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 | regular view
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
I live in a rural area and houses and barns are burned all the time for demolition.
They however have had the gas lines and electricity removed beforehand.
So it is done this way. (not in subdivisions of course)
This is completely off topic though. I was only responding to the act of stopping
someone from doing so on their own property.
We don’t have bans on open burning here.
I do however support mr. Brussard’s actions in this case.
Now I must stop this addictive reading and get back to work.
Gooch on October 5, 2007 at 2:26 PM
He did. It is in the video link you provided.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 2:27 PM
You know, that was just kinda rude, amer… Maybe this guy is Scottish. (Say it out loud, if you’re confused.)
Either way, it was kinda petty to pick on his misspelling of one word.
tickleddragon on October 5, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Interesting argument you’ve made. I think it’s wrong on its merits however, because the property is a primary tangible issue in this case and sovereignty is a symbolic secondary issue. Ie the flag is property but by flying the MX flag, we did not cede that terrority for the US. Interesting argument, but not wholly compelling.
Spirit of 1776 on October 5, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Life is really simple, but some insist on making it complicated.
- Confucius
MB4 on October 5, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Great. Quote him.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 2:32 PM
See this is why I love your post and comments.
First clue should always be if my side is supported mostly by lawyers , then perhaps I am on the wrong side.
Jim Brossard
Doing the job Michael Chertoff refuses to do.
Now onto the issue of crime and punishment. What do they have vandalism, petty theft, brandishing of a weapon or will they so over reach and try to make it armed robbery?
Either way the crime should be enforced in no different way then say the Elvira criminal was prosecuted, or the code pinkos or the mass of human trash that constantly breaks the laws while crying about their rights. Point in fact the first “answer” world’s worker party protest in my city by the bay, where not one of the protestors that blocked traffic, tied up emergency service and committed a plethora of other minor crimes were never even charged. If this man is charged and they try and make an example out of him, then it would only be fair to hold the other side equally responsible for the crimes they committee. when they are having their sex crimes street fairs, aiding and abetting of criminal aliens or just causing a huge problem by there actions during there lame we hate America marches.
Mojack420 on October 5, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Your ignorance of American history and constitutional law is profoundly disturbing Pablo (provided you are an American citizen). It’s the order of placement that determines sovereignty, when two national flags are placed upon the same pole the flag on top is always designated as that of the sovereign nation. This is why it is permissible to fly the Flag of another sovereign nation side by side with the American flag but not above it.
As for
If you honestly find that funny you are a disturbed individual.
doriangrey on October 5, 2007 at 2:34 PM
No, it’s the only response that makes sense because it’s the only one with any limiting principle. I said it yesterday and I’ll say it again: if you want to make up a list of laws that people should be allowed to violate if they feel really strongly about it, go right ahead. The left will be happy to make up a list of its own, and theirs won’t look anything like yours.
I don’t care for the insinuation that I’m doing some sort of shtick here, whether for traffic or any other reason. It’s my honest opinion. If you think “I was acting like a human being” should be a get out of jail card vis-a-vis criminal law, that’s fine, but prepare yourself for a very, very, very slippery slope.
Allahpundit on October 5, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Haha. All this property rights stuff cracks me up. Try living in California, where the envirowhackos can take 50 feet on either side of a “significant drainage course” on your property for wildlife habitat. And where the Coastal Commission can tell you where you can build on your property because of a “viewshed ordinance” where boaters don’t want to be able to see houses from the water.
If the guy had shot a black paintball at the Mexican flag would it have been an issue?
NTWR on October 5, 2007 at 2:41 PM
This a amazing to me. A couple of generations ago we would not even be having this debate. The Mex flag would have been taken down, the filth who put it up would have had the crap beat out of him, end of story.
MB4 on October 5, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Nah. We’re making this too prissy and self-important. This was a simple “F*ck you”, “No, F*ck You” sort of event. The Mexican flew his flag up top to tell Jim “f*ck you”, and Jim took out his ka-bar and said “no, amigo, f*ck you”.
Property rights, my eye. If it was his right to fly his flags the way he did, I’m sure some ACLU pos will be in court seeking a court order to allow him to do so. Brossard left his flag of Mexico on the ground, and I suspect that the bar owner now has his U.S. flag back, too. And maybe he will learn to fly right.
Jaibones on October 5, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Quoted For Truth .
trailortrash on October 5, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Wait is this why AP wants an i-phone; the whole ensemble isn’t complete with out it
Butter soft loafers ……….check
Manpurse………………….check
I phone…………………..waiting
Mojack420 on October 5, 2007 at 2:52 PM
According to your ‘f-you’ theory, if you flip me off or do something visually offensive, is it okay if I slash your tires?
Spirit of 1776 on October 5, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Even if you COULD get a permit, the fire department would be on site to control the burn. That is an absolute fact.
I guess this needs spelling out.
You go outside to get your newspaper and you see your neighbor pouring gas all over his house. He lights a flare.
Do you have the legal right to enter HIS property to stop him???
He is committing ARSON. Arson is illegal.
What would happen if you TRESPASSED on HIS property and destroyed HIS flare??? What if he tried to struggle and you used force to subdue him??
Talon on October 5, 2007 at 2:55 PM
All human laws are, properly speaking, only declaratory; they have no power over the substance of original justice. – Edmund Burke
HerrMorgenholz on October 5, 2007 at 3:00 PM
You can take your “lawyer” logic and shove it. These mexicans knew exactly what they were doing. They knew the message they were sending. Jimbo, knew too. He just decided that message was the wrong one. As do I and most conservatives. Your moniker belies your true ACLU-leanings.
Andy in Agoura Hills on October 5, 2007 at 3:01 PM
[doriangrey on October 5, 2007 at 1:45 PM]
This “arson” thing grew out of AP busting up cosmetics in someone else’s house (for shame) and Talon pointing out the flawed analogy with the question of responsiblility for stopping someone from burning down their house and then Gooch saying, “It is not illegal to burn your own house, so no you can’t stop someone from doing it” and TD saying it’s arson.
You only need a permit if is a permit is required. I haven’t seen the article and paragraph in US Fire Code outlawing burning down your own house in the years I have used it, though it’s a big book. It mostly like a safety issue which is why various municipalities enact opening burning laws. I’ll hazard that in more countrified areas where opening burning is not prohibited and safety of other property was ensured, officials would have a hard time prohibiting it associated laws were also abided and the property of others, eg, gas, electric and water meters, are removed.
There is a permit that can be issued if one wants to burn down their house. Fire Depts (including non-public ones) use it occasionally for practice and I can remember two in the last few years being used for that purpose in our area.
A stricter meaning of Arson, though, should be kept in mind when using that word and relate it to wrongful, reckless malicious and willful purpose.
Dusty on October 5, 2007 at 3:01 PM
doriangrey,
Great, cite the law that says this and you can lead me from my ignorance of such. I’ll wait. And I’d really like to see the part where sovereignty and placement converge.
Let’s see. It’s an American citizen. It’s an unpunishible offense. It has nothing to do with any other government. It does nothing to undermine the power or authority of American sovereignty or law. But aside from that, it’s an act of war. Sorry, that hilarious.
It’s like saying that except for the killing, OJ wouldn’t be a murderer.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Chill out AP. Anyone who feels that you are doing some sort of shtick here is either reacting emotionally to this situation or hasn’t been particularly attentive to your personality.
As I has already stated your adherence to the applicability of property rights laws is both admerable and commendable. It however misses the constitutional issue of national sovereignty and the defense of that sovereignty.
As the constitution reserves to the federal government and the states the right to supersede personal property rights via eminent domain as enunciated in the fifth amendment it also places the final burden of defense of national sovereignty upon the individual citizen in the second amendment.
Viewed in this constitutional light their is no slippery slope, no need to attack you or question your judgment of your patriotism. Nor is there any need to draw up any list of laws that might be arbitrarily set aside because anyone finds them inconvenient or distasteful.
doriangrey on October 5, 2007 at 3:03 PM
And I suppose the correct response would have been to send the Army into Reno.
Because…
Heh.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 3:04 PM
The private property claims by several posters here are weak. I hope they will see the holes in their logic and change their minds but I don’t expect they will.
By applying the logic presented above, if I take away a someone’s gun while he is using it to commit a robbery, I should be vilified for stealing his PRIVATE PROPERTY. If I take way someone’s car keys to prevent them from driving under the influence again I should be vilified. Yes I know that armed robbery puts lives at stake and improperly flown flags do not. But that doesn’t change the fundamental principle. In the case of taking the car keys a crime has yet to be committed so taking the keys is absolutely criminal. If you continue to vilify Mr. Brossard for taking a flag being used to commit a crime then you must vilify those that take car keys or disarm would be robbers. You say he is guilty once and I respect your opinion whether I agree or not, but to continue this argument that we all should be crying in our Boston tea because of this grave injustice perpetrated on some poor bar owners property rights has got to stop.
Is Brossard guilty of committing a crime? Maybe, but not until he is convicted in a court of law.
LeeSmith on October 5, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Well that’s the internet for you. You don’t have to buy a flashing car or build a Lord Farquaad castle anymore to compensate. You can log on to the net and insult people to make yourself feel better. So say whatever you like, I’m not going to waste time arguing with you.
The truth is I feel sorry for you if you can’t see the natural conclusion of the dismissal of property rights. It is the encroachment of property rights that allows a state to label possessions as subversive – and it is that that leads us to Germany’s book-burnings and the mindless march to national socialism. Thanks, but I’ll pass. Our fathers considered actions against personal property as tyrannical. So do I.
Jim is a patriot, but that does not mean he does not deserve both praise and censure, as I’m sure he will admit himself.
Spirit of 1776 on October 5, 2007 at 3:10 PM
I was a supervisor for “Advanced Demolition Services Inc.” for 5 years. There is no such permit. The fire department does not burn houses down even for practice, they have specially constructed facilities for that. There are far to many hazardous materials used in building construction to allow them to be burned.
doriangrey on October 5, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Proving my point that the only acceptable response is “the law’s the law.”
As I said: “…every sputtering, flag-waving response from anyone that doesn’t agree with Allahpundit is derided as emotion over reason. Again, “the law’s the law” is the only acceptable response in the comments of this thread…
…unless your response outlines a Constitutionally-sound and reasonable legal method on exactly how to change the law, Allahpundit will always win this argument.”
After all the iPhone stuff it’s hard to tell what’s schtick ’round here.
If you think “I was acting like a human being” should be a get out of jail card vis-a-vis criminal law, that’s fi–
Stop right there. I never said. Never.
My direct quote–directed to the HA commenters in the context of using the agreed-upon rules set forth in the U.S. Constitution to legally change our nations’ existing laws rather than the emotion over reason attitude of “Jim Broussard is a great American” so prevalent on this thread is as follows:
“You must stop thinking like human beings and start thinking like lawyers if you want to end this ridiculousness.”
I can understand why a lawyer would be sensitive to the completely facetious allegation that they are somehow not fully human, but the fact is that human beings in cases of national pride often allow emotion rather than reason to direct their actions. Lawyers are paid to win cases using reason rather than emotion to hold human beings accountable to the rule of law.
The emotional humans here on this thread will not win against the lawyer. Period.
The emotional humans need to think more like lawyers if they want to end this argument. Period.
The emotional humans need to work within the laws of the United States to legally change any laws they have reason to consider are ridculous. Period.
That’s all I said and you guys know I’m a huge fan of HotAir.com and have been with you, Michelle, and Bryan since Day One.
ScottMcC on October 5, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Yes, and that’s what the whole issue turns on. Those are self-defense issues, this is a case of a guy being offended. You’re simply grasping for a legal analogy that will somehow let Brossard off the hook. Frankly, he’s handled himself with much more dignity than most of his defenders. He’s not denying that he broke the law and is prepared to accept the consequences.
And by that same logic, it should be permissible to declare open season on illegal immigrants as an invading army and gun them down in the street wholesale. Their presence is much more of a threat to national sovereignty than is some flag flying over a bar. If you’re going to carve out lawbreaking exceptions on grounds as amorphous as “I’m defending national sovereignty,” you’re setting a precedent that’s positively Orwellian. I’m not accusing you of intending to do that, I’m just saying that’ll be the result.
Allahpundit on October 5, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Yes, and they pay for it when they do. Does anyone here think Brossard was the first person to notice the flags atop the bar and take exception to them? Plenty of other “human beings” did too, I’m sure, but they managed to restrain themselves somehow. Why is Brossard the yardstick for appropriate human behavior more so than they are?
Allahpundit on October 5, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Forgive me, Allah, but I think you’re arguing with someone who’s on your side.
tickleddragon on October 5, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Come on, 1776. He cut a beat up piece of rope and took down a flag — undamaged — that was being disrespectfully displayed. He didn’t threaten anyone with a knife, or burn the flag, or piss on the Mexican flag (as might have been warranted, if illegal). Yeah, it was a bit aggressive, but so was flying the Mexican flag over the U.S. flag.
We’re a little carried away with a legal theory of “property rights” here, and I’m not sure why. Seems like a circle jerk.
Jaibones on October 5, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Yeah, I’m just saying action after offense is not a solid base.
As I said yesterday or the day before, this is like John Brown to me. If you are willing to accept the consequences for actions outside or against the law, so be it. Many heroes have been made that why, and they effective move the law in their direction generally because generally it is inspired by personal morals. But what makes John Brown a hero is his willingness to die (according to the law) in order to protest the law. Here too our patriot I’m sure will take whatever fine, etc that is declared – and this too is to his honor.
The issue of property rights – it’s the foundation of our legal system, that’s why it’s in discussion.
Spirit of 1776 on October 5, 2007 at 3:33 PM
I am not sure about Brossard, but man does Rick Monday kick serious butt!
deadbackpacker on October 5, 2007 at 3:34 PM
So not only is your knowledge of US History and Constitutional Law profoundly lacking, so is your reading comprehension.
This statement is equal to and no less than saying…Were these actions taken by a Mexican citizen on behalf of the Mexican Government they would constitute an act of war, however since they were not they do not constitute said act.
doriangrey on October 5, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Yeah, it’s not my intent to further inflame your fear of tyrrany, but Andy’s got a good point. Whatever the merits of your concern over the property rights of the guy flying our flag in favor of the Mexican flag, your spirit would seem to have nothing to do with 1776.
If memory serves, those fellas declared that the property legally purchased (or whatever) and developed by the King of England, under which they served as subjects, was now theirs, and that the King could go f*ck himself, and that if the King didn’t like it, he could send his army over (he did), and they would settle the issue like barbarians.
So, let’s not get too carried away with rhetorical flourish.
Jaibones on October 5, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Suit yourself. If I were in your shoes, I’d refresh my memory with the commentary of the day.
Heh. Words have meaning, which is why the Bill of Rights was insisted upon for ratification of Constitution. But if I’m carrying you away:) I’ll leave you to your opinion.
Spirit of 1776 on October 5, 2007 at 3:43 PM
No it does not. Under no circumstances is it permissible to shoot unarmed peaceful individuals even when they are involved in the commission of a crime or are illegal aliens. To imply that the individual citizen acting in accordance with the second amendment as a militiaman would be unable to distinguish a lawful combatant from an unarmed civilian is to strike the “well regulated” from the second amendment, and that sir is a slipper slope indeed.
The minute any individual acting in the constitutionally protected and required position of a militiaman fires upon or otherwise brings bodily harm upon any unarmed civilian they cease to fall under the “Well regulated militia” clause of the second amendment.
doriangrey on October 5, 2007 at 3:48 PM
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.
So, that means we’re governed by “Suggestion of Law”
gmoonster on October 5, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Um yeah. It is. Spirit of 1776 == circle jerk.
There is no property rights issue here.
The issue is you have your Allahpundits living in NYC that have no clue apparently what a massive invasion is going on here in California, not to mention the Southwest. And oh yeah, this invasion is illegal. People here are feed up with kow-towing to illegals hispanics, bilingual education, the usurpation of our schools and medical facilities. The trashing of Los Angeles, where I live. The Aztlan attitude that this land belongs to the brown-skinned people only.
If Jimbo, and people like him, start to take their country back, or at least make those who come here RESPECT us, then so much the better. Its the pussies who wanna litigate, negotiate, compromise and then eventually surrender our American culture.
Andy in Agoura Hills on October 5, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Hmmm, I’m old enough to remember the Dr. Martin Luther King carying US flags during his marches. He made a point to refer to the flag as a symbol of all that was great and good about our country and that he wanted the same for all US citizens of all colors. It wasn’t just a piece of cloth. The US Marines at Iwo Jima( yes, I’ll keep saying Jima) raised a flag under withering enemy fire to show the symbol of the United States. it was not a piece of cloth. I know that those who argue the property rights issue of the bar owner don’t care about these points. Fine. I would do the same as Mr. Brossard and fully expect the weight of law to come down on me, I would wish no less. But, that’s the point. I’m not equating Brossard with Dr. King, but the scenario is the same. I would humbly suggest that you pur your discourse about property rights to better and far more instructive use. Perhaps a rant on Eminent Domain laws ala the Keough decision. Oh but, I think I forget, this is a USA/ Mexico dust up, isn’t it?
MNDavenotPC on October 5, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Plenty of other “human beings” did too, I’m sure, but they managed to restrain themselves somehow. Why is Brossard the yardstick for appropriate human behavior more so than they are?
Allahpundit on October 5, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Because as Confucius said – To see the right and not to do it is cowardice.
MB4 on October 5, 2007 at 3:57 PM
That’s the Kelo decision. Far more important to property rights than this BS. And far more harmful.
Andy in Agoura Hills on October 5, 2007 at 4:01 PM
No blood lost. Cheers.
Jaibones on October 5, 2007 at 4:01 PM
doriangrey, quoting Title 4, Chapter 1
doriangrey making a fool of himself at 2:34 PM:
Pablo asking for some evidence at 3:01
“International usage forbids the display” does not equal “usurpation of national sovereignty”, which is the claim you made. Not only do you suck at law, you suck at math too. A breach of protocol, by a national of a given country, is in no way shape or form an act of war. Allah has it right in saying:
Your argument is hysterical. And I mean that in the overwrought emotionality sense, not the funny haha sense.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Which has jack sh*t to do with this issue. A big, big problem, yes. But it ain’t this problem. And sadly, the powers that be don’t seem to give a damn about it.
Second that, mainly because that allows the government to take your property.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Thank you, Andy for that correction… that’s what I get for working on radiology reports and trying to pay attention to this. Again, thanks.
MNDavenotPC on October 5, 2007 at 4:06 PM
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
How do we know that they would be found unconstitutional?
Has the U.S. Supreme Court issued some secret ruling know only to a few?
MB4 on October 5, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Americans have a long history of performing symbolic albeit unlawful acts such as this.
Of which, I found this little tidbit quite interesting…
While I appreciate Mr. Franklin’s attempt to take the moral high ground, I also feel that a boatload of “private property” was a small price to pay in order to ensure our sovereignty.
As long as folks like Mr. Brossard are willing to face the legal consequences, I see this as merely a form of civil disobedience.
When angry, roaming gangs of Americans armed with huge knives are cutting down Mexican flags en masse, then perhaps I could be persuaded to rethink things.
Until then, I won’t be too concerned with one lone flag “vigilante”.
The Ugly American on October 5, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Here’s a link for your leisure. Consider it the Spirit of 1838, then:)
Granted Lincoln was a lawyer, but I think we all can agree he was a patriot. Word for word I agree with this position. I would also note that if a law is past that made what happened definitively illegal, then both sides would be served. (Which is actually what happen in 1776). Regards,
Spirit of 1776 on October 5, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Too many absolutes being flung about here.
I can shoot an unarmed man that has his hands wrapped around my daughters throat if I am afraid for her life. The man can be a doctor just checking her tonsils but if I can prove I didn’t know that and was afraid that he was going to kill her I’d be within my rights to protect her with deadly force. (Note: One can not protect his property with deadly force proving that property rights are not the foundation of our legal system, life is.)
Other than that doriangrey, you make a very good point about the second amendment.
LeeSmith on October 5, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Yes, the law’s the law. If the resident lawyers say both The Patriot, and The Mexican acted illegally, then I accept that.
But the reason this story is on HA isn’t because two guys broke laws — It’s the argument that one of them was acting on their conscience, on grounds of civil disobedience, on the fact that more so than ever before in this country both citizens and non-citizens are attempting to create an alternate or parallel national identity.
Jason Coleman made a couple good points above. If you find yourself in Patriot’s position, please consider 1)first informing the offender about the law and 2) not leaving with the flags (or the rope, or the pole).
I would add a third point: 3) get press attention. I can see a movement starting along the lines of the MinuteMen: Our Flag First – OFF. I can’t think of a better way (other than voting for closed border politicians) for citizens to actively spread their message that Americans are against illegal immigration and against creating alternative national identities.
deesine on October 5, 2007 at 4:13 PM
That’s exactly what I’d like to see happen.
deesine on October 5, 2007 at 4:15 PM
I question Franklin’s patriotism! heh. Good post.
Couldn’t agree with this more:
A great part of the American spirit.
Spirit of 1776 on October 5, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Well said Lee. In fact, my conceal/carry permit here in Mn requires me to afford an intruder safe exit from my home. Oh yes, I must verbally tell him I am armed and will shoot. Of course I’ve decided, one .357 round in him then one in the ceiling( warning shot). So much for the end all and be all of rights being property.
MNDavenotPC on October 5, 2007 at 4:18 PM
You’re deluded if you believe that. Flying a mex flag over an American flag has EVERYTHING to do with it. The illegal invasion by mexicans and other hispanics is directly related to what insults and disrespect to our country true Americans will endure.
Andy in Agoura Hills on October 5, 2007 at 4:21 PM
You only make one mistake with you statement, please allow me to point it out.
Too many absolutes being flung about here.
Under no circumstances is it permissible to shoot unarmed peaceful individuals even when they are involved in the commission of a crime
doriangrey on October 5, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Any individual with his hands around your daughters throat without your express consent fails the peaceful caveat within my statement.
doriangrey on October 5, 2007 at 4:25 PM
As a veteran, I myself would not.
Actually, I find the mere thought of it incredibly disheartening.
The Ugly American on October 5, 2007 at 4:28 PM
No, they’ve weighed in on the question repeatedly.
Of course, they’re not going to chime in on a law that has no penalty.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 4:30 PM
No, Andy, it doesn’t. one is a flag over a bar, the other is a persistent violation of our border and ongoing criminal violations of our law. Not the same thing at all, especially when the “perp” is an American citizen.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 4:32 PM
deesine,
Excellent comment, though I’d say regarding #2 that you’re on higher moral ground in doing so once you’ve exhausted all other options. I’d probably go there myself, knowing that I’ve pursued all legal avenues before pursuing illegal ones.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 4:35 PM
DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!
Winnah!
ScottMcC on October 5, 2007 at 4:36 PM
This site has really gone to sh*t. It’s pretty obvious that the atheist who smears Christianity is missing a pair. The negativity and condescension may lead to lots of hits and long threads, but it also says quite a bit about the person. AP would have been the guy standing there as the tea was being thrown overboard saying “You guys are gonna get it big time! I’m telling!” (no I’m not comparing the two acts-just the spirit behind them). Prissy people do not have any way to understand the warrior’s heart. It’s illegal to do any number of things but sometimes, action is needed; it’s not legal to pound some Ahole who insults one of your loved ones, but some of us would. The pocket-protector crowd? They whine. Anyhow, no more getting sucked in to this BS just to lengthen a thread some idiot thinks is precious and oh so clever. I come here maybe a fifth of the time i used to only a year ago, but oh well…
JWS on October 5, 2007 at 5:01 PM
I agree with Doriangrey in general, although my opinion has a slightly different basis, (or maybe not). My perspective is grounded in natural law. People vest in their government certain responsibilities, such as providing for the common defense. When a government fails to fulfill its responsibilities there are inevitable consequences, such as the topic of this discussion.
If the government continues to fail in its responsibilities the reaction will probably turn violent at some point in the future. I don’t condone it, but according to history I think it’s inevitable.
Freedom is never free. I agree with you that Jim committed a few minor crimes, but I disagree that it was unwarranted or with the notion that it isn’t worth it or is somehow damaging. Sure, there are costs to freedom but it’s worth it, and being charged and convicted of a few petty crimes is a much smaller price to pay than the blood of so many patriots that have gone before.
My point isn’t that what Jim did wasn’t illegal, it’s that it was inevitable and that ultimately the government is most culpable. Jim may pay a price for his act of patriotism and I have no doubt he will gladly pay the bill. Hopefully the owner of the Mexican bar has learned his lesson, and if not, another patriot should consider following in Jim’s footsteps. At the end of the day the government is the only entity that has the legal authority to actually resolve this problem so that people like Jim don’t feel compelled to take matters into their own hands.
FloatingRock on October 5, 2007 at 5:02 PM
LOL! Excellent summary.
FloatingRock on October 5, 2007 at 5:13 PM
When angry, roaming gangs of Americans armed with huge knives are cutting down Mexican flags en masse, then perhaps I could be persuaded to rethink things.
That’s exactly what I’d like to see happen.
deesine on October 5, 2007 at 4:15 PM
You bring a tear to my eye. Thank you.
MB4 on October 5, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Reporter: Mr President, is it true that you have decided to put a real fence along the border with Mexico rather than that phony so called “virtual fence” after all? And a follow up question sir, if so what will the physical fence look like?
George W. Bush: That is a very good question and yes I have. What will it look like? Well it will run the full length of the border and have special security gates every 100 feet.
All the security gates will have on them:
1) Press one for Spanish (with a response of “Welcome Amigo, please take a free map to the wonderful plantation owner employer of your choice. Also please pick up a complimentary Mexican flag to fly over any American flag that you choose just so you will feel more at home.”).
2) Press two for Arabic (with a response of “Welcome honored member of the Religion of Peace, please make yourself right at home and don’t be afraid to ask for any changes to our country that will make you feel more welcome”).
3) Press three for English (with a response of “Go to Hell you damed bigoted nativist conspiracy monger who does not want what is right for America and take your damed nativist American flag with you!!!”).
MB4 on October 5, 2007 at 5:22 PM
There are no law governing the proper flying or handling of the U.S. Flag. There is a Code of Conduct on the proper display, handling and disposal of the U.S. Flag.
The Supreme Court has ruled that this Code of Conduct is not Law and cannot be enforced by the Police or in the Courts.
The laws Jim Brossard broke are laws pertaing to the damaging and theft of private property.
Like our Scottish hero, who kicked the terrorist in the NUTS, Jim Brossard gave the Pro-illegal alien supporters a good swift kick in the NUTS.
Helloyawl on October 5, 2007 at 5:26 PM
I used to work in Reno and the fact that Reno PD would even consider filing charges against the Veteran does not surprise me. They are a sanctuary city and the casinos openly hire and recruit illegals from Mexico. They rent casino owned apartments to them packing 5-10 people in a one bedroom apartment.
Reno PD refuses to cooperate with ICE.
Here is a dirty little secret.
Reno, PD does what they call casino sweeps every two weeks on payday. The Illegals cash their checks with the casinos and gamble until the money is gone, They get intoxicated on the free drinks and then become belligerent after loosing their money. Reno PD only will arrest them after they have lost all their money and book them into the Washoe County Jail on some minor charge like public intoxication.
Even though after being booked, the NCIC record checks comes back with their status as illegal and the documents are forged with phony names. Instead, they release the illegal so they can go back to work at the casinos and start the cycle all over again.
They know that they are illegal but refuse to call ICE and have them deported. Can’t have a labor shortage after all even though they are aiding and abetting the criminals they exploit.
The is old company store scenario that used to go on in the fields of California with the bracero program.
I am sure this veteran had enough of this because anyone that has lived there for any period of time knows that this goes on and is fed up with the crime and the blatant loyalty to Mexico flying the flag of their land in America.
Reno has a huge crime problem from the imported Mexican slave labor that the Casino’s bring in.
This is what happens when Tyranny exists and patriots are desperate to take their country back!
ScottyDog on October 5, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Many comments have been made concerning his failure to contact law enforcement prior to cutting down the flags. But I recall him saying in the video that they were called. It was not made clear if he was aware of these calls prior to committing the act. Or were they brought to his attention in an attempt to establish a defense. See time mark 1:23 of the video.
Zaire67 on October 5, 2007 at 5:52 PM
I was a supervisor for “Advanced Demolition Services Inc.” for 5 years. There is no such permit. The fire department does not burn houses down even for practice, they have specially constructed facilities for that. There are far to many hazardous materials used in building construction to allow them to be burned.
[doriangrey on October 5, 2007 at 3:11 PM]
What part of it happening, didn’t you understand, dorian? I don’t care if you were president of ADS for 8 years — that’s a non-sequiter. They happened, recently, it’s possible it can happen again under circumstances that may be prescribed. Permits were issued.
BTW:
I know you know a lot from your work at ADS. Please, though, try to confine it to that. You leave people with incorrect understandings of the real world when you don’t.
Dusty on October 5, 2007 at 6:09 PM
This entire thread needs a spelling and grammar check.
The Race Card on October 5, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Dorian Grey’s reasoning is sound. Argument won.
The rest is just sputtering and rhetoric.
Well done Dorian.
MarkB on October 5, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Pablo you need to step back and take a deep breath; You obviously have failed to grasp logic and reason in this argument…emotion a plenty….logic and reason…nada.
MarkB on October 5, 2007 at 6:56 PM
It’s at 2:18 on the video link you provided.
That was a direct quote from him saying he replaced his old flags with new ones and put the Mexican flag on top.
Just what the hell is wrong with you? You are so ignorantly biased that your ears cannot hear the report that you yourself linked to. Jeeze you ARE a stupid a$$.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Mr. Brossard for President!
ricelchew on October 5, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Ouch.
The Race Card on October 5, 2007 at 7:36 PM
I used to work in Reno and the fact that Reno PD would even consider filing charges against the Veteran does not surprise me. They are a sanctuary city and the casinos openly hire and recruit illegals from Mexico. They rent casino owned apartments to them packing 5-10 people in a one bedroom apartment.
ScottyDog on October 5, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Follow the money.
MB4 on October 5, 2007 at 7:40 PM
This entire thread needs a spelling and grammar check.
The Race Card on October 5, 2007 at 6:38 PM
This town needs an enema!
- Jack Napier
MB4 on October 5, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Henry David Thoreau, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and many other pioneers advocated and participated in acts of civil disobedience. Yes, I am a law and order person, and I would denounce Mr. Brossard’s act IF he had violated any of Thoreau’s, Ghandi’s, or King’s principles, but he didn’t. If our gov’t enforced the border thereby not allowing an atmosphere where the economic survival of support system for the truly needy is threatened, then Mr. Brossard wouldn’t have had to take this action.
I support him. He’s the kind of guy that would have dumped the tea into the harbor, and we should all cheer him on.
JustTruth101 on October 5, 2007 at 7:42 PM
I support him. He’s the kind of guy that would have dumped the tea into the harbor, and we should all cheer him on.
JustTruth101 on October 5, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Two bits, four bits, six bits, a
pesodollar. All forZorroSir Brossard, stand up and say so!-
Ramon VegaCaptian AmericaMB4 on October 5, 2007 at 7:54 PM
he should have armed himself
Now that’s taking it to the extreme but the sentiment is the same.
At least it is for me.
And if this man is charged I would expect every illegal be charged instead of being given a free pass. If they refuse to enforce the laws on the books that the illegals break daily then they really have no right to charge Mr. Brossard. Selective prosecution of the law based on national origin {and that’s what this will be} is a violation of Mr. Brossard civil rights.
Or am I mistaken…..
I am not a lawyer but I did stay at a holiday inn express.
Mojack420 on October 5, 2007 at 7:59 PM
LMAO
Dusty on October 5, 2007 at 8:06 PM
I know you know a lot from your work at ADS. Please, though, try to confine it to that. You leave people with incorrect understandings of the real world when you don’t.
Dusty on October 5, 2007 at 6:09 PM
F15Mech on October 5, 2007 at 8:14 PM
Sorry about the quote mix up in my above post.
F15Mech on October 5, 2007 at 8:14 PM
ScottyDog on October 5, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Best, most informative comment on thread, IMHO.
MB4 on October 5, 2007 at 9:01 PM
[F15Mech on October 5, 2007 at 8:14 PM]
My fault, I should have put my excerpt of Doriangray’s comment in quote format.
Dusty on October 5, 2007 at 9:07 PM
Were the people who ran the “underground railroad” breaking the law when they helped runaway slaves escape bondage? Yes they were.
Were the patiots who dumped tea into Boston harbor breaking the law?
Yes they were.
The fact of the matter is intent. This mexican was purposfully thumbing his nose at this country and desecrating our flag. And yes, this guy broke the law by cutting it down and taking the American Flag away from him.
AND HE WAS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN DOING SO!
conservnut on October 5, 2007 at 9:33 PM
AND HE WAS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN DOING SO!
conservnut on October 5, 2007 at 9:33 PM
As throughout all of recorded history, some answer the call, while others do not.
MB4 on October 5, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Thanks but it was my fault, not yours, for messing up the post I made.
F15Mech on October 5, 2007 at 10:06 PM
I tuned in here late. I can’t believe the debate. The guy was wrong to destroy someone elses property, and wrong to try to force his views on someone else.
I understand that he thought it was lawful, but it turns out it wasn’t, so he was wrong to do it. This is a good example of a person letting his passions carry him away.
Are we a country of laws or not? How many years have we been complaining that liberal judges and lawyers promote lawlessness?
If I were on the jury, this guy would have to pay restitution and pay for all court and attorney fees. But I’d buy him a beer afterward.
jaime on October 5, 2007 at 10:08 PM
First, why try to compare and contrast the two? Broussard was doing something the authorities, he claims, weren’t going to enforce. Second, the differance between the former and the latter is in the level of importance, willingness, and incentive to enforce the law (the revenue stream). There’s a large system already set up to address non-payment of taxes, as you already know, so this question is moot.
Ultimately, Broussard was doing what law enforcement, as reported by him, were not doing — which also goes to the greater picture that others here have already mentioned.
I never quoted you as saying property rights are absolute.
My point is simple: Property rights aren’t fundamental to the Republic if, when they are taken away after violating the law, the Republic doesn’t crumble. If something is fundamental to building another thing and then the fundamental thing is taken away and this other thing still stands — well, then the “fundamental” thing can’t be all that fundamental…can it?
eanax on October 5, 2007 at 10:26 PM
Would have to research it, but I’m sure a judge could decide that. There is Federal law that covers what the bar owner did. Those are the facts. He violated U.S. Federal law.
U.S. Code: Title 4, 7 (C) reads: … “No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof…”
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode04/usc_sec_04_00000007—-000-.html
Read that carefully — It says: “No person SHALL…”
eanax on October 5, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Under state law in Nevada what he did would be a misdemeanor and I’m sure a judge could impose a fine or jail time accordingly.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 10:33 PM
That would be what the scumbag Mexican did was a misdemeanor.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Yep and I’m sure they will charge Jimbo with a hate crime or terroristic threat or some other such nonsense.
conservnut on October 5, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Are we a country of laws or not?
jaime on October 5, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Apparently not. See for just one of countless examples ScottyDog’s comment at October 5, 2007 at 5:31 PM detailing conduct of the Reno PD. Think of Jorge Arbusto’s dereliction in enforcing our immigration laws.
MB4 on October 5, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Sounds like we need a response to Jim exactly like the one we gave to John Smeaton.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 10:44 PM
But I’d buy him a beer afterward.
jaime on October 5, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Word of advise – if you do buy him a beer it might be prudent that it NOT be a Corona.
MB4 on October 5, 2007 at 10:49 PM
csdeven,
Uh, I can hear? And I can see that you’re completely full of sh*t. Quote him or STFU.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 10:54 PM
I don’t have to quote him, a TV reporter did. You’re just too stupid, or intellectually void to accept the facts.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »