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.

[XJarhead]

Honestly, I'm not sure. I thought it was. My understanding was that absent a flag desecration amendment, desecrating a flag was constitutional in this country. Am I wrong?

No. The Supreme Court forbids laws that outlaw flag burning as a form of political expression. You can thank Scalia for voting with the majority on that. Which, by the way, proves that he is the most principled justice on that Court. He hates flag burning, but believes it is constitutionally protected speech.

All that being said, I find nothing morally wrong with bopping a flag burner during a war. I'll pay my stinking fine in advance.

[jjm2111]

A sixty-three year old man beat up someone?? HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Those libs are such wimps.

[wtc911]

In NYS a slap is a misdemeanor, a punch is an assault. You can slap the snot out of someone as long as your hand stays open and it's like spitting on the subway.

[Chummy]

Hmmm, the flag desecrator, according to public records, will have a jury trial later this year for allegedly "standing on roadway" on January 25, 2003.

[tracer]

wellworthitbump....

[Chummy]

See my earlier post. The grip never left me.

[sheltonmac]

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

I admire the man's convictions, but physically attacking someone is against the law. Seems to be an open-and-shut case to me. He should be thankful he's only being charged with disorderly conduct.

[jjm2111]

You forgot the Peoples Republik of New Joisey.

[Dimensio]

I believe that certain cases of assault should be weighed with respect to the fact that the person who threw the punch (or kick or headbutt or elbow or whatever) may have been enraged through deliberate verbal taunts, however I believe that such a justificaion typically should only apply when such 'fighting words' are directed specifically toward the assailant beforehand rather than a general proclamation to all who might be within hearing range. A person holding up a sign that says "THE USA SUCKS", but doing no more than that, is not instigating a fight. So long as they do not directly taunt any individuals nor violate any laws, they should be allowed to continue standing there for as long as they want so that all may see what an idiot they are.

[steve in DC]

So you're not really implying that displaying the Confederate battle flag is really an invitation to violence, you're pointing out the hypocrisy in those who believe that displaying the Rebel flag is tantamount to hate speech, but who inexplicably believe that burning or defacing the U.S. flag shouldn't insult or hurt anyone.

Bingo!

BTW, I agree with Wardaddy that those with Confederate flag decals on their vehicles are the least likely people around to desecrate Old Glory.

And we have another Bingo!

Two bingo's on one card! Well played!

"a fortiori"

I had never heard that term before. Sounds like what I was trying to say, though.

Also, I am not implying that someone speaking that word (as references African Americans)that only Democrats may speak, is necessarily an invitation to violence, either. Only that the courts have held that to be the case.

Curiously, too, is that protestors can make threatening gestures, block traffic, throw bottles at police, etc. etc., and that is generally held to be the 'peaceful" exercise of their rights to free speach. Then a trucker pulls his rig up on a sidewalk, moving it towards a group of protestors, stops 10feet short of them, but they then felt "threatened" by his action, so he was arrested!

It would seem to me that, a fortiori, the trucker's action was no more than a "peaceful exercise of his free speach rights, as well. (Did I get that right? I hope I did.)

[Chummy]

I admire the man's convictions, but physically attacking someone is against the law. Seems to be an open-and-shut case to me. He should be thankful he's only being charged with disorderly conduct.

Please review the whole known circumstances, ie, the newspaper article published on this incident, the patriot's wife's statement posted in this thread, etc. Why did the Police Chief see that only Mr. Krasowski was charged -- when the responding officers cited both parties -- and why did said Police Chief then issue a memo to his department advising them of protecting the protestors?

[Dimensio]

No, I have not. None of my relatives who are veterans were killed in combat.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice.

Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

---

Barry's timeless words have never rung as true as they do today. Clinton's "moderate" policies in pursuing the terrorists responsible for the embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole resulted in the horrors of September 11.

[Dimensio]

If protestors are allowed to burn American flags in violation of existing laws regarding burning anything in a public place

While I would not be surprised to heave of such an incident, I confess that I've never actually heard of a public burning charge being dismissed specifically for this reason. I certainly don't believe that a person should be immune to laws against public burning simply because they were attempting to express an opinion through their act of burning, lest we start legitimizing acts of arson.

[PhilDragoo]

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

I raise this with Joel Christopher and will report response.

[sheltonmac]

"The patriot's act was an expression of free speech with which you may disagree, but an expression of free speech it is nonetheless."

So, as a pro-lifer, I can start shooting abortion doctors as an expression of free speech?

[dolander2002]

Meanwhile, in Portland, OR, which is ruled by the liberal party, the following was reported Tuesday:

"Bureau Deputy Chief Gary Warrington on Monday had ordered his downtown fire engines to remove the flags to prevent provocations of local anti-war demonstrators.

Fire Bureau on Tuesday rescinded an order to remove American flags from fire engines after hordes of complaints from the public and firefighters about taking down Old Glory."

Any wonder why I get so frustrated with this place?

[PhilDragoo]

Bill Gertz, Breakdown: How America's intelligence failures led to September 11, Regnery, 2002.

Robert Baer, See No Evil: the true story of a foot soldier in the CIA's war on terrorism, Crown, 2002.

Clinton replaced Sessions with Freeh and they stripped counterintel and counterterrorism from FBI operations.

Clinton replaced Woolsey with Deutch who said "I wanted to f--k 'em [CIA]", did that putting Nora Slatkin as DO.

Torricelli in 1995 forbade CIA recruiting agents with records.

Of course the Clintons are chummy with Arafat, the quintessential terrorists [Hillary smooching Suha after the blood libel].

[PhilDragoo]

According to Rush today the testicles on the mayor's desk found their way home.

A little attention from concerned citizens gets results.

Take heart.

[Stone Mountain]

Are you on the right thread?