Audio: Mike Gallagher interviews the vet who cut down the Mexican flag
posted at 10:36 am on October 3, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Many thanks to Mike’s producer for passing this along. Yes, it’s really him. The lingering question: Why’d he go the vigilante route instead of calling the cops?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
The Founding Fathers bestowed upon us the writ of habeas corpus, a right to be enshrined and preserved.
During the Civil War, Lincoln, eschewing the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, whose caveat that the write could be suspended “in cases of rebellion or invasion” was somehow, magically, not enacted during th War of 1812, an invasion on such a grand scale that it included the burning, by enemy troops, of the White House and Capitol, decided that perserving habeas corpus, of which the founders were so found, wasn’t really that big of a deal.
Contradict-a-mania!
tad on October 3, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Tad,
Thank you for reproducing some relevant portions of the Flag Code. However, your conclusion is incorrect. There is a noted difference between “the Flag” and “representations of the flag”. A lapel pin is not “the Flag”, nor is a printed representation of “the Flag” not in actuality, “the Flag”.
You may indeed write on or next to a “representation of the Flag” you may not write directly on “the Flag”, you may not wear “the Flag” and you may not embroider with or upon “the Flag”. Making representations of “the Flag” is fine, but using “the Flag” in an inappropriate manner is against Federal law.
As for the Vet. I approve of his actions. I have actually done the same thing when I’ve come across similar situations. I didn’t leave with the owners property however, I hoisted the American Flag back up, folded the offending flag and gave it back to the owner and explained the proper legal method of displaying two flags on the same pole.
I think the “correct” thing to do would be for the local DA to cite the bar owner for the Federal Flag Code violation, and for the DA to cite Jim for misdemeanor theft (he should have left the flag, but apparently his emotions got the better of him). Let each party plead no contest and then let it be done with.
Jason Coleman on October 3, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Lincoln did not ignore certain laws just because he felt passionately about them. He did it to preserve the Union. At the point the Union dies, the question of Law is moot.
What this vet recognizes is the incremental deconstruction of America facilitated by the highest office in the government. He is obviously willing to pay the price, since he did not wear a face mask and gave his name to the camera
Similarly Washington, Jefferson and Adams were lawbreakers, not because they felt passionately but because they had reached a point that they were willing to face the gallows if they could not end injustices they declared to be insufferable. A tax on tea is survivable. Whatever could they have been thinking? Perhaps that under despotism what value a cup of tea?
entagor on October 3, 2007 at 1:49 PM
The difference is that the left is far less likely to take personal responsibility for their actions and suffer the consequences with grace. But to go back to your earlier question, if a liberal–say, and anti-war freak–stole a serviceman’s flag off his house as an act of passionate protest against the war, I would be very angry at the war protester for doing that. BUT, if the war protester calmly accepted his punishment under the law for trespassing and stealing someone’s private property, I’d actually calm down very quickly. I might even be forced to feel a teeny-tiny glimmer of respect for him for standing up for what he believes (even though he’s badly wrong) and then paying the price for his actions with grace. But can you see such a scenario happening? Not very likely. We see liberal protesters getting dragged away from political events for civil disobedience, and they do seem to accept the arrests as par for the course. But they don’t generally take their punishments with a sense of grace and personal responsibility. They usually display their displeasure by shrieking wildly at nearby cameras, eyes bugging out and spittle flying as they accuse the government of tyranny and oppression or whatever. Big difference between that and Jim Broussard.
aero on October 3, 2007 at 1:50 PM
conspiracy for illegals who pay to be smuggled into the country.
document fraud by illegals.
illegal re-entry into the United States of America after being deported .
Oh wait i’m sorry they already ignore those laws.
.
But hey selective enforcement of the laws is the status quo, Americans get hammered and illegals and their supporters get a free pass. Just look at the non enforcement of Elvira
skank.If it was me and I had multiple felonies I would be sitting in the grey bar hotel paying a lot for a lawyer or facing allot of time in the pen.
Mojack420 on October 3, 2007 at 1:50 PM
If you dont like America’s flag law’s, think they are to restrictive, whatever…then move……You would probably like Mexico…
doriangrey on October 3, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Seems to me that your hang up has more to do with not being able to use an American flag for a sleeping bag while your at the next Woodstock “making choices to put substances into your own body”.
