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
Exactly, hero in my book!
conservnut on October 5, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Haven’t read the entire, previous comments here.
But from the first ten or so (which I have read), a lot of people are OVER THINKING THIS ISSUE as to what the U.S. citizen, former Army guy did.
HE ACTED LIKE HE WAS TRAINED TO ACT and that was that: sees his flag, he’s on his own territory (the United States of America, his country, his territory), he sees a flag waving from a foreign country OVER HIS FLAG (above the U.S. flag), and he rips down the foreign flag (invader, enemy action).
That’s what the guy here did. All the later legal and ethical and legitimate and all that talkie talk is secondary to what the guy did and why.
And what the guy did and why is what people (most of red-meat eating U.S. citizens) commend him for and why he’s so respected by us.
Let the lawyers and the attitudinal and various “perspectives” about property rights and illegal aliens and ethnicities and those with poor to no knowlege of past history argue all they want, BUT WHAT THIS GUY DID WAS JUST IN A U.S. CITIZEN-KINDA’ WAY and that’s why he’s so well and completely supported.
It’s about a foreign flag being flown in privilege above a U.S. flag and flown at all on U.S. soil. And that flag, especially, being the Mexican flag which by this point most of us again recognize as being flown like this before here in the U.S. and why it’s become identifiable as an “enemy gesture” — because it is.
Look at the most obvious feelings about this and they’re the most accurate: people mostly from Mexico are disregarding our U.S. laws, borders and requirements for entry and residence here and they’re then flying the Mexican flag on U.S. soil and it’s not a case any longer of innuendos and subtleties and maybes and perhaps, it’s a case of what it is: another nation taking ongoing invasion acts upon our own.
The flags represent the nations and represent the actions of the citizens of the nations. Mexico’s citizens are the vast majority of illegal aliens and the “we only want to work” ruse is just no longer believable. If they want to work, go home and work there. And pick up all the trash you dropped at the border when you do. And pay the bills for all that you used in the U.S. while here illegally.
The truth is, the guy here acted heroically and all the rest is just aftertalk to what he did.
S on October 5, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Fallacy = Straw Man.
I wrote, “Property rights are NOT fundamental when you violate the LAW.”
Not exactly what you claim above.
And these are philosophical notions. They come from the Enlightenment. These notions that influenced the Founding Fathers came, primarily, from John Locke — as well as other philosophers like Voltaire and Montesquieu (among others).
eanax on October 5, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Or you’re just too wrong to put the statements on this page. Yup, that’s it. Because what you’ve claimed is said there is not. Which makes you a liar.
And you’re nuts, BTW, but I digress and repeat myself.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Exactly, hero in my book!
conservnut on October 5, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Where have all the good men gone
And where are all the Brossards?
Where’s the streetwise American
To fight the rising odds?
Isn’t there a white knight upon a fiery steed?
Late at night I toss and turn and dream
of what I need
I need a hero
I’m holding out for a hero ’til the end of the night
He’s gotta be strong
And he’s gotta be fast
And he’s gotta be fresh from the fight
- Bonnie Tyler
MB4 on October 5, 2007 at 11:21 PM
S on October 5, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Outstanding.
MB4 on October 5, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Noticed that a lot on this thread, from a lot of people.
conservnut on October 5, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Let Mr. Brossard be charged and see what happens.
The riotous outrage would be in support of the principle Brossard defended with his actions and with his ready willingness to accept any consequences for those actions (versus talk or tolerating the authorities lack of action).
The people whose lives, principles and actions we revere and who gave us this great nation didn’t stand on ceremony too much.
Knowing and doing the right thing was the law for them and were it not for liberalism having robbed us of our pride in self determination we wouldn’t be so insecure in our own good judgment now.
Perhaps with enough outrage and enough good examples, we’ll get our lost good judgment back.
Speakup on October 5, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Thanks. But I thank Jim Brossard and every citizen like him who does what he knows to be right and damn the chatter.
