Flag vigilante: If cutting down flags is wrong, I don’t want to be right
posted at 9:59 am on October 5, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
From Fox & Friends, it’s the vigilante himself, Jim Brossard, representing nearly everyone who reads HA and some lawyer opposite him representing me. I like the latter’s point about how Brossard broke the law himself by failing to remove the flag without proper ceremony, especially vis-a-vis Brossard’s suggestion that the only thing he did wrong here was behave contrary to political correctness. It’s not a question of correctness, it’s a question of law, order, and property rights.
But never mind that. There’s some red, red meat rhetoric here about encouraging Americans “to take back our country” and to do so “quickly and decisively,” which always sounds reasonable coming from a guy known to display a large knife. I won’t waste any more of your time with blather, though. Enjoy.
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: 1 2 3 4 Next »
Excellent AP! Let that inner Moonbat out…you’ll feel better for it.
It’s not about a guy who doesn’t speak English, displaying a Mexican flag above an American flag and figuratively flipping off the entire country where he had decided to live. It’s about the proper procedure for removing the America flag that is being treasonously displayed, here in America.
Because if we can’t be sticklers in the procedures used to correct treasonous displays of our national flag, then law and order are meaningless.
Next up — a vote for Hillary in order to keep those hateful Christians from putting yet another hypocrite abortion clinic bomber in the Oval Office!
Jaibones on October 5, 2007 at 10:06 AM
Dude, grow up. It’s a flag, not some sacred, untouchable object.
Enrique on October 5, 2007 at 10:11 AM
What jury in the US would convect him?
TheSitRep on October 5, 2007 at 10:11 AM
im with you AP. i mean, i dont even think there should be any laws governing use of flags in this country, that just seems unnecessary…either way you cant just run up on someones stuff and wreck it.
ernesto on October 5, 2007 at 10:11 AM
No, it’s about respecting the law of the country you live in enough not to think you get a special exemption from it. That’s sort of what illegals do, isn’t it? They know they’re not allowed to cross the border but they cross it anyway because, well, they really, really want to. Just like Brossard and his flag. You’re the moonbats, not me.
Allahpundit on October 5, 2007 at 10:12 AM
Allah – I must reluctantly agree with you, that it’s a question of law, order and property rights. But I’ve gotta say, although I did like what this guy did as an isolated incident – it is wrong to assault another person’s private property and this was not the proper course of action to take. Those of us who wish to see proper respect for our country and our flag should organize lawful protests and demonstrations or whatever else we can do, lawfully, to bring attention to this matter.
reine.de.tout on October 5, 2007 at 10:13 AM
NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
How dare they desecrate the flag like that! Treason! THIS MUST BE STOPPED!
Big S on October 5, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Allahpundit – you do not DESERVE an iPhone. May you never get one in this life. May the price drop till you have no excuse not to BUY one for yourself. Then may they always be sold out.
I am sure that the “vigilantes” that tossed the tea, did so unceremoniously. I am sure that the marches in Selma were not in formation, though they were “armies marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before.”
Ceremony. You have got to be f*%king kidding.
Agrippa2k on October 5, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Right on Mr. Brossard!
Civil disobedience by leftist dissenters made cowards out of a pandering congress during the Vietnam war, so why shouldn’t the right be applauded for similar tactics?
rplat on October 5, 2007 at 10:16 AM
Heh. Do you think he is going to be prosecuted? Me neither. Overnight folk hero, they’d put him on the mantle right next to your other favorites Ramos and Compean. The justy imprisoned for 11 and 12 years Ramos and Compean. Imagine how many hollow news conferences DHS will have to go through to convince the American people they are enforcing the law.
Theworldisnotenough on October 5, 2007 at 10:16 AM
Poor Allahpundit. All too clever by half.
I wonder, had this gentleman called the Police, would they have lawfully pulled down the flag? Who, then, would sue the Police department for “unceremoniously” removing the flag?
Agrippa2k on October 5, 2007 at 10:17 AM
No, I’m not kidding, because ceremony is what all of Brossard’s defenders have been using to claim that he was basically just enforcing the law here. There’s a statute that says the American flag must always above a foreign flag on the same staff; that statute is part of the same body of laws that says the flag must be removed with proper ceremony. If you’re a stickler for one, be a stickler for the other.
