly get some bleeding heart who will give him 30 days in jail.

[rattrap]

I'm not saying what he did wasn't against the law, but when you're passionate about something, and that something is insulted or defaced it can provoke and otherwise calm person to engage in an act that is outside the norm. He should be fined* for his actions, assault is a crime.

Though I personally agree with the "fighting words" interpretation of desecrating the flag, or that it should be interpreted as inciting a riot if done in full view of the public where plenty are bound to be angered. I'm not a judge, and I'm also not impartial enough to be one on this matter.

On another note, how often are the courts used to protect commies, socialists, America-haters and other lefties from being offended? It really should go both ways. If, according to the constitution, I have no right to be offended, shouldn't it work the other way?

*During or right after the flag case at SCOTUS one state attempted to impose a 20 some-odd dollar fine and nothing else on someone accused of punching a flag desecrator, unfortunatly it didn't get on the books

[wardaddy]

G-d bless Barry!

[jjm2111]

Cool, I didn't know that.

[PhilDragoo]

Police who responded said both men would face disorderly conduct charges, but Brandimore said later that only the man accused of committing the assault, Casimir Krasowski, 63, of Wausau would be charged.

[Chummy]

Dimensio: I'd love to hear someone try to make a case that desecration of the US flag can inflict severe psychological harm on observers.

What we obviously don't need is another "I burned my lap when I poured my hot coffee there" lawsuit. My point to your response was that physical harm or financial loss, as you mentioned, are not the sole arbiters of an offense, and used as but one example a spouse who cites mental cruelty in a divorce.

A comedian yells "fire" in a crowded theater, an expression of, to said comedian, a joke. Assuming no one falls for the inciteful ruse, that no one is trampled by the moronic act, there is neitherh physical harm, financial loss or, as you offer, an infliction of severe psychological harm on those hearing the call.

Is the act nonetheless wrong?

What is overlooked is that those anti-American protestors out there are expressing one quite very basic philosophy: their utter contempt for the United States of America and for which it stands, one nation under God.

Hiding behind the flag, like the "brave" Iraqis hiding behind women and children, is an act of cowardice and arrogance, and claiming freedom of speech is as inapplicable in such instance as it would be to the individual who shouts "Fire" in a crowded theater.

[Chummy]

Yes, Stone Mountain, see #177

[Ga Rob]

I believe there are consequences for all actions. The leftist communist got his just consequences...now the patriot will get his. I wish I could run up on some of these bastards....they'd be carried off in ambulance while I'm carried off in a cop car.

"Civil Disobiedience" works both ways.

[Catspaw]

Oddly enough, the Wallschlaeger guy is having a jury trial for a muni ordinace in Oneida county on 5/7/03 for standing on a roadway.

[GSWarrior]

If burning a cross can be a hate crime, certainly "defacing" an American flag should be.

Watch out. The assault on the peacenik could be construed as a hate crime.

[Stone Mountain]

Just saw your link in 177 - thanks!

[jjm2111]

I agree with the "fighting words" interpretation. Some speech is so egregious that a physical response is justified.

[Ga Rob]

If it was me it would have been because I hate them!!!

[PhilDragoo]

Michael Savage two days ago played the clip:

Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice.

Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

November 1965 LBJ refused the Joint Chiefs' request to bomb Hanoi and mine Haiphong.

That moderation cost 58,000 American lives and ended in defeat.

[Joe Brower]

Squantos, I like the way you think.

I'm going to keep that tactic in mind, should the opportunity present itself.

[Chummy]

The assault on the peacenik could be construed as a hate crime.

Well, assuming it went that way, and by some accounts it didn't, but just assuming: let's consider it "tough love."

[Stone Mountain]

Good point. But freedom of speech doesnt mean Freedom of Speech....without repercussion. An example would be telling a USSS agent that I wanted to kill a President. Im allowed to say it, but not without consequence. That is the point that I think is lost here.

Well, not on me. I just don't thinkg that consequences for expressing an unpopular political view should include being assaulted. I'm amazed at how many people here do.

[SpyGuy]

Before we go out of way to thank Mr. Christopher of the Wausau Daily Herald, I would like to point out the following:

Christopher writes, "[the] man who punched the war protester". Notice the liberal bias and spin? If the situation were reversed and it was a "anti-war" protester who attacked a flag-waving patriot, Christopher would very likely have written: "[the] man who allegedly punched..."

Also, another Freeper has pointed out that Mr. Krasowski's wife claims that it was the flag desiccator who first attacked Krasowski. Now, none of us here know what really happened as of yet (and we may never know the truth), so we can only speculate on who is telling the truth (although I'm more inclined to believe Mrs. Krasowski). But isn't it "interesting" how Christopher of the WDH was able and willing to quote the witnesses on behalf of the flag desiccator, but not the witness(es) on behalf of Mr. Krasowski?