Like I said in another thread, I queston certain groups loyalty... - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Hatterasguy · #1 10-05-2007, 10:50 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nONjlZ8YMkA

How much more disrespectfull can you get.

I would have cut it down to.

Not to mention it was illegal.
http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html

BENZ-LGB · #2 10-05-2007, 11:03 AM

I would have done the same thing as the vet.

It is wrong to come to this country and do what they did.

In Mexico, an American flying the US flag above the Mexican flag would be lynched.

I hope the vet is not prosecuted for vandalism.

By the way, the flags were flying above a bar--it figures.

Brian Carlton · #3 10-05-2007, 11:24 AM

They probably had no knowledge of proper display of the flag. It's a protocol violation.........nothing more..........it's hardly illegal.

Don't you have something more significant to get all torqued up about.........rather then the position of a flag on a pole.............???

Honus · #4 10-05-2007, 11:45 AM

It would be interesting to know whether the owner of the flag knew that he was violating any protocols for handling the flag. If the veteran approached the owner of the flags and asked them to correct the orientation of the flags before doing what he did, then I can see his position. Otherwise, his conduct was worse then theirs, especially with the way he threw the Mexican flag on the ground.

According to the website cited in the first post, the flag owner's conduct was not illegal, just inappropriate:

Quote:

Are there penalties for violating the Flag Code?
No. The Flag Code (see below) is intended as a guide to be followed on a purely voluntary basis to insure proper respect for the flag.

http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html

Whether the flag owners held our flag in contempt before this incident is hard to say without knowng more about why they did what they did and what knowledge they had of our customs. Probably the only thing I would say is that if they had respect for our flag before, they probably don't respect it any more.

jlomon · #5 10-05-2007, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nONjlZ8YMkA

How much more disrespectfull can you get.

I would have cut it down to.

Not to mention it was illegal.
http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html

Disrespectful? Absolutely. Illegal? I'm not so sure. If burning one is a constituionally-protected form of free speech, I don't see how you can make this act illegal.

TX76513 · #6 10-05-2007, 11:59 AM

I would have to agree with dculkin. They probably didn't know and thought they were not doing the right thing. It's fairly obvious from the looks on their faces they didn't speak English. I would wager that if it was handled differently (explained to them) the video would not have even been new worthy.

Botnst · #7 10-05-2007, 12:18 PM

^^^^ Yup.

If I remember correctly, several years ago the state of Louisiana got all panty-wadded about flag desecration and tried to get a silly-assed law passed about it. It may actually have passed but I think it failed on challenge.

So the legislature reduced the penalty for battery in the event it was on a flag burner.

A friend of mine who takes the flag burning very seriously said, "Hell, I'd pay a lot more than that to kick those guys' asses."

dynalow · #8 10-05-2007, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

They probably had no knowledge of proper display of the flag. It's a protocol violation.........nothing more..........it's hardly illegal.

Don't you have something more significant to get all torqued up about.........rather then the position of a flag on a pole.............???

Not so! It is illegal.

But then again, those guys couldn't understand eeengleeessshh. So, wtf, give em a pass. If they don't understand eeenglisssh, maybe thez illegals?

Hmm I'm wondering if citizenship tests are given in foreign languages. Have to ask the gf if she knows.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode04/usc_sec_04_00000007----000-.html

The flag means a lot to many folks. Apparently, you don't have the depth of feeling as some others.

Brian Carlton · #9 10-05-2007, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynalow

Not so! It is illegal.

"(c) No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America.........."

This doesn't appear to be a law..........the word "should" is the tipoff..........coupled with a lack of a penalty.

Nate · #10 10-05-2007, 12:37 PM

Glad that he took it, The flag deserves better.

~Nate

dynalow · #11 10-05-2007, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

"(c) No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America.........."

This doesn't appear to be a law..........the word "should" is the tipoff..........coupled with a lack of a penalty.

I was under the impression the the US Code was law. I will defer to our attorney friends here on that.

Is a law without a penalty not a law?

Maybe Maybe not. Use of "should" could mean anything, including sloppy crafting. Attorneys occasionally write sloppy laws.

Honus · #12 10-05-2007, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynalow

Not so! It is illegal....

Not according the the statute that you cited it isn't:

Quote:

§ 7. Position and manner of display

...(c) No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America...

[emphasis added]

Note the use of the word "should". The statute sets a voluntary standard.

Quote:

...The flag means a lot to many folks. Apparently, you don't have the depth of feeling as some others.

The funny part is that if someone were inclined to draw a conclusion on that subject, a good argument could be made that his feeling is deeper than others, but any conclusion of that sort is silly, regardless of which judgement one tries to make about another person.

Honus · #13 10-05-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynalow

I was under the impression the the US Code was law...

Yes, it is the law of the land. And the rule that it sets is that there are no mandatory rules for the treatment of a flag, although I'm sure that other laws would forbid me from destroying a flag that belonged to someone else, but that's the same under the law as the destruction of any property.

Quote:

... Maybe Maybe not. Use of "should" could mean anything, including sloppy crafting. Attorneys occasionally write sloppy laws.

My guess is that the word "should" was used because a mandatory word such as "shall" would violate the First Amendment. That's just a guess. Maybe someone else knows for sure.

dynalow · #14 10-05-2007, 01:09 PM

I think Rick Monday would agree with this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjfOSe22WIo

dynalow · #15 10-05-2007, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Yes, it is the law of the land. And the rule that it sets is that there are no mandatory rules for the treatment of a flag, although I'm sure that other laws would forbid me from destroying a flag that belonged to someone else, but that's the same under the law as the destruction of any property.My guess is that the word "should" was used because a mandatory word such as "shall" would violate the First Amendment. That's just a guess. Maybe someone else knows for sure.

dc,
You could be right. I guess I have always looked upon laws as being a mandate to do or not do something (with, hopefully, clarity). "Congress shall make no law..." for instance. I admit that written the way it is removes (should) finality and therefore one who acts otherwise isn't breaking this statute.

(If this was tax law, I'd go to committee reports and legislative history.) Also, my guess is that this section has been in the USC for a long time, maybe back when people really knew grammar. Should means Should, not SHALL or MUST.

Crow tastes better warm!

edit:
I am not a lawyer. BenzLGB is. See next post.