Talon on October 3, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Yes, and if the right demands exceptions to the law for issues they care about then the left will demand the same. Everything creates a precedent.
Allahpundit on October 3, 2007 at 1:54 PM
The First Amendment, not, as you contend, a marine, protects only my right not to have my speech abridged by the United States government, specifically by a law enacted by Congress.
Interesting story:
The Founders believed in negative rights, which in their view were bestowed unto us by God, Providence, etc.
The United States government doesn’t grant me a right to freedom of speech. That right is inherent to man, whose freedoms cannot by restricted by an act of Congress and, by extension, the U.S. government as a whole.
tad on October 3, 2007 at 1:58 PM
AP’s right. If the bar owner presses charges and Broussard goes unpunished, it makes it okay for anyone to remove another person’s flag from their private property without consequences. If Broussard is allowed to take a flag to protest how it’s being displayed without punishment, then an anti-war freak can take a serviceman’s flag off his house to protest the war without punishment. If Broussard can take a flag because the flag’s owner is breaking the law with an improper display, then I can take a flag that’s not properly illuminated at night or is faded and frayed around the edges.
If the bar owner presses charges, Broussard will have to face the consequences. He seems to know this and is prepared to do so–that is what’s right.
aero on October 3, 2007 at 1:59 PM
AllahP, can you provide any links to where we held the left to the blatant disreguard for the laws governing our Flag? Or even demanded they be held responsible?
Mazztek on October 3, 2007 at 2:00 PM
I wonder why this proud supported of the Mexican flag did not try this little stunt a few weeks ago. Could it be he knew better then pull this stunt during street vibrations, when 30k bikers descended on Reno for a week?
Or was he making the statement Mexico is greater then the US after his customers were arrested at Mickey D’s by ICE.
Mojack420 on October 3, 2007 at 2:01 PM
You know d&mn well the cops will do absolutely nothing. Your suggested recourse is an illusion.
You just contradicted your entire argument. That’s exactly what this man did. So what’s the mystery?
Someone flies the Mexican flag in my town … it’s coming down one way or the other and I’m perfectly willing to do the time. It’s sad that there are Americans who don’t feel the same.
If Fred Thompson wants to win this election, the easiest way to do that would be to latch onto this story. Thompson should hold a press conference and pin the first ever “Fred Thompson Medal of Valor” on this guy’s chest, and he should state that if the current government is not interested in defending our borders and rewarding our heroes than he will take it upon himself to do so.
Gregor on October 3, 2007 at 2:01 PM
As an admitted drug user, Tad, I cannot trust anything you say as being lucid or sober.
Seek help for your addiction problems, before your irresponsibility gets someone innocent killed.
Mazztek on October 3, 2007 at 2:02 PM
I think our Founding Fathers would be proud of Jim the Vet. What he did, while technically illegal, was morally right. It’s not a quesiton of what the Left will think. Or any other comparison. The question is, Was it the right thing to do, taking it down?
Yes.
JetBoy on October 3, 2007 at 2:03 PM
THANK YOU Jim Broussard.
.
THANK YOU Jim Broussard.
.
THANK YOU Jim Broussard.
.
THANK YOU Jim Broussard.
.
THANK YOU Jim Broussard.
.
THANK YOU Jim Broussard.
shooter on October 3, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Tad says that Jim destroyed the Mexican flag…he did not. The only thing that was destroyed was the rope.
As for AP’s splitting hairs with the fact that everyone should be equally under our laws, I’ll tell you what: when ignorant, seditious people like this are treated equally under our laws then let Jim replace the rope. However, I’ll bet my bippy that the restaurant owner does nothing because NOW he knows HE was breaking the law. I guess he didn’t learn the laws when he went thru the process of becoming an American citizen–if he did. I hope he learned that there are better ways to support the “latino community” than flying the flag of a corrupt, third world country that he fled from above our own. (I doubt he learned anything.)
I can barely believe AP works for Michelle and not Arianna Huffington. But, stranger things happen all the time.
Christine on October 3, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Your poor syntax just resulted in your admitting to being a drug user. Congratulations.
On a related note, I neither use drugs nor drink.
I’m just not such an arrogant prick as to want to impose my lifestyle choices on others.
tad on October 3, 2007 at 2:06 PM
My apologies. It is a new rope, not a flag, for which the gentleman has to pay.
I should have been more clear.
tad on October 3, 2007 at 2:09 PM
The left already has the exceptions in ignoring immigration laws, in preferential treatment of churches under tax law depending upon which political side they lobby for. in forcing citizens to subsidize the medical care and education of illegals who are not deported because of these exceptions, of being able to pass laws that prevent the verification of citizenship for voting thus disenfranchising citizens with the votes of non citizens etc
Selective enforcement of the law is being practiced and managed from the White House on down. This fact is shown by the fact that the fence has not been built, that Chertoff could threaten that he would begin to enforce the law if the amnesty bill was not passed thus confessing he was not enforcing the law
I suggest the vet is reacting to these precedents with heroic defiance. Complaints about the government ignoring the law have gone unheeded for too long, so that the government can import a whole new crop of replacement citizens
entagor on October 3, 2007 at 2:11 PM
I disagree with AP about whether or not Broussard was justified and correct in his actions, and about his alleged nuttiness. I think Broussard was justified and did the right thing. I admire his decisive action and his willingness to take the consequences for his action. I do not think Broussard is a nutcase. However, I agree with AP about the fact that Broussard broke the law and should be prepared to take his punishment if it comes to that.
Please don’t mistake AP’s support for the rule of law as a liberal stance–I see it as just the opposite. In my perception, it’s a far more conservative thing to want laws to be enforced consistently and fairly than it is a liberal thing. If AP were a judge, he’d be a strict constructionist. That’s what we conservatives say we want in the people who interpret and apply our laws, yes?
aero on October 3, 2007 at 2:13 PM
NAMBLA feels the same way.
Talon on October 3, 2007 at 2:14 PM
No one is going to disagree with those points.
The guy still ruined someone’s property. Have him pay the $5.99 for a new nylon rope.
tad on October 3, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Well, Tad, I’m rather fatigued form a grueling work month. And, yes, I know it just started.
Frankly, your posts make you out to be the drug user. I know of no one that supports drug use while not doing it themselves.
And, thanks, because of the name calling, I win.
Mazztek on October 3, 2007 at 2:14 PM
If we are going to make list make a list of pacifists also.
Wade on October 3, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Agree. The Right must be in the right, or we lose the moral high ground. But the war won’t be won solely by political responses, or even the response of law enforcement. It’s like the Civil Rights struggle in my mind. Civil disobedience in objection to unenforced laws, rather than immoral ones. There are going to be skirmishes. One way to keep the number down is to enforce existing law, so that ordinary citizen-patriots are not confronted daily with lawlessness. If Jim Broussard could get down to that bar to set things straight, the police should have beat him to it. They should be doing that every day, all the time.
JiangxiDad on October 3, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Fair enough, but what would he do if the police/politicians did not enforce his rulings?
JiangxiDad on October 3, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Ya know, the Declaration of Independence was illegal in the eyes of the British Crown, which was the law of the land at the time. The American Revolution was an ongoing series of illegal acts according to those same laws.
According to the Founding Fathers, the purpose of Government and Law is to secure the “unalienable rights” given to us by our Creator. And also that Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.
Putting “The Law” above the rights and liberties that The Law is meant to secure for us is putting the cart before the horse.
infidel4life on October 3, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Another similar incident at UNM last month.
Mexican flag “accidently” left to fly alone for 2 days, then someone takes it down and cuts it in half.
University VP of Diversity writes apology letter to Mexico,
but no apology to American students.
Video:
http://www.koat.com:80/video/14154463/index.html
fred5678 on October 3, 2007 at 2:22 PM
So let me get this straight if I have to take pain killers for lets say oral surgery I’m a drug user and my opinions are skewed?
Is that what your saying or is it certain drugs your against?
Mojack420 on October 3, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Forgot the link to the apology letter, etc.:
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=85331
fred5678 on October 3, 2007 at 2:27 PM
1. Adults choosing, without coercion, to ingest what substance they want = adults coercing minors, who lack, both legally and in terms of mentally facility, the ability to enter into a consensual sexual relationship with a non-minor?
Seriously? That’s your argument? Why let people drink alcohol? How is alcohol any less dangerous, destructive, or unhealthy than is marijuana?
2. An adult’s coerced, non-consenual sexual relationship with a minor does harm to the minor by being abusive and by aggressing against the minor’s rights, such as the right not to have to accede to a sexual relationship to which the minor, lacking the legal and mental ability to do, cannot consent.
Is there a gray area? Probably. Should a sixteen-year-old be allowed to have sex with a twenty-two-year-old? I’d say it’s probably not the greatest idea, but there are certainly many happily married people, many of whom likely engaged in pre-maritial sex, who met a twenty-two-year-old partner when they were themselves sixteen.
But, leaving that aside, how is NAMBLA’s desire to screw children, who lack the ability to consent, even remotely similiar to an adult’s desire to do what he or she pleases with his or her own body, so long as they do not do harm unto anyone else?
If you drink and drive, jail will be your ultimate destination. The same should hold true for crimes committed while on drugs, which impair the operation of motor vehicles, judgment, etc.
But is the public put at great risk by someone who chooses to smoke a joint in their home?
C’mon.
tad on October 3, 2007 at 2:31 PM
I know of no one who supports wars in which they themselves do not fight.
Do you really want to go down this road?
tad on October 3, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Great post.
infidel4life on October 3, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Allah,
I realize your intentions were sincere, but you inadvertantly called the riasers of that flag bigots. For ANY group to view all others based on association of color makes one a bigot. I am sure you don’t base your judgement of say all hispanics to be “illegal” or all blacks to be criminals based on the actions of one. Therefore it would make sense that you would assume that others will not view “us” as being nuts by so-called association either.
Bearhopi on October 3, 2007 at 2:36 PM
We face selective enforcement of the law on a grand scale supported by the White House and a huge percentage of the Congress.
The exact percentage of Congress is uncertain because Congressional elections happen more frequently than Presidential elections, so party bosses will have to carefully assign yeas and nays to get some of their minions re-elected. Whenever I see a tie breaker vote I do not trust the votes to be a true measure of the representative’s intent.
Congressional votes are becoming more and more determinined by the positions of the earth, moon and stars to be delayed while the incumbent lies sufficiently to get re-elected.
There are still independent representatives in Congress like Tancredo, who are shunned as lepers by the bosses they will not obey
entagor on October 3, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Well, in this specific case, the fact that the local authorities did not enforce the flag law did not force Broussard to break a law to try to enforce the law himself. Therefore, the cops’ failure to enforce the law does not really factor into Broussard’s decision to commit theft, at least in a legal sense. The bar owner has still broken the law with an illegal flag display, and Broussard has still broken the law by taking someone else’s property. Each crime is in fact separate and stands on its own. Yes, Broussard would not have felt compelled to break the law if the authorities had done their job. But the full legal responsibility for Broussard’s actions still undeniably rests with Broussard and no-one else. The police did not force him through their inaction to do what he did.
In the general sense, I do not actually know how judges deal with police or politicians refusing or neglecting to carry out a judge’s rulings or laws in general. I would imagine the judge could order their arrest if their inaction directly violates a court ruling. In this case, I guess Broussard or another concerned citizen would have to press charges against local authorities for not enforcing the law….? Is that possible? Like I said, I don’t know. We have a few lawyers among HA’s regular commenters. Perhaps one of them will fill us in.
aero on October 3, 2007 at 2:39 PM
AP, the first thing to be done was to talk to the guy about his flying of the Mexican flag, not arrest him or give him a citation.
If that didn’t work, the police have a duty to enforce the law.
If police don’t enforce the law, and harm is being done, then it is permissible for a citizen to take steps to protect himself or others. In this case, no physical threat was in evidence. And the government, believe it or not, is not in the business of recognizing “feelings” as imminent physical threat.
In no case is vigilante “justice” actually justice. Vigilanteism is recognized as usurping due process. It’s wrong on its face. It’s not like we don’t have the opportunity for redress. The example cited above with the Boston Tea Party is different in the respect that the colonials did not have redress. They had taxation without representation and a whole host of other issues.
So while I admire this gentleman’s righteous anger and agree with his point of view, he didn’t have the right to take the law into his own hands.
Tennman on October 3, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Vigilante is a demeaning term to use for his heroic act. He exhibited common sense and balls.
darwin on October 3, 2007 at 2:47 PM
I think the sentiment in that sentence is what is being parsed here. The King did not force the colonists either. I guess one man’s “force” isn’t another’s. But somehow, I think we’re going to be seeing more of this. Maybe a new definition of “force”, and how much lawlessness citizens should reasonably take, will emerge.
JiangxiDad on October 3, 2007 at 2:49 PM
There is a glorious outcome from this incident – many have learned that it is illegal to fly anothe flag above the U.S. one. Wish this w/b discussed in the big media, schools, at all levels…a girl can dream now and then…
Entelechy on October 3, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Huh? So you’re saying that active U.S. soldiers are the only American citizens supporting the Iraqi war? What an odd statement.
Gregor on October 3, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Just linking this story….
Because ya know, he was stealing the flag from two people right? It was their private property and he should not have taken any action right?
But he should have done nothing, waited for the cops, and just left it at that right Allah?
Love ya man, really do, but sometimes I just don’t agree with you.
Voidseeker on October 3, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Taxation without representation, commonly considered to be theft, is a fairly good basis on which to seek redress, which the colonists, ruled by a capricious monarch residing across an ocean, had no way to exact legally.
Should they have repaid the British for the lost tea, now sunk within the ad hoc teapot of Boston Harbor?
Morally, yes.
At all events, what violation of his rights can the aggrieved Mr. Broussard claim?
The contravention of his right not to see Mexican flags flying atop those of this nation?
tad on October 3, 2007 at 2:59 PM
The point is Tad that the pervs in NAMBLA don’t see things the way you and I do. They do not believe that what they wish to do is harmful but they DO believe that you and I are arrogant pricks trying to force our lifestyles on them.
You agree then that the “do your own thing” mentality must have limits?
Like it or not, many Americans see a difference between pot and beer. If that ever changes, sale and possession of pot will be legal.
Back to the topic at hand.
You do not believe that what the mexican bar owner did should be illegal. You seem more upset with what the vet did. That won’t wash with the majority of the Americans I know.
I don’t know about you Tad, but when I travel outside of the country the sight of the American flag gives me comfort. If my desire to protect the symbol of the nation I love makes me an arrogant prick, so be it.
Talon on October 3, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Yep
The word vigilante is most used by President Bush to describe the Minutemen. The Minutemen are not lawbreakers. Our chief enforcer of Federal law, Bush, considers illegals to be ‘good people’ and Minutement to be ‘vigilantes’.
Therefore can we surmise a new definition of vigilante as someone who attempts by all legal means to prevent certain others from breaking the law, and attempts to protect private property from illegal tresspass, and attempts to monitor illegal activity and report it to the authorities?
Under this definition our vet is not a vigilante. He is not one of the ‘good people’ either.
Could he be – a Patriot?
entagor on October 3, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Have to admit Tad. I hated you’re posts at the start of this thread, But I like your logic.
Masscon on October 3, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Tad, the 1st Amendment means zero if no one will fight your right to open your pie-hole or post your opinions in written form. That’s why the 2nd Amendment is so important, and why our military is so important. Without their sacrifices you wouldn’t even be able to open your pie-hole or post your opinions in written form.
Yes, the ‘Creator’, as the Founders referred to the Higher Power, endowed us with “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Yes, that Right is inherent in man and endowed upon us by the Creator. However, people are also endowed with free will and they can act in despotic ways. Therefore, there are mechanisms set in place by our Founders — like a military because they are practical men as well — to ensure our Rights are secured. Without a military, which is called for in the U.S. Constitution, all you are doing is waxing philosophical rather than practical.
eanax on October 3, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Given Mazztek’s statements about “work,” it’s fairly safe to assume that the duties preoccupying him are of a civilian nature
Thus, he, though not a member of the armed forces, still supports something in which he himself does not engage.
I, too, support something in which I myself do not engage.
It was just a rhetorical point–nothing more, nothing less.
tad on October 3, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Jim should have insisted, on camera, that the police now come and cite him or arrest him. Then waited
jed58 on October 3, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Okay, I understand your point. I do however, find it hard to believe that someone who hasn’t used drugs themselves would support or defend participation in drug use.
I don’t really see the connection to non-soldiers supporting the war.
Gregor on October 3, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Actually, I think Mazztek’s a marine. I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong.
But your rhetorical point is nevertheless sound. One can support something in which he or she is not personally engaged.
aero on October 3, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Wonder if the klan/skinheads will start hanging out in this bar now?
jed58 on October 3, 2007 at 3:14 PM
In the face of the indisputable Mexican reconquestia of the south western United States the actions of Jim Broussard cannot conceivably be declared an act of vigilantism. They can only be seen as the actions of a citizen solider a militiaman acting out of conscience in the defense of his country. this is not and cannot be seen simply as a police matter, but as a matter of national sovereignty executed by a former member of this nations military, hence his qualification according to the US Constitution as a militiaman.
doriangrey on October 3, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Bigger question:
Will the ACLU defend Jim Broussard if he is charged?
eanax on October 3, 2007 at 3:17 PM
If charged or cited, maybe he can insist on court trial and have something like this as his defense
jed58 on October 3, 2007 at 3:18 PM
He11 no…They’ll be suing him on behalf of the bar owner who flew the Mexican flag.
doriangrey on October 3, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Surely.
When one’s actions pose a threat of harm or aggress against another’s rights, the threshold between what is,
to use your phrase, the “do your own thing mentality” and what is in the best nature of society as a whole has been crossed.
Explain to me how a consenting adult who choses to use a drug, any drug, is violating the rights of others?
I’m not talking about crimes committed by people under the influence of drugs, the presence of which does not mitigate the crime’s having been committed.
Drinking and driving is illegal not because alcohol, rather than marijuana or another substance, is involved, but, rather, because the act of drinking and driving puts other people at risk, aggresses against them, and violates their right to personal safety.
Those crimes committed by those people under the influence of drugs, whether impaired driving or another legal infraction, are criminal offenses because a violation of rights has occurred, not because of the presence of a substance.
Driving while tired can result in impairment, which can cause traffic accidents, some even of a fatal variety.
Should we make it illegal for people not to get enough sleep, just because there exists the possibility that sleep deprived people could operate a motor vechicle?
That solution, while attractive to some, fails to take in account that the illegality rests with the action, not with the actor’s mental state, which can be as easily impaired by drugs as by a host of other factors, including sleep deprivation, mental illness, etc.
Some people commit crimes, the actual violation of another’s rights, while on drugs; others, while drunk; still others, stong-cold sober.
The substance no more caused the crime than did a person’s background, which could include sexual abuse, physical abuse, etc.
Crimes are a violation of rights. Crimes should be prosecuted. But how, please tell me, is a person’s doing drugs, in the absence of any actual criminal behavior, a violation of another’s rights?
tad on October 3, 2007 at 3:32 PM
If Mazztek is a Marine, I apologize. My intention was not to insult him.
tad on October 3, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Often we find ourselves standing around doing nothing, and accomplishing nothing. He did something, if you don’t like it file a suit, or protest…but don’t whine about it.
Taking action, and maybe making a mistake, in this case is better than standing by and analyzing options. Sometimes it just makes sense to act.
right2bright on October 3, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Amen! Preach it Brother!
infidel4life on October 3, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Most commenters here seem to identify with Broussard’s frustration, and cheer his ability to take some action. I think others wonder when/if the time will come that they will be “forced” to do the same. It’s not a pleasant thought, but maybe necessary. You, on the other hand, seem satisfied with clever talk. I haven’t seen you offer viable solutions.
Try talking with la Raza, or visit your local mosque, and suggest a debate. Bring along a joint, or not, or discuss the moral shortcomings of the colonists at the Tea Party. See if you prefer the rhetoric and logic and intelligence of our enemies. If yes, stay. If not, come back. And thank a serviceman if you see one.
JiangxiDad on October 3, 2007 at 3:53 PM
US Marine Reservist, 17 years, 6 active. MY work is from my military training, 2862, a GDCMT, and in my civ job I repair sat-comm modems.
I was working.
Mazztek on October 3, 2007 at 3:55 PM
The only difference I see here is that what the bar was doing was illegal, and that’s a fairly large difference. I’m still not arguing in favor of vigilantism.
However, there do seem to be some legal exemptions when someone is stopping another from breaking a law. I mean, setting “aboot” someone surely isn’t legal in most circumstances. This isn’t to say that the two are equal in any other way except that both stopped a crime.
Esthier on October 3, 2007 at 4:07 PM
He’s on Cavutos show now . . .
Texyank on October 3, 2007 at 4:19 PM
So a man disarming a thug who’s using it to rob a liquor store is wrong, since the gun is the property of the thug?
Makes sense to me. Damn vigilantes!
Oh wait. This lawbreaker was on his own property? So if a sniper was picking off citizens from that bar, would it be wrong for a marine to bust through the back door (breaking and entering) and yank the guy’s rifle (property) out of his hand, or would he be just another pathetic vigilante?
This entire argument is stupid. The cops weren’t doing their job. The flag was illegal. The Veteran put a stop to a crime. Period.
Gregor on October 3, 2007 at 4:59 PM
DING we have a winner!
Oh, and it really isn’t a big knife. I don’t get so many people saying that. It is an average sized sheath knife with about a 7″ blade (I had one just like it). While larger than a typical pocket knife, it is smaller than a typical butcher’s or chef’s knife found in most everyone’s kitchen.
deepdiver on October 3, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Absolutely perfect!
Gregor on October 3, 2007 at 5:09 PM
I disagree. He did it just fine. I would prefer that he calmly inform the Mexican pos that the manner in which the American flag is being displayed is inconsistent with Federal guidelines, but cutting it down was probably faster and no one seemed to take great offense.
Jaibones on October 3, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Congress or the President won’t listen or take action. Then this is bound to happen and I think it will get worse.
xler8bmw on October 3, 2007 at 7:08 PM
There are only two possibilities:
1) AP will do anything for traffic-the more “outrageous”, the better. Or
2) AP has had his lunch money stolen way too many times and never learned how to fight back. I pick #2. Seems like the kind of “guy” who would let some lout abuse his mother/ girlfriend/ little sister, and then squirm away with thoughts of a law suit in his head. Guess what? Some people stand up for what they believe in, and take action. It’s also illegal to swat some #sshole for insulting your wife, but there are those of us who would…
JWS on October 3, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Please. Stop the banging the libertarian/devil’s advocate drum for once. If I were to fly a Mexican flag over a US flag in the US, and a liberal rectified that situation, I would be shocked and say, there is a God after all – even a liberal can be patriotic, who would have thought!
That man may have committed a crime, by violating the letter of the law, but he did not violate the spirit of the law, and it is the spirit of the law in which those letters are written. People forget that. His actions were more than morally mitigated by his motives in defending the honor of his nation, and in rectifying an already existent illegal situation. If all crime was this type of crime, there would be no need for police.
If this is vigilantism, then the West, especially America, needs more vigilantism. Much more. How many times do we hear of someone being beaten or killed while onlookers do nothing? Just this week, a man was beaten with a brick for 7 minutes while onlookers watched. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Do not look to the minions of the state to save itself. Calling the police for something like this, or to stop a beating already in progress, is tantamount to doing nothing. And in that vacuum of indifference, or indecision, a man is killed, a flag rallies sedition, society is sucked into oblivion. Carpe Diem.
Apathy, not direct action, is the death of any democracy and it is threatening to be the death of America. Those that fret over patriotic vigilantism at a time when they also know that the republic is suffering a death of a hundred million cuts of indifference, surely are, as illustrative of the disease of cognitive dissonance as can be found.
jihadwatcher on October 3, 2007 at 8:50 PM
While I admit that I didn’t read all the responses here,I’d have to say that the reason this Guy didn’t go to the cops was because in cases like this cops are less than useless.
In fact,unless you are raped in front of them WHILE THEY ARE LOOKING at you,and for the most part,not even then,cops are useless….
Allah,I feel bad for your recent surgery, but I can one-up you…had ALL of my teeth taken out after a particularly horrific mugging that broke my entire face…and cops were there to deny my rights and NOT get me into an ambulance…
Sorry for the rant all,but there are times that it’s so very tiring hearing a hero questioned
Blitz on October 3, 2007 at 10:15 PM
I would argue it was his responsibility–as well as that of innumerable other people who saw federal law being broken and did nothing about it.
urbancenturion on October 4, 2007 at 12:36 AM
Perhaps because they have been emasculated by the leftie lawyers?
I hope this brave Vet does not have to go to court for his actions. But if he does, I’ll donate some hard earned greenbacks to his defense.
Texas Nick 77 on October 4, 2007 at 6:09 AM
Hey cs, glad to see you are still here. I didn’t see your post in the Fred/Jeri thread. I hope all is well with you & the family.
And I’m still anticipating the single malt Glen Morangie
Texas Nick 77 on October 4, 2007 at 6:20 AM
And had the police done their job, Jim Brousard would not have had to do it for them.
Texas Nick 77 on October 4, 2007 at 6:23 AM
tad on October 3, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Not to mention the wanton desecration of millions of flags daily by the US government. SOMEBODY STOP THEM NOW!
Big S on October 4, 2007 at 8:17 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2