Allahpundit on October 5, 2007 at 10:19 AM
are u serious??? boston tea party, selma…honestly how dare you compare those genuine acts of heroism to something as trivial as a bearded lunatic with a ka-bar cutting some mexican’s flag.
you, agrippa, have got to be f*%king kidding.
ernesto on October 5, 2007 at 10:19 AM
If the business owner had rightfully protected his property with a firearm and shot Mr. Brossard, would he be the villain in this tale, or the hero?
Slublog on October 5, 2007 at 10:19 AM
No, because those laws are unenforceable. They’re on the books but they carry no penalty, mainly because they’d be found unconstitutional if they did.
Allahpundit on October 5, 2007 at 10:19 AM
A false dichotomy.
Jim Brossard is a private citizen. The 1st Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution, which pertains solely to government, specifically the federal government.
The flag owner was well within his 1st Amendment rights to fly the flag above the American one; and Brossard was well within his 1st Amendment rights to cut it down. And the flag owner is also well within his 1st Amendment rights to then haul off and knock the guy out for cutting up his stuff (although it’s none too wise to swing at a man holding a large knife).
Brossard definitely broke a law or two, but the rights granted the citizenry by the Constitution don’t factor into it.
Harpazo on October 5, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Not sure who’d convect him, but they might convict him. :)
amerpundit on October 5, 2007 at 10:21 AM
You don’t have any First Amendment right to interfere with someone else’s property. If I have some objection to testing cosmetics on animals, do I get to come in your house and bust up all your wife’s make-up?
Allahpundit on October 5, 2007 at 10:22 AM
I’m with Allah on this one. Much as I appreciate the guy’s spirit, strong feeling doesn’t give you the right to break the law.
Farmer_Joe on October 5, 2007 at 10:27 AM
Harpazo on October 5, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Jim Brossard’s beard offends me. If I ever see him on the street, I’m going to cut it off. I’ll claim 1st amendment rights.
Big S on October 5, 2007 at 10:27 AM
How do you use proper ceremony to remove a flag that has been improperly displayed to begin with? Just cut it down and start over.
packsoldier on October 5, 2007 at 10:27 AM
Was this a promise? If so, you broke it here:
When your government has failed to fulfill it’s mandate, it is incumbent on citizens to rise up and take their country back. I doubt that scumbag Mexican raised that flag or would have removed it with the ceremony that was required even IF the police had done their job and told him to remove it. I have seen soldiers take down US flags in the same way and sometimes we should let it pass to serve the greater good. Should he have had a couple buddies help? Sure. But even at that, I have never seen a procedure explained how to remove an American flag in that situation.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 10:29 AM
If you are testing cosmetics on animals in public, in front of me and it’s against the law then yes, I do have a right to “bust you up”. At some point, Americans are going to get pushed over the edge because they sit back and follow law after law while others around them flip us all the bird. There will be a breaking point because politicians and judges refuse to do the right thing. Burn a cross in your own yard every day when you have black neighbors and you don’t think at some point someones going to come over and kick your a##? I’d be there to help them. We try and be civil and pass city ordinances (like in Flower Mound, TX) and what happens…some looney left judge says the laws passed by the people of the city are unconstitutional. Again and again we try and follow the laws and every single time it’s thrown back in our face. All I’m saying is that everyone has a breaking point and ours as a country is coming soon if the politicians and lawyers don’t stop jerking us around.
b4itsover on October 5, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Whether he violated some law or statute is of no importance. It was an act of the heart and conscience and as long as he knew and accepted the consequences then a trip through the Constitution and a pile of law books is irrelevant.
rplat on October 5, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Thomas Paine comes to the defense of AllahP…
‘He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.’
That said…
Jim has Chutzpah!
Limerick on October 5, 2007 at 10:32 AM
If I saw a Palestinian flag flying above Israel’s Star of David on the same mast I’d cut that thing down with my teeth if need be.. I’m boiling just thinking about it.