S on October 5, 2007 at 11:48 PM
You are an ignorant, stupid, a$$.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 11:54 PM
Fabulous riposte, csdeven. Is that all you’ve got?
Pablo on October 6, 2007 at 12:05 AM
When your right, that’s all you need.
Speakup on October 6, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Allah, you paying attention?
When Enrique and Ernesto agree with you … you know it’s time to start blogging on DailyKos.
Gregor on October 6, 2007 at 1:28 AM
Which basically eliminates your entire argument, being that the only other alternative for Americans is to simply allow Mexicans to start flying the Mexican flag and claim Aztlan.
Good for you
AllahKos.Gregor on October 6, 2007 at 1:31 AM
Jim B. was trying to get this mockery noticed.
He succeeded.
He may pay a fine.
But he’s earned more in return than whatever amount it will be.
profitsbeard on October 6, 2007 at 1:38 AM
We have two ways to handle situations like this.
1) Vote;
2) Petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That’s it. There’s only one situation I can think of where the prefered solution is to pick up a knife. When someone opens their door against the side of my pickup. And if someone looks at my girlfriend. But otherwise, it’s NEVER OK to take the law into your own hands.
jaime on October 6, 2007 at 2:03 AM
Yeah, its just a symbol of what America represents that was being placed under a symbol of what Mexico represents for the purposes of “empathy with the undocumented community.”
I for one can not stand having America placed under a nation whose primary export is their own people because their government is so corrupt, filthy, and lazy.
Furthermore, I don’t know of any immigrant who isn’t some racist La Raza or Aztlan crybaby who wants America to be anything like Mexico; that’s the reason they left our hellhole to the south in the firstplace.
As to AP: Good job being a PC lawyer this time. In this instance you’re just like the lefty ACLU shills who don’t give a damn about the spirit of the law, they just want to enforce the currently understood letter of the law.
The spirit of flag laws is to be respectful the the flag of the United States of America. Only a cold-blooded lawyer looking for cash from a lawsuit is going to give a damn about a flag not being folded or taken down properly after it was previously placed in a subordinate position to another country’s flag.
Lawyers. The only profession that increases exponentially in any given area where there already is one. I hope you don’t eat steak Allahpundit; you might be “known to carry a large knife.”
BKennedy on October 6, 2007 at 6:38 AM
The police were ignoring the violation of a law. What would you do if you observed officers ignoring a different law? He took the initiative to enforce a law as a citizen. I belive something like a citzen’s response should be allowed, not unlike a citizen’s arrest for restraining a lawbreaker. I, speaking for myself only, applaud the response of this Veteran.
Texas Nick 77 on October 6, 2007 at 10:38 AM
I applaud Jim Brossard. Defending the Country of the Stars and Strips does not begin at birth nor end at death.
Mr. Brossard has my vote as patriot of the moment and correcting a wrong, as it affronts U.S., right away is Purposefully Correct.
Politically Correct are only two words that exist in the dictionary. But, the media and those who want to control U.S. try to use it to identify a person is normal. I would direct these people to the encyclopedia of psychological disorders and beg them to find the term normal and identify who fits this category?
MSGTAS on October 6, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Better keep your powder dry boys, never know when you’ll be needing it. Probably after the next election. You never know if these democ-rats/socialists will get violent protecting their muslim/mexican friends.
countywolf on October 6, 2007 at 11:29 AM
\
csdeven I am with you 100 percent
Martin Luther King got arrested multiple times because he broke the law. Do you really believe it was that important to eat at a lunch counter run by people who hate his guts and would probably spit on the sandwich? Do you think he was so obsessed with the good food there he was willing to tresspass?
Rosa Parks was supposed to go to the back of the bus. Couldn’t she go through the courts to fix this wrong? Bide her time and not cause a riot by getting physical?
In both cases these heros righted a wrong.
They righted a wrong that existed because a government was not doing its job.
Do you really think J. Brossard was merely merely outraged because of a misapplication of flag ettiquette?
Do you really think he was a flag law fanatic obssessed to the point he forgot about private property rights? Do you think he was that shallow?
Or did he understand what this person meant by his symbolic act?
The flag is a symbol and the 1000 lb gorilla in our closet is the intentional action of our government to ignore our laws to the extent we are becoming disenfranchised in our own nation.
The head of Homeland Security admitted as much when he threatened to start enforcing the law on immigration. He proved as much when he waited one year to enforce the law on the illegal ’sactuary’ case. Strangely our government is attempting to weight the populace with people who do not pledge allegiance to our laws, or our ideals. Our own government is doing this by blatantly ignoring a host of laws.
The flag here was a symbol just like the lunch counter was a symbol. They belonged to someone else. But they stood for something wrong that had to be righted.
If the wrongs committed by government become so oppressive they are insufferable they must be righted. A symbolic act is not trivial. It is not foolish. Here it is brave and right.
At the point our government refused to defend our borders they have physically defied our laws to an extent Brossard could not approach if he used every last second of his life.
Bod Bless this hero!
entagor on October 6, 2007 at 12:23 PM
correction:
God Bless this hero!
entagor on October 6, 2007 at 12:27 PM
As I think someone else mentioned in part, nowhere in the US can a civilian use deadly force solely to protect property. Even in states with “castle doctrine laws” this is still the case. Deadly force may only be used by civilians to protect themselves or someone else from immediate threat to life or serious physical harm. The example used in the concealed carry course I took (ironic in the way it ties into early discussion) was that if you catch someone preparing to burn down your neighbors house, unless you have a reasonable belief that your neighbors are home AND are in immediate danger of death or serious physical injury, a civilian has no legal right to use deadly force to prevent the crime, whereas law enforcement in many jurisdictions can use deadly force to stop the imminent property crime.
So the answer to the question is anyone using a firearm solely to protect personal property is a villain and will likely be charged with at least manslaughter (so I have been taught in numerous deadly force and firearms classes).
Well said.
I think we keep combining separate issues here. Was what Mr. Brossard did a crime under the letter of the law? I think the obvious answer is that yes, it was. A separate issue is were there mitigating circumstances? Again, I think the answer is an obvious yes and the weight of those mitigating circumstances are what is at issue.
Motive is used for prosecution and defense of crimes as a regular matter. Even if his affirmative defense would not be sufficient to win in a court room, he will likely win in the court of public opinion. Numerous people over the years have been jailed, fined and even killed in acts of civil disobedience. Just because they were found guilty in a court of law does not mean that their cause and acts were not just.
As for the comments rebutting the Boston Tea Party comparisons with the petitioning the government for grievances argument, I would say that we have done so. The vast outpouring of anger and displeasure about the amnesty bill this summer was a petitioning for grievance. Millions of Americans have contacted their representatives in opposition to amnesty and their clear desire that our immigration laws be enforced. Those letters, faxes and emails are a petition for grievances. The American people have made it very clear that we want the flow of illegal immigrants stopped, that we want our existing laws enforced and we want our national sovereignty protected. Mr. Brossard simply acted where the government has failed to for generations.
deepdiver on October 6, 2007 at 1:00 PM
My flag is a lot more than cloth.
Don’t ever discount the Stars and Stripes meaning or the significance.
Our ‘American’ flag
Our American flag is more than colors..fabric.
It’s more, than the visual a breeze imparts.
It’s more, than a phrase of allegiance.
It’s more even, than a national symbol.
Our ‘American’ flag is remembrances, rare and common.
Our ‘American’ flag carries knowledge of certain events.
The sound, unmistakable and distinct…after battle, taps.
The epiphany at it’s raising on Iwo Jima…Ground zero…Baseball game.
The length and width of us all, anywhere.
Our ‘American’ flag carries blood…Sons and Daughters, Mothers and Fathers.
Always, the sight of our ‘American’ flag will tear tears from our strongest.
Yes, Yes, our ‘American’ flag is worth dieing for.
Without remembrance, we have no essence…meaning for which to live.
With remembrance and our flag, we shall survive.
Speakup on October 6, 2007 at 1:36 PM
People like Enrique say things like this when discussing anything American, yet they are also the first to yell and scream about the atrocity of disrespect if an American were to be seen burning a Mexican flag, or Palestinian flag.
Enrique, you make me puke.
Gregor on October 6, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Dude, you can kiss my a$$. My family arrived in North America in the early 1600’s, and someone in my family in every generation since the revolutionary war has served in the United States Military.
Those red stripes on that flag aren’t there just to contrast with the white ones. They represent the BLOOD spilled by my family and many many others creating and preserving this great republic. It may not be untouchable, but by god it most certainly is a sacred object.
doriangrey on October 6, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Of course I support Jim Brossard!
His action is that of a true patriot.
Did he violate protocol in the way he removed the flags?
Perhaps.
Since he did a good, patriotic act by removing the illegally displayed Mexican flag, and countered that by not following proper flag removal and handling protocol, I’d say that his balance of good Vs bad cancels one another out to some extent and he ends up almost even, without jail time, but lacking the absolute moral superiority to be praised without restraint. He ends up with a bit more bankable good for his action than bad.
I still applaud him!
William
William2006 on October 6, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Enrique
I bled under that flag….. don’t you ever say its not sacred to me. Better question, why did I have to say this when I wanted to keep it to myself because I never wanted it to be a counter point to something.
MNDavenotPC on October 6, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Brossard rescued that flag.
You don’t stop to conduct a ceremony… the U.S. flag was improperly dipped below the flag of another nation, and that must be instantly corrected. You rescue the Stars and Stripes!
You don’t stop to untie the rope… you cut it down and rescue the American flag!
You don’t worry about the flag of another nation, that never should have been on that pole to begin with, falling to the ground… you rescue Old Glory!
Brossard would win in any court in the land… except for a few locales in Californication.
T J Green on October 6, 2007 at 7:09 PM
Not picking a fight (just saying b/c tempers run high on this thread), but what do you feel about this:
I know some people who will fly Union Jack under the Stars and Stripes in honor of their help in Iraq.
Similar, haven’t seen, but heard of people who also do that with the Israeli flag. Your feeling?
I assume it technically improper, but does the motive absolve it? Would that also apply to Italian flag draped over the balcony in NY of immigrants at turn of century? Motive absolve?
Spirit of 1776 on October 6, 2007 at 8:04 PM
Why do you hate Mr Broussard ALLAHP?
You see ALLAHP? You have to take law enforcement into your own hands to be a vigilante. In this case, Mr Broussard called law enforcement and they said they can do nothing because what was happening wasn’t against the law. The Fed’s say there’s nothing they can do because the flag law isn’t really a law, it’s a recommendation which they will not enforce.
So, therefore ALLAHP, Mr Broussard is NOT a vigilante and CANNOT be labeled as such with anything less then contempt or spite. So… why do you hate him ALLAHP?
What he is, though, is a COURAGEOUS HERO who’s not AFRAID to do the right thing even though it’s NOT P.C.!
SilverStar830 on October 6, 2007 at 9:22 PM
Spirit of 1776…I’ll try to comment on a few of your questions there.
(1.) Focus for starters on the country of Mexico, what it’s citizens are and have been doing in present times where out nation is concerned.
There’s no comparison with some Italian immigrants (legal, by the way, applied, stood in line, participated in screening before admittance to the country and abided by deportation when they didn’t pass, used their own names, paid taxes, didn’t receive social services nor demand that the U.S. speak Italian to suit their comforts, and more).
Laying an Italian flag over a railing on a day of special note by legal immigrants from Italy is pretty well and easily recognized by nearly everyone in the U.S. as a cultural statement, NOT as statement of invasive intent or arrogant denigration of the U.S. but of someone commemorizing their culture.
Compare that to the vast majority of illegal immigrants from Mexico who use “immigration” of the illegal and some of the legal kind to intrude, so to speak, to REPLACE a U.S. civilization/nation with one of their own making (”wherever there’s a Mexican, there’s Mexico” and the AZTLAN/Hispanic ethnic-supremacy movement).
(2.) The Mexican flag this U.S. citizen removed from display on U.S. soil was being flown above the U.S. flag — which is a blatant statement not only of disrespect for the U.S. flag but an aggressive statement of SUBMISSION of the U.S. flag to the “dominant” position of the Mexican flag.
Mix that display into the present day behaviors by many from Mexico that seeks to eradicate the very idea of “the U.S.” and replace it BY POPULATION with people from Mexico or any other Hispanic from anywhere and you get A METHOD OF INVASION…it’s not just emotional terminology, it’s an actual “hardware” process by which a nation (it’s people, we citizens of the U.S.) are REPLACED intentionally and persistently WITH THE INTENT of eradicating our people and replacing them with, mostly, “Mexico.”
It’s a cultural and a political process as it is also a paramilitary process.
It can’t reasonably be compared to some legal immigrant placing their native country’s flag on a railing in honor of their origins.
Try removing your “technical” perspective and look at the human processes at work here…
Another thing, I was just looking over a huge collection of image files I have of those alleged “undocumented immigrants” from their various displays and marches of late and I have a number of images wherein they’re flying the U.S. flag upside down, where they attack and destroy the U.S. flag (I thought they “only wanted to work”), and several that document many of them flying the U.S. flag before the cameras and as soon as the cameras stopped clicking, those illegal aliens threw the U.S. flags down and most of them laughed and stomped on them afterward, assuming the filming was over.
S on October 6, 2007 at 9:44 PM
This act also calls into greater light the mentality by mostly Mexicans and the nation of Mexico that their people are their nation — and that, therefore, Mexico systematically and intentionally engaging in a “go forth to the U.S. and support Mexico from there” methodology is their act of extending their country into U.S. territory for purposes of replacing / eradicating the U.S. territory.
It’s “racism” FROM among Hispanic ethnicities upon North America (actually, it’s ethnic supremacy because “Hispanic” is an ethnicity, not a “race”). Like the Left in the U.S., however, they all apply the denigration to others to attempt to avoid being held accountable for their own behaviors.
Mexico declares it’s nation to be it’s people wherever they are and by people from Mexico in the U.S. refusing to integrate as members of the U.S. in preference / insistence upon them as Mexicans, as Mexico, they really do declare themselves to be “foreign” by intention and plan without intention or plan to become one with the U.S. but instead with intention to oppose it, to maintain loyalties to another nation (which would be fine to a certain extent on a non-military, non forceful level if they were honest about it and by that, recognized themselves as visitors here).
S on October 6, 2007 at 9:51 PM
Time to ratchet-up the debate one more notch, I guess.
I am a Christian first, a conservative second. If being a conservative means that I must mindlessly pursue a policy of rigid adherence to the law, then the atheists like AP can KEEP their “conservative” priniciples for themselves — it’s not for me. THAT kind of mindset is apropos for a Pharisee, but certainly not for a Christian.
Jesus reserved His harshest criticism for people that espoused exactly this point of view, viz. that the “letter of the law” should be held highest in esteem, above all else. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if I remember correctly, Jesus referred to these people as “white-washed sepulchres” and “a brood of vipers.” The operative words that He hurled at them over and over again were something along the lines of “woe unto you…woe unto you…woe unto you…” In fact, I believe that He predicted that things would go rather badly for these types on the day of judgement — worse for them even than for the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, didn’t He?
I would HOPE that most people that call themselves “conservative” would realize that there are some principles that not only can, but MUST be held in higher esteem than the “law of the land.” While I won’t necessarily argue one way or the other in this particular instance (forcibly removing the flags, and all), I WILL argue that the laws devised by men (poor pathetic, misguided creatures that they are) are certainly NOT supreme. There are some principles that supercede man’s laws – like for instance “inalienable rights endowed by the Creator”. And if that doesn’t shock you, then try imagine this one: There are even some principles that are worth dying for.
My collie says:
You see, even my stupid dog understands it. Then, on the other hand, it just MIGHT be entertaining for me (and maybe some others here) to see AllahPundit arguing face-to-face with God (on the day of judgement) that Jesus was “in the wrong” when He broke the law and healed people on the sabbath, and when He “committed blasphemy” by claiming to be the “I AM”.
CyberCipher on October 6, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Put him in front of a jury and see what they say.
out.
Metro on October 6, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Right on Allah – you get the phone, I may even get my dad to buy you one if Michelle doesn’t.
If you are a moonbat, then you are only one amougst the wingnuts….LOL.
AprilOrit on October 6, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Thanks for the answer. I consider the things you mentioned both legitimate and pressing concerns. And allow me to say, again, I think the guy is a patriot. I have not, and will not say otherwise.
I’m not trying to say people aren’t honorable who cheer him. He11 I cheer him, but ‘might make right’ theory (told the king to go f* himself) or the sovereignty theory are either wrong or flawed. We were very concerned with the law when we declared independence and we appealed to both the English and Nature’s law (and one of Americana’s most famous lines is – let us trust that right makes might). The sovereignty issue is important and makes an interesting argument, but that was not what was on Brossard’s mind because he cut away the American flag, not the Mexican flag. In short he ‘redeemed’ Old Glory, not removed the Mexican and running the American back up.
So the issue in his mind was a moral one – he saw an atrocity. He answered a higher calling – moral law. I applaud that. But it is also true that he violated a fellow citizens rights and he should answer for that – I think a fine for the cost of rope and flag is fitting. I don’t want to see him castigated, I think he is hero, but I also believe this is a nation of laws that is founded on respect for the property of the individual.
That is why I asked the question, because I was curious. It’s not the treatment of the flag then so much as the motive of the treatment of the flag. Arguing the value of the flag is an exercise in futility to me, comparing it to cloth is like equating the Bible as paper. It either is special to you or not; it’s very dear to me, but equally so are the fundamental principles of our Republic.
As to the weight of your commentary on Mexico. It is an insult to the American citizenship to sell itself so cheaply as the administration has in dealing with Mexico. It is absurd for the administration to entertain any of the complaints from the Mexican government when the Mexican government is complicit and explicit in violating our laws. It is beyond the pale.
On the individual level, though, I personally don’t care for the assumption of motive, so I prefer the process via law. However, if the display was continued with disregard to law (requiring that owner was informed and refused to bring it down) then that aspect is satisfied in my mind. (Just for the record, I don’t have any problem with people being proud of their culture as long as they assimilate and uphold our law).
Spirit of 1776 on October 6, 2007 at 11:12 PM
The soul of the law, as well as the letter, was violated in putting up the foreign flag. Only the letter was violated in its unceremonious removal, and that was done in defense of the law’s soul.
Our laws regarding handling of foreign flags extend to proper displays of such flags. Those displays are meant to be formal expressions of the dignity and sovereignty of the nations associated with them. The desecration of that foreign flag happened not when this man removed it but when it was put up originally with malice aforethought in clear violation of the law meant to protect it. The flag was used as a weapon, put up to drive a wedge in our culture and our identity as Americans. As such, the particulars of its proper handling were never in effect, except as vestigial trappings, devoid of meaning.
Red meat, indeed. Feh. Don’t worry. Soon enough, there won’t be an America left to care any more than you do about such things.
spmat on October 7, 2007 at 12:04 AM
What is the proper “proceedure” and “Ceremony” for removing a flag that is being improperly and illegaly displayed? Should Mr. Brossard have called in some Marines, in their dress blues, to cradle and kiss the Mexican flag? I defending oneself when attacked will now be called an “illegal assault”.
I think the knife ceremony was the best proceedure for recitfying the situation.
srhoades on October 7, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Haven taken down and raised so many US flags in my time in service and time in the VFW, I can state that while a proper and formal handling of a flag is desired, there is nothing wrong in bundling it in your arms. The primary objective is to never have it touch ground, ever. I never thought I’d advise someone to serve in the military before becoming any type of “expert”, but apparently one must.
MNDavenotPC on October 7, 2007 at 3:26 PM
When did sucking xxxk become legal in public?
Disgusting, I just lost my appetite and will put the t-bone back into the refrigerator until tomorrow.There is no way I could enjoy a t-bone tonight after viewing some of Zombies photos.
ScottyDog on October 7, 2007 at 8:48 PM
My understanding was that the “proper” method for removing a flag when one is alone is to simply prevent it from touching the ground.
Having been involved with Christian Service Brigade (like a Christian Boy Scouts) we were all taught the traditional military methods of removing and folding an American flag with 4 people, 3 people, 2 people and alone.
However, most of these ceremonies were just that, ceremony and NOT law or code. The only part of the law (US Code Title 4, Chapter 1) regarding the removal of a flag is in section 9 “Conduct during hoisting, lowering or passing of flag.”
Other than that, the only other section that would pertain to Mr. Brossard’s behavior is in Section 8, subsection b.
So unless he was disrespectful of the flag by allowing it to touch the ground or any other object (save the pole the flag was flying from) he did not violate this particular section of the US code. Which pretty much deflates both that lawyer’s argument and yours AP.
Of course, there is still the argument of private property/freedom of expression vs. US Code. While I am not a lawyer, it is my understanding that Freedom of Expression ends when violations of law begin. For example: I am free to express myself, but not by running naked down the i90 in rush hour traffic. Another way of putting is to say that I am not free to break the law in the process of expressing myself. This is what the owner of the Mexican flag was doing. Breaking the law while expressing himself.
Private property issues are another problem altogether, however I would imagine a similar principle as the one related to freedom of expression applies to that of private property.
While I do not necessarily think that Mr. Broussard was right to take the law into his own hands by correcting the flag flying order, one might be able to make the case of a “citizen’s arrest” type of situation. I guess I’ll leave that one up to the lawyers.
For those that are interested, here is a link to a full copy of US Code Title 4 Chapter 1.
wearyman on October 7, 2007 at 9:17 PM
See Kelo v. New London. Private property is now a privilege. The Supreme Court held the benefit a community receives from from economic growth qualifies little ol’ redevelopment plans as a permissible “public use” under the Fifth Amendment.
AZ_Redneck on October 7, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Caring about the procedure in which a flag is taken down when a foreign flag is being flown over it makes about as much sense as telling soldiers that they cannot open fire until they actually have been fired at on the battlefield.
They’re rules made by politicians with no regard for either the person doing the work, taking the risk, and defending the ability of the rulemakers to make the rules.
MadisonConservative on October 8, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Funny, where is all this “personal property” rhetoric when someone steals someone else’s US flag to burn it for “political statement?”
PJ Emeritus on October 8, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Wow, you gave me chills!!
Glad you wrote that!
ChrisIansNana on October 8, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Indeed, some people get it and some don’t. Those who get it see that flag as representing all that is good and sacred about this great republic. Those that don’t just see the flag as a piece of cloth.
Our founding father’s were not so inclined to think kindly about those who didn’t understand as we today are. In fact it was exactly those people who didn’t understand that Samuel Adams made his famous quote regarding.
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 12:49 AM
ScottyDog on October 7, 2007 at 8:48 PM
Sorry, this post belonged in the Miller thread over at MM.com
ScottyDog on October 9, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4