‘law, order, and property rights’ – This is crazy PC talk. What if that was a Saudi flag? A Nazi swatika flag, or a Hezbollah flag? Still deserving of law & order? Where is the line drawn.. I say just cut it & be done wih it.
saus on October 5, 2007 at 10:35 AM
It’s “PC” for conservatives to support law and order. We’re officially through the looking glass.
Allahpundit on October 5, 2007 at 10:36 AM
It doesn’t matter what type of flag is being flown. If it’s on someone else’s private property, you don’t have the right to vandalize it.
Private property rights are fundamental, and should be respected.
Slublog on October 5, 2007 at 10:37 AM
I’d like to buy Jim a beer or three.
This is one of those times when doing the right thing trumps the letter of the law.
infidel4life on October 5, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Just because what he did was wrong in the eyes of the law doesn’t mean I didn’t like it.
matd on October 5, 2007 at 10:38 AM
I didn’t realize that like Madonna, ZZ Top had wannabes.
Bigfoot on October 5, 2007 at 10:40 AM
That logic will get you in trouble, kid.
Big S on October 5, 2007 at 10:40 AM
He violated another citizen’s property rights. How is that “doing the right thing?”
Slublog on October 5, 2007 at 10:40 AM
i woulda done the same thing as this patriot, even if its wrong.
as he said of all the things to be wrong about this is one i would do jail time for. :)
the display of another country’s flag above the one of the host country is just wrong on so many levels screw “law”
i would bet you if you flew the US flag above the mexi flag in mexico it would get you killed not just straightend out by a true patriot.
sorry ap but some of us are just wired a little differnt i guess. :)
trailortrash on October 5, 2007 at 10:40 AM
If you see a person setting fire to their own house….do you have the right to stop them??
Testing cosmetics on animals is LEGAL so your analogy is flawed.
Talon on October 5, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Oh, good heavens.
Slublog on October 5, 2007 at 10:41 AM
One shouldn’t confuse the “law” with issues of morality or what is right or wrong.
rplat on October 5, 2007 at 10:42 AM
How many times do we go to the UN about Iran before we decide something has to be done about them? Shouldn’t we also follow international rules and law…ALWAYS? At some point someone just has to do something…before it’s too late. And I’ll argue again, you do not have the right to do things on your private property that can incite other people…and I would call placing any other countries flag over the U.S. flag very inciteful to many, many Americans, especially someone that has served this country in battle.
b4itsover on October 5, 2007 at 10:43 AM
Brossard righted a wrong and the difference between him and that scumbag business owner is that he is willing to accept the punishment for his act. I doubt that scumbag Mexican would be willing to press charges if it meant having to stand before a judge and swear out the complaint in open court.
Brossard’s act was more a message to politicians, open border activists, and patriotic Americans who are tired of watching the illegals openly brazen attempts to make the southwestern United States a part of Mexico.
And just like the patriots who tossed tea into Boston harbor, Brossard broke the law in perfect relativity to the insult to the citizenry.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 10:43 AM
Sublog -
He’s be the villain. Because he’s the guy flying the Mexican Flag. Mr. Brossard would then be the hero, well – martyr really, shot by some Anti-American Mexican. Now, If it were the other way round and Mr. Brossard was the store owner – flying the American flag over the Mexican flag – then shot some illegal alien who came to cut the Mexican flag down – he’d still be the hero and the Mexican the villain. Immigrants fill out the paperwork and wait in line like everybody else. Immigrants are essential in the American tapestry. ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE CRIMINALS AND INVADERS. I guarantee there will be more Mr. Brossards in the near future. Knives are only the beginning.
NeoConSnakePlissken on October 5, 2007 at 10:44 AM
I think we need to find out which candidates will sign a pledge to enforce the Flag Code.
Big S on October 5, 2007 at 10:44 AM
So you don’t believe it’s wrong to vandalize another person’s private property?
The founders had a lot to say about private property rights. The flag? Not so much.
Slublog on October 5, 2007 at 10:44 AM
He should dress as OBL on Halloween.
Brat on October 5, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Not if you violate the law and, for example, don’t pay your taxes. What do you think happens to your property then?
eanax on October 5, 2007 at 10:48 AM
So the fact that this “anti-American Mexican” would have been legally protecting his property, a right enshrined in the Constitution, means nothing?
His being Mexican and flying the flag trumps his right to defend his property?
Slublog on October 5, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Yeah just ask Hamilton, Jefferson, Washington, etc. Let alone Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King.
Doing the right thing will get you in trouble…just ask any leader.
right2bright on October 5, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Irrelevant to this case. The store owner is a citizen.
Slublog on October 5, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Slublog on October 5, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Apparently you didn’t get the memo. We’re supposed to confiscate others’ property for the good of the country.
Big S on October 5, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Dude, grow up. It’s a flag, not some sacred, untouchable object.
Enrique on October 5, 2007 at 10:11 AM
ChrisIansNana on October 5, 2007 at 10:52 AM
If only he didn’t have the ZZ top beard then maybe I’d be a bit more enthusiastic about what he did. As it is, he is a caricature of the red-neck, knife totin, good ole boy that the left likes to paint us as.
Keli on October 5, 2007 at 10:52 AM
I’m not sure how ceremony of the flag has anything to do with this. It seems to me that ceremony was not observed when the flag was raised over Iwo Jima. Ceremony should be observed whenever possible—during ceremonies. Somehow “bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night that our flag was still there” seems to lack ceremony. That flag was shot up pretty bad and I don’t recall anyone being prosecuted for it.
So apparently there are times when the flag may be unceremoniously handled when the situation calls for it. I think Mr Brossard was acting in a manner reflecting the current duress that the flag was subjected to and therefore is innocent of not performing ceremony while “rescuing” the flag. Cite the owner of the bar for failing to display the flag properly and give Brossard a citizenship award. Case closed.
Guardian on October 5, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Around here, they would have. I saw one of those ginormous flags they fly from the cell towers last year, and it was ripped in half horizonally, right down the center.
I called the city and then the DOT (because I didn’t know it was a cell tower, and figured it was a city pole), and the DOT guy I spoke to reassured me that I wasn’t being silly for caring, said it was actually a federal offense, and he took care of it.
He contacted the cell company, who took it down the next day, and it was replaced within a week.
Have a tiny bit of faith in your civil servants. You guys aren’t the only patriots on the planet.
Tanya on October 5, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Keli on October 5, 2007 at 10:52 AM
We’re doing a fine job of rollin’ in that paint ourselves, it seems.
Big S on October 5, 2007 at 10:53 AM
So you would support vigilante action on behalf of the government to confiscate property from law-breaking citizens?
Slublog on October 5, 2007 at 10:54 AM
You couldn’t be MORE WRONG. IT IS OUR FLAG. ONLY those who don’t respect all that it stands for would say crap like this.
.
Allahpundit, take a month off, will ya? Your liberal arse is shinning like you were in SF.
shooter on October 5, 2007 at 10:54 AM
I ain’t your kid.
infidel4life on October 5, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Yeah, there’s another fine conservative principle being honored by Brossard’s defenders. To sum up thus far: (1) law and order is “PC”; (2) it’s okay to confiscate property if you feel strongly about it. Good stuff.
Allahpundit on October 5, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Perfect.
Allahpundit on October 5, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Yes, yes the flag IS sacred. Just think about all those who fought and died under it. It does mean a great deal to us, as it should. It was, after all, bought and defined with American blood and sacrifice. Defacing it is no different than defacing a war memorial to US soldiers.
Gatordoug on October 5, 2007 at 10:56 AM
You’ve seen soldiers take down a flag and then crumple it up in their fists? I highly doubt that.
Tanya on October 5, 2007 at 10:58 AM
I’m pretty sure it was illegal to dump other personage’s tea into a harbor. Private property rights and all.
Darksean on October 5, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Red herring. I’m blowing a hole through your argument that property rights are fundamental. They’re not.
So, go ahead and don’t pay your taxes, and then see how fundamental your property rights are.
eanax on October 5, 2007 at 10:59 AM
AP Through the looking glass? This is not a property rights issue, the property was not at issue, nor was its display denied.. the manner in which the property was displayed (illegally from what I understand) is the issue and then its removal.
That flag was flying above the public street, accessible directly from the street, and meant clearly for the public, as a public statement. I’m not a US lawyer, but that business owner broke the very spirit of law & order, there was nothing particularly chaotic about removing the flag, calling this a breakdown of law & order is PC bullsh*t.
If I’m displaying that ugly miller beer / folsom street fair ad banner size across my private balcony which faces a senior citizens Church, am I within the law? Within my rights, or just being a legally allowed ass? Give me a break with the holier than thou law & order bit. Laws are broken all the time for good purpose, when my friend is bleeding from the head profusely I run the reds to get him to a hospital, jail me if you like but spare me the breakdown of society drama plz ;)
saus on October 5, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Doug Burns (the queer lawyer guy on the right side of the screen) said
Incorrect, Dougie – Today, we live in a society of unenforced laws.
Vigilantism (which is how he’s portraying the actions of Mr. Broussard) is an improper means of dispensing justice except in such cases where justice cannot be had from the establish judiciary. In other words, if Mr. Broussard didn’t do it, who would?
The more the government of this nation refuses to enforce the established laws of this country, the more such events will happen, and perhaps more severe in degree.
Lone Star on October 5, 2007 at 10:59 AM
I suppose all you legal hair-splitters believe this rescue of the flag is wrong as well.
infidel4life on October 5, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Hey, he may have crumpled it up, but he crumpled it up patriotically.
I’m interested in hearing more about his plans for “quickly and decisively” taking back our country.
Allahpundit on October 5, 2007 at 11:00 AM
This is analogous to the ‘unlawful order’ situation military people are for the most part prepared to face. In a situation involving conflicting authorities, individuals are supposed to use their own judgement to do the right thing.
Acting to correct a violation of the law, if that action conflicts with another law, is never a cut and dried situation. Some of you keep going on and on about property laws as if there’s some sort of priority list that makes property laws more important than flag laws. The fact that the authorities refuse to or are incapable of enforcing them (immigration laws, anyone?) doesn’t mean that those laws are not important. Indeed, it appears that the police were unable to enforce the personal property laws in this situation…should those laws be ignored as ‘unenforceable’ from now on?
James on October 5, 2007 at 11:02 AM
Here’s the dilemma:
We’re supposed to “notify the authorities” and let them take care of it. But what if they don’t? What if they refuse to investigate the crime, refuse to confront the criminal, or take any action whatsoever? What’s the proper way, within the rule of law, to address the violation?
I consider the right to trial by jury to be a protection against “authorities” that refuse to enforce the law. As many here have noted, were Brossard to be tried for what he did, it’s unlikely a jury would convict.
Flying another flag over ours is an act of defiance of our sovreignty. It proclaims that the person flying the flag recognizes that other nation’s authority supersedes ours. It’s a fundamental repudiation of the social contract that says that we’ll obey the laws, including the laws about taking someone else’s personal property or folding the flag correctly when you take it down (which a serviceman would have learned about in Basic, last I knew. I’ll have to ask my son in law if that’s still true when he graduates.)
Some have asked why he didn’t just cut down the Mexican flag and raise Old Glory back up the pole alone, but I’m sure Brossard’s position is that by flying the Mexican flag above it, the owner of the business forfeited his ownership of that particular US flag by displaying it as subservient to Mexico.
Exit question: The next time someone flies a Mexican flag above the US flag, and the authorities are notified, what do you suppose will happen?
The Monster on October 5, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Wow. How many fundamental conservative principles are going to be abandoned today in defense of a vandal?
“The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management.” –Thomas Jefferson
“The first foundations of the social compact would be broken up were we definitely to refuse to its members the protection of their persons and property while in their lawful pursuits.” –Thomas Jefferson
“No other rights are safe where property is not safe.” — Daniel Webster
Slublog on October 5, 2007 at 11:04 AM
No. He violated the store owner’s 1st Amendment right to fly it. Brossard can protest it (he’s freedom of speech), but he doesn’t have the right to violate someone else’s freedom.
Please don’t tell me you’re comparing Marines storming the beaches of Iwo Jima with a guy named Jim cutting down a flag because he doesn’t like it there.
The store owner is a citizen, as Slu pointed out, and therefore has Constitutional rights.
In my area, yes. But see, he didn’t do this after trying to contact the police. He took it upon himself to cut down a flag an American is flying.
Incidentally, I’ve spent the last week driving up the Eastern seaboard. I’ve seen plenty of Confederate flags flying outside of homes – many without American flags. And if I’m not mistaken, Texas is permitted to fly its state flag at the same level or above the American flag.
amerpundit on October 5, 2007 at 11:05 AM
I’m doing it right now, and I’ll let you know how it turns out.
Big S on October 5, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Apparently this Enrique doesn’t think our flag is sacred. IT IS! It truly is a very important symbol to AMERICANS. If you don’t think so Enrique, maybe you should find another country to live in.
countywolf on October 5, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Property rights are fundamental.
If he is willing to take the punishment for breaking the law, then fine. It’s a simple thing; He is a patriot that broke the law.
Spirit of 1776 on October 5, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Thanks dude. “Rick Monday saves the flag” is a perfect example of “rescuing” the flag and actually sets a precedent for the actions of Mr. Brossard.
Guardian on October 5, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Exactly what I was thinking too. Boy, I wonder if our founding fathers worried about following the “letter of the law” when they were starting the American Revolution.
There is the letter of the law and there is the spirit of the law. Too many times we get caught up in the former and ignore the latter.
Nineball on October 5, 2007 at 11:09 AM
You haven’t watched many retreat ceremonies, have you?
In order to keep it from touching the ground, as the flag is lowered one member of the color guard bunches the flag in his arms, in the process getting it quite crumpled. It is only in a later part of the ceremony where the flag is folded carefully.
James on October 5, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Pardon me but this is a straw man argument. Brossard, even though it was illegal, did not act in a draconian fashion. Your argument takes it to the extremes. Had this scumbag Mexican been doing something more egregiously anti-American an appropriate response would have been entirely within the behavior we are expected to exercise as patriots.
Had Brossard stabbed the scumbag Mexican, then you’d have a reason to make the argument you are making. He did not, so lets stay within an argument relative to the situation.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Ridiculous. The requirement to lower the flag ceremoniously assumes it’s proper display. Flags laws were written to assure the flag is respected. I doubt the writers of those laws would have a problem with Mr. Brossard.
thebriand on October 5, 2007 at 11:09 AM
First Amendment rights are not absolute. You can’t yell, “Fire!” in a movie theater.
Darksean on October 5, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Zero Sum Game. Both broke the law. I award Brossard the points for at least being on more solid moral ground.
natesnake on October 5, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Did they? Did Jim Brossard call the police, call authorities, ask them to investigate and they refused?
Yes.
What does that have to do with this? First of all, that was under British rule over 200 years ago. We also tar and feathered people, as well as hung Loyalists from street lamps. They were protesting the fact that their lives were being made miserable, but weren’t even given representation in Britain. In this case Jim decided to cut down some guys flag without even asking law enforcement to act to begin with. The colonists appealed to Great Britain numerous times before their act of civil disobedience. Jim decided he didn’t like it so he cut it down.
amerpundit on October 5, 2007 at 11:12 AM
They did, that’s the thing. The DoI is about how their rights were violated. The beauty of it is, they were wise enough to make the spirit of the law the letter of the law in the Constitution. Property rights are fundamental, and I have argued on other threads here, the defense of property rights of the individual is where our own legal system derived from!
I still the guy is a patriot though. Fine him the cost of the flag and rope and be done with.
Spirit of 1776 on October 5, 2007 at 11:13 AM
This place of business was a bar? If that is true, I think everyone should go there for a couple of drinks, run up a tab, and “stiff” him.
cjs1943 on October 5, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Actually, I believe he did. Instead of asking the store owner to remove the flag and inform him his actions were illegal, Brossard committed a criminal act.
Slublog on October 5, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Actually, you can if there is a fire.
Nineball on October 5, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Nice diversion. Way to avoid my counter-point to your claim. Your claim is inaccurate. Property rights are NOT fundamental when you violate the LAW.
These are f-a-c-t-s and not philosophical positions.
Again, go ahead and don’t pay your taxes and we’ll monitor how fundamental your property rights are.
Or, as another example, be found liable in civil court for damages and see how fundamental your property rights are.
Anyone want to call O.J. and ask him about his Rolex and what time it is? Wow. It was time for him to lose this property — fundamentally, of course.
eanax on October 5, 2007 at 11:21 AM
The American flag is the most sacred symbol our country has.
Brossard is our new standard bearer. He saw the flag was put down and he picked it up and marched on.
And of course what he did was against the law. I could care less. This was never about legality to Mr. Brossard; it was about honor and respect.
unamused on October 5, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Yeah, they have. And the point the PC freaks are making is that he didn’t follow procedure. Well there is no set procedure except that the flag has to be lowered to waiting arms and should not touch the ground. The flag is to be treated with respect and in Brossards situation, he was showing it respect by getting it down from there ASAP.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 11:24 AM
What is the difference between Broussard cutting down a flag and the government confiscating for nonpayment of taxes?
You seem to be operating under the assumption that I said property rights are absolute. I did not. They are, however, fundamental to the founding of this republic.
Slublog on October 5, 2007 at 11:25 AM
unamused on October 5, 2007 at 11:22 AM
What does the flag represent if not the freedoms that we enjoy, protected by rights delineated in the Constitution and the rule of law?
Big S on October 5, 2007 at 11:25 AM
A) There are no punishments for not flying a flag correctly.
B) Law is enforced by law enforcement. Jim is neither a member of, nor even contacted, law enforcement.
C) OJ’s watch was taken away because the courts had established a punishment that the judge concluded includes taking his watch. There is no punishment established for flying a flag incorrectly.
D) There is an established punishment for not paying taxes. Again, no such punishment established for not flying a flag correctly.
E) In the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. If you’re found guilty, a punishment may be established. The owner of the bar had neither been found guilty nor been legally forced to take down his flag.
amerpundit on October 5, 2007 at 11:27 AM
The right to property is a fundamental American right, not a mere “philosophical position.”
That’s a f-a-c-t.
Slublog on October 5, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Did Brossard take the time to go into the bar and explain the problem to the owner, giving him a chance to correct the situation peacefully and amicably?
No. He’s a nutjob, even if he’s got a great point and a reason to be incensed.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 11:32 AM
All acts of revolution begin with small steps. Standing up against disrespect for the flag is completely acceptable considering the attempts by anti-American types to turn this country over to the Mexicans.
It’s harmless AP. NO ONE is suggesting that this act will lead to rampant lawlessness on the part of American citizens. The point is that the act of this scumbag Mexican will lead to further attacks against the sovereignty of this country by other scumbags. It needed to be challenged just to send the message that even though they have the pandering dems on their side (and some reps) not all Americans support the takeover of this country by illegals. That Mexican flag, even flown by a legal resident represents the attacks on this country by the main issue of the day as it relates to Mexico. That being the take over of this country by illegal aliens.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 11:34 AM
in other words, my kinda folk :)
trailortrash on October 5, 2007 at 11:35 AM
That deserves repeating.
reine.de.tout on October 5, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Need some Tony Soprano types visiting this bar soon. “Now yous can’t leave”
jed58 on October 5, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Even more to the point here, Folks, is the fact that NOTHING about this situation has anything to do with the First Amendment.
Let me remind you all that the Constitution applies ONLY to what GOVERNMENT can do to it citizens. NOT what it’s citizens can do to it’s citizens. We have laws for the citizenry’s actions.
The Constitution limits only GOVERNMENTAL actions. So, if this were done by the police or other public officials, then yes, theoretically the Mexican guy could “claim” First Amendment violation. However, he’d lose because of the flag laws.
But lets stop using the First Amendment here as an argument. It is not valid.
Now, as to Brossard…I agree that if he were going to be WRONG about something, this should be it. No one was hurt, and he made a point for all of us that care about the Flag. He’s wrong…and he’s willing to pay the price for being legally wrong, so be it.
tickleddragon on October 5, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Regardless of whether what he did is right or wrong, he did help bring forth a border issue that is coming to a boil. I have warned people about this. Many in Mexico and the U.S. will soon claim the Southwest U.S. as their Palestine. The numbers are here, agitation has started, now will come violence.
jed58 on October 5, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Well AP does not want to answer so I throw this out to the other “private property” folks.
DO YOU have the right to stop someone from setting fire to their OWN HOME?
Talon on October 5, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »