Moving from Dakka Polls: threads about politics should go in the Off-Topic sub-forum. Thanks ~ Manchu
IM sure by this point in time we are all intimately familiar with Stolen Valor, Im just curious what everyone's opinions are on the matter.
(For those who have no idea WTF Stolen valor is, it is when someone Pretends to be a military veteran or walks around with a uniform and medals/ribbons they did not earn. The original Stolen valor act made it against the law, the new law makes it against the law if and only if the person gains some kind of benefit from the lie.)
I think its a gakky thing to do.
But, if the govt starts saying "You cant do this, its morally wrong" I dont like it. It is free speech whether we like it or not.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I think its a gakky thing to do.
But, if the govt starts saying "You cant do this, its morally wrong" I dont like it. It is free speech whether we like it or not.
Pretty much. If you're using fake military ID/uniforms/whatever to gain something of value then it's fraud and should be punished appropriately (and within existing laws against fraud, not with its own special law). If it isn't then you're just a terrible person, but even terrible people have a right to free speech.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I think its a gakky thing to do.
But, if the govt starts saying "You cant do this, its morally wrong" I dont like it. It is free speech whether we like it or not.
Pretty much. If you're using fake military ID/uniforms/whatever to gain something of value then it's fraud and should be punished appropriately (and within existing laws against fraud, not with its own special law). If it isn't then you're just a terrible person, but even terrible people have a right to free speech.
Now with that said, do you think it should be against the law for a veteran to call out someone who is faking it? I personally know of a few cases where veterans were arrested or ordered to leave an area by police because they were causing a "public disturbance" by calling out a Stolen Valor offender.
Pretty much. If you're using fake military ID/uniforms/whatever to gain something of value then it's fraud and should be punished appropriately (and within existing laws against fraud, not with its own special law). If it isn't then you're just a terrible person, but even terrible people have a right to free speech.
Agreed.
Unfortunately while stolen valor is d-baggery at it's finest, it's not the same as wearing a police uniform and impersonating an officer, for instance. A military uniform does not grant you the same level of authority over civilians, though it should be no less a uniform of respect.
I dont think its much of a problem in my country, but unlike say a police officer (who holds power over people) who impersonating should be illegal a soldier can't use his identity to impose anything. However if using the identity to gain benefits then like anything else that's illegal.
Makes sense to me.
But the fraudster should be broadcast as a fake as soon as found out to help minimize any potential damage.
Ghazkuul wrote: Now with that said, do you think it should be against the law for a veteran to call out someone who is faking it? I personally know of a few cases where veterans were arrested or ordered to leave an area by police because they were causing a "public disturbance" by calling out a Stolen Valor offender.
That depends entirely on what the "calling out" is. Public criticism of someone who is supposedly lying about military service shouldn't be treated any differently than other public criticism. I suspect that at least some of those cases were in fact legitimate public disturbances and would have been treated exactly the same way if it was any other subject.
I despise stolen valor, but it shouldn't be against the law, it's free speech. Like others have said, if the person is falsely wearing a uniform and medals or ribbons and trying to get some kind of material benefit from it, then that should be charged under existing laws regarding fraud, but the wearing of the uniform itself should not be illegal.
Of course, people are equally free to expose and call out stolen valor in a lawful manner, like what Don Shipley does.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I think its a gakky thing to do.
But, if the govt starts saying "You cant do this, its morally wrong" I dont like it. It is free speech whether we like it or not.
Pretty much. If you're using fake military ID/uniforms/whatever to gain something of value then it's fraud and should be punished appropriately (and within existing laws against fraud, not with its own special law). If it isn't then you're just a terrible person, but even terrible people have a right to free speech.
Now with that said, do you think it should be against the law for a veteran to call out someone who is faking it? I personally know of a few cases where veterans were arrested or ordered to leave an area by police because they were causing a "public disturbance" by calling out a Stolen Valor offender.
LEOs have demonstrated incompetence in enforcing the law time and time again. If a veteran calls it like he sees it, what's the problem?
Fraud is not free speech, and this is certainly not a 1st amandment issue.
It is absolutely gaining goods or serviced through deception though, due to the amount of discounts and the like given to veterans in the US.
marv335 wrote: Fraud is not free speech, and this is certainly not a 1st amandment issue.
It is absolutely gaining goods or serviced through deception though, due to the amount of discounts and the like given to veterans in the US.
But that assumes that the person is actually taking advantage of those discounts. If they're just walking around in a uniform and getting people to say "thank you for serving" then it isn't fraud. And even if it is fraud whether it's worth prosecuting depends on the scale of it. Do we really want to tie up the courts over a liar unjustly claiming a veteran discount and getting $0.50 off a hamburger?
marv335 wrote: Fraud is not free speech, and this is certainly not a 1st amandment issue.
It is absolutely gaining goods or serviced through deception though, due to the amount of discounts and the like given to veterans in the US.
Only if they're going around making use of those discounts. If they're just walking around wearing a uniform and medals, then there's no material harm.
I'm not sure it's free speech, but I certainly agree it shouldn't be illegal to do it. The issue to me is more of a natural check on government. When there is no attempt to use the uniform to defraud others, it's basically just a really douchy, lame thing to do. But lots of things are douchy and lame, like dudes walking around a music festival with no shirt on, or people that insist in telling you their made up excuse for why they were late for today, no matter how clearly you tell them you you don't give a gak.
We can't put people in prison just for being douches, basically.
I don't really understand why this is something someone would want to do (if not for discount/benefits/fancy dress parties/re-enactment).
It's a topic that interests me, I repurpose parts of retired uniforms now and then (always careful not to use those from my own country), and remove all insignia (buttons, tags, boardings, etc.) tailor them, and turn them into stylised coats, but they're then very clearly "inspired" garments for people who like an aesthetic, and not for direct impersonation. You couldn't then take any of them and pass for the original owner.
But to straight up pretend to be something that other folk have lived and died for..? Why?
What immediately comes to mind is Hollywood. Do actors have any business wearing honors they did not receive? Or, is it an honor if they are portraying someone else?
Also, what is the injury in the case of a non-actor? I find the thing in bad taste. Would I want it illegal? There are far too many laws I'd rather see repealed.
Eadartri wrote: What immediately comes to mind is Hollywood. Do actors have any business wearing honors they did not receive? Or, is it an honor if they are portraying someone else?
Also, what is the injury in the case of a non-actor? I find the thing in bad taste. Would I want it illegal? There are far too many laws I'd rather see repealed.
When it comes to legitimate costumes such as Halloween and actors portraying service members in movies I don't think anyone has a problem. Specifically since it is illegal to pretend to be a police officer but costumes and Actors are given a free pass, this would work in the same way. The problem is when you see a guy wearing Dress Blues with 27 ribbons and telling everyone how he was a Master Spaceship Door gunner. It is not so much that he is being given attention that drives veterans crazy its a level of disrespect they are showing towards the military. many of us have friends who are buried in that Uniform and find it highly offensive for someone who hasn't "Earned" the right to wear the uniform parading around like they are the biggest bad arse since Chesty Puller.
To say its free speech is ignorance of what free speech was written for and the intent behind it. Federal Service to include the Military awards medals to those who have earned them in Federal Service. Any time you fake a benefit given to you it is a fraudulent act, whether you gain a benefit from it or not. For example, the Medal of Honor and Purple Heart have federal statutes that govern them, and the benefits anyone who has one earns. Just having it is fraudulent.
As far as too many laws, I also agree with that. There are far too many laws limiting freedoms, But protecting what makes these Service Members fight and die for, the honors given to them in such eventualities is not a law I would repeal.
As for actors, if you know how to wear a uniform and you pay attention in the movies, they purposely wear them incorrectly so as to be in compliance. Wearing it correctly would be illegal if not a member of the service. It bothers me every time I see a jacked up uniform on TV but then my wife reminds me they have to do that.
redleger wrote: To say its free speech is ignorance of what free speech was written for and the intent behind it. Federal Service to include the Military awards medals to those who have earned them in Federal Service. Any time you fake a benefit given to you it is a fraudulent act, whether you gain a benefit from it or not. For example, the Medal of Honor and Purple Heart have federal statutes that govern them, and the benefits anyone who has one earns. Just having it is fraudulent.
Laws against fraud already cover this. You don't need extra special laws for military uniforms. If someone wants to wear a uniform for their own reasons it's absolutely free speech (like reenacting, or as a costume, or because they like it, who cares). If they're doing it to misrepresent themselves with intent to defraud others, then that's already illegal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
redleger wrote: There are far too many laws limiting freedoms, But protecting what makes these Service Members fight and die for, the honors given to them in such eventualities is not a law I would repeal.
And this is just insulting. Service members don't fight and die so they can get medals. They fight and die to protect things like freedom of speech (which you ironically think is worth abridging in this case).
I disagree with freedom of speech as interpreted by today's generations. The idea behind the 1st amendment was to give US citizens rights to speak out against the government and to put out unpopular ideas in order to get attention for those things. Mostly it was directed at the fact that the colonists didn't want taxation without representation and if you talked about that openly the Monarchy would have you arrested. What we have in todays society is the right to act like a complete A Hole without fear of anything because you can hide behind the 1st amendment.
Case and point would wearing a military uniform. As I pointed out if its for dress up like halloween or a reenactment thats fine. But when you wear it around the city or town because you want people to mistake you for a service member, thats not freedom of speech, thats Freedom of douchebaggery.
Ghazkuul wrote: I disagree with freedom of speech as interpreted by today's generations. The idea behind the 1st amendment was to give US citizens rights to speak out against the government and to put out unpopular ideas in order to get attention for those things. Mostly it was directed at the fact that the colonists didn't want taxation without representation and if you talked about that openly the Monarchy would have you arrested. What we have in todays society is the right to act like a complete A Hole without fear of anything because you can hide behind the 1st amendment.
Case and point would wearing a military uniform. As I pointed out if its for dress up like halloween or a reenactment thats fine. But when you wear it around the city or town because you want people to mistake you for a service member, thats not freedom of speech, thats Freedom of douchebaggery.
Considering something "douchebaggery" is all a matter of opinion, a popular one, but an opinion nonetheless. One person's "douchebaggery" is another persons "whatever". Douchebaggery, in and of itself, is not illegal. Legislating morality is never a great way to go about doing things.
Ghazkuul wrote: I disagree with freedom of speech as interpreted by today's generations. The idea behind the 1st amendment was to give US citizens rights to speak out against the government and to put out unpopular ideas in order to get attention for those things. Mostly it was directed at the fact that the colonists didn't want taxation without representation and if you talked about that openly the Monarchy would have you arrested. What we have in todays society is the right to act like a complete A Hole without fear of anything because you can hide behind the 1st amendment.
Case and point would wearing a military uniform. As I pointed out if its for dress up like halloween or a reenactment thats fine. But when you wear it around the city or town because you want people to mistake you for a service member, thats not freedom of speech, thats Freedom of douchebaggery.
Considering something "douchebaggery" is all a matter of opinion, a popular one, but an opinion nonetheless. One person's "douchebaggery" is another persons "whatever". Douchebaggery, in and of itself, is not illegal. Legislating morality is never a great way to go about doing things.
And again, it is already illegal to wear uniforms for tangible benefits. IF you get laid because you told someone you where a navy seal BTW, Civilians are not the only ones who do this, I knew a guy who was in the navy, got a girlfirend who he picked up with the line he was a former navy seal. She found out. Civilians are not the only ones who lie for benefits.
If you are a child wearing a brothers or a fathers medals of honor it is acceptable. Some Pog how wishes he had had the go-nads to actually have done it. It's like masturbating and claiming to have had sex with a real woman. Pointless and a lie.
Hordini wrote: I despise stolen valor, but it shouldn't be against the law, it's free speech. Like others have said, if the person is falsely wearing a uniform and medals or ribbons and trying to get some kind of material benefit from it, then that should be charged under existing laws regarding fraud, but the wearing of the uniform itself should not be illegal.
Of course, people are equally free to expose and call out stolen valor in a lawful manner, like what Don Shipley does.
I play a lot of airsoft, where people like to dress up in full military gear for the realism. For the most part however, whilst you can emulate a particular regiment, if you've not been a part of it people tend not to wear the cap badge, or other insignia, as it's seen as disrespectful. Personally, I was medically discharged out of basic training with an Achilles tendon tear, and ended up meeting my missus on leave, never went back. I didn't finish my training, and therefore I don't wear the badge of the regiment I joined up to.....for me, it doesn't feel right.
Each to their own I guess. If you're into re-enactment, then fine. If you're doing it for some material benefit, then I agree with the people calling it fraud. What's the penalty for impersonating a police officer these days?
Ironically folks I just ran into the weirdest case of stolen valor today. Some guy thought it would be smart to wear his Army uniform to a Panera Bread in an Airforce Reserve Town. I asked him where he had been and served and he said he had just joined up.....he was wearing Captains Bars....
I decided to not make a big deal out of it, I Just called him a few choice words and asked him to go enlist and earn the uniform the right way.
Ghazkuul wrote: I disagree with freedom of speech as interpreted by today's generations. The idea behind the 1st amendment was to give US citizens rights to speak out against the government and to put out unpopular ideas in order to get attention for those things. Mostly it was directed at the fact that the colonists didn't want taxation without representation and if you talked about that openly the Monarchy would have you arrested. What we have in todays society is the right to act like a complete A Hole without fear of anything because you can hide behind the 1st amendment.
Case and point would wearing a military uniform. As I pointed out if its for dress up like halloween or a reenactment thats fine. But when you wear it around the city or town because you want people to mistake you for a service member, thats not freedom of speech, thats Freedom of douchebaggery.
Considering something "douchebaggery" is all a matter of opinion, a popular one, but an opinion nonetheless. One person's "douchebaggery" is another persons "whatever". Douchebaggery, in and of itself, is not illegal. Legislating morality is never a great way to go about doing things.
Legislation is the establishment of rules to enforce morals of the community.
Definition of Law:a binding custom or practice of a community :a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority
Fancy way of saying the community has decided to give their morals a written form to be followed by all members of the community.
Personally I'm completely against someone pretending to be a veteran to receive any benefit, whether its material or not. I would say most cases of costumes and reenactment is fine, it crosses the line when someone is not playing around but actually attempting to deceive others. Deceit shouldn't be covered by the first amendment. That's taking a lawfully given right and using it to harm the community around you. Just like fraud, its wrong.
... it is fraud. One does not need a specific law to criminalise this behaviour because it is already illegal to commit fraud.
I agree with you, there shouldn't be a need to specify it explicitly. But in America there is an law (Stolen Valor Act 2013) that is written solely for stolen valor. I should've made that more clear. I forgot that Dakka is a global community.
... it is fraud. One does not need a specific law to criminalise this behaviour because it is already illegal to commit fraud.
I agree with you, there shouldn't be a need to specify it explicitly. But in America there is an law (Stolen Valor Act 2013) that is written solely for stolen valor. I should've made that more clear. I forgot that Dakka is a global community.
Of this I am aware - I was just making the point that there does not, nor really should there be a seperate law just for this specific "fraud".
Persponally, I find it a somewhat pathetic and contemptable thing to do, but if they are not reaping some benefit from it (other that whatever ego booste they get from pretending) I don't think it should be a matter for the law.
I just read an article recently about an LEO who accused someone of Stolen Valor and proceeded to publicly shame him for wearing a USMC dress uniform at a local art fair. Turns out the guy was an ex-Marine and the reason he was wearing the uniform that day was he had been taking part in a ceremony at a near by military cemetery. Even after the facts came out, both the LEO and his superiors refused to issue an appology.
There are folks who claim to be veterans/have won awards and or medals when they are not/have not that are doing things a lot more insidious than getting a 10% discount at Lowe's or Dairy Queen (where, by the way, they typically ask for military ID, and falsifying that should get you in a gak load of trouble). There are folks who claim these things, and are believed who then use that assumed experience/position to act as an SME or give interviews/speeches/become the public face for a particular cause/event and so on. They get no material gain, but their portrayal of something they are not often ends up causing all kinds of trouble.
No one is going to prosecute a fraud case for some gak bag who lied to get a discount on his ice cream cone or his gallon of paint. No business is going to go through the cost of a civil suit to get back such a paltry sum.
Having said that, I am typically against Stolen Valor laws. If folks want to be gak bags, let them be gak bags. If states/municipalities decide they REALLY want these types of laws, or the US people REALLY feel it ought to be Federal matter (shudder), then punishments ought to consist of 'community service' at a VA hospital, or a homeless Veteran shelter, or mowing the lawn and such ad the local VFW post. Of course, the ADM Boorda solution works for me too.
redleger wrote: As for actors, if you know how to wear a uniform and you pay attention in the movies, they purposely wear them incorrectly so as to be in compliance. Wearing it correctly would be illegal if not a member of the service. It bothers me every time I see a jacked up uniform on TV but then my wife reminds me they have to do that.
This is 100% false. It's an urban legend that for some reason has begun to be propagated, probably due to Hollywood messing up uniforms so often in films. They absolutely do not have to wear uniforms incorrectly to be "in compliance" with anything. There are specific exceptions in the DOD uniform code allowing wear of the uniform for actors in films, television, and other productions, and none of it requires them to wear the uniform incorrectly. I don't know why this idea has become so widely repeated recently, but it is most definitely incorrect.
redleger wrote: As for actors, if you know how to wear a uniform and you pay attention in the movies, they purposely wear them incorrectly so as to be in compliance. Wearing it correctly would be illegal if not a member of the service. It bothers me every time I see a jacked up uniform on TV but then my wife reminds me they have to do that.
This is 100% false. It's an urban legend that for some reason has begun to be propagated, probably due to Hollywood messing up uniforms so often in films. They absolutely do not have to wear uniforms incorrectly to be "in compliance" with anything. There are specific exceptions in the DOD uniform code allowing wear of the uniform for actors in films, television, and other productions, and none of it requires them to wear the uniform incorrectly. I don't know why this idea has become so widely repeated recently, but it is most definitely incorrect.
Having watched "Battle; Los Angeles" one time and then wanting to rip the throat out of whatever Don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n the movie company hired as the "Marine Expert" I can agree with this. Nobody in the history of the USMC has ever called a Forward Operating Base a F. O. B. it is instead pronounced "Fob" and whichever person decided saying F.O.B. was a good idea should be shot with a bean bag rifle in the nuts
That teamed with the numerous errors made me never want to watch that movie again unless I wanted to laugh.
But, if the govt starts saying "You cant do this, its morally wrong" I dont like it. It is free speech whether we like it or not.
It's been my experience that "stolen valor laws" are only brought to bear because someone is attempting to defraud a business or government agency by saying they are/were military or whatever.
I have no problem with someone wearing say, a shirt with the 2ID logo on it, or the 101st unit patch. If I give a gak enough, or I think they are up to no good, I'll casually ask them about it. Usual responses are things like, "ohh, my dad was in X unit, and died in Y year, in [insert country]" and if you are even slightly able to read people, you'll know whether they are lying or not.
I DO have a problem, however, with people trying to get discounts, etc. due to "military service" that they never rendered. Hell, over half the time, *I* don't even ask a store about military/vet discounts, because I'm choosing to spend my money at an establishment because they offer a good/service that I desire, it's not like my life depends on them.
No one is going to prosecute a fraud case for some gak bag who lied to get a discount on his ice cream cone or his gallon of paint. No business is going to go through the cost of a civil suit to get back such a paltry sum.
Having said that, I am typically against Stolen Valor laws. If folks want to be gak bags, let them be gak bags. If states/municipalities decide they REALLY want these types of laws, or the US people REALLY feel it ought to be Federal matter (shudder), then punishments ought to consist of 'community service' at a VA hospital, or a homeless Veteran shelter, or mowing the lawn and such ad the local VFW post. Of course, the ADM Boorda solution works for me too.
A buddy of mine works mall security at a local mall... the SOP for "stolen valor" is usually to kick the person out of the store/mall for a day, if the same person is a serial offender they are asked to leave and never return, with the provision that if they do, it's trespassing and they will be arrested accordingly.
I agree, Having friends in the various forms of Law Enforcement (including one lawyer), my one lawyer fried who also happens to have been JAG when he was in, was telling me that, at least where he was practicing, "stolen valor" type laws were treated the same way as "coming out" in the military during DADT. As in, we're not going to charge you on that alone but since you did steal X, and defrauded Y company, and Z other offense, we'll tack this one on to the end of it as well.
Ghazkuul wrote: I disagree with freedom of speech as interpreted by today's generations. The idea behind the 1st amendment was to give US citizens rights to speak out against the government and to put out unpopular ideas in order to get attention for those things. Mostly it was directed at the fact that the colonists didn't want taxation without representation and if you talked about that openly the Monarchy would have you arrested. What we have in todays society is the right to act like a complete A Hole without fear of anything because you can hide behind the 1st amendment.
That's not entirely true. While modern courts and culture have narrowed what can be considered non-protected speach, the concept of Free Speech has its roots in the enlightenment, with an assist from budding free market capitalism. The idea is essentially that the government should not tell people what to think, and what to say. "Good" ideas, as expressed by speach, would triumph in the marketplace of ideas. Many of the Framers were hard core libretarians.
However, traditionally, "free speech" has always included the caveat "except for stuff that's really wrong." There's no real unifying theme behind what's not protected, but the ancient ones include defamation, obscenity, fighting words, and profanity. As time moved on, the courts have started to be stricter in making sure that there is a really good reason to leave speech unprotected. So, for example, defamation is still bad, but fighting words are now only considered non-protected if they are immediate and clearly meant to indicate violence.
The framers also lived in a time where fear of ostracization from society was a much more tangible fear than fear of commiting a midemeanor.
LordofHats wrote: Fraud is fraud. The concept of 'Stolen Valor' is inherently redundant and based in nothing more than emotional outrage. It's superfluous, but w/e.
Yes, and no.
Fraud covers material loss. But if you dress up in a uniform, pretend to have been a vet, and go out in public appearance because you want the extra popularity that military personnel and vets receive, then the fraud laws don't cover it. If someone spontaneously offers you an ice cream cone (i.e. you don't solicit it) as you walk by his ice cream cart because he mistakenly thinks you're a vet, then it's harder to make a legal fraud argument.
LordofHats wrote: Fraud is fraud. The concept of 'Stolen Valor' is inherently redundant and based in nothing more than emotional outrage. It's superfluous, but w/e.
Yes, and no.
Fraud covers material loss. But if you dress up in a uniform, pretend to have been a vet, and go out in public appearance because you want the extra popularity that military personnel and vets receive, then the fraud laws don't cover it. If someone spontaneously offers you an ice cream cone (i.e. you don't solicit it) as you walk by his ice cream cart because he mistakenly thinks you're a vet, then it's harder to make a legal fraud argument.
There's only been one place that I've personally been to where you could say that military personnel are "extra popular"
And it's easy to quantify material loss. That ice cream cone you talk about, costs money. Those 10% discounts many businesses quietly offer military people, cost money. And, AFAIK, most fraud laws cover material gain, not material loss... Material loss would be theft, and entirely different set of laws.
Not for nothing, but when I worked in small businesses, the "military" discount was the same as the "senior" discout, the "loyal customer" discount, and the "you had a bad experience that wasn't our fault but we're trying to keep you happy" discount. It was also the same as the "if i buy all three, what will you do for me?" discount.
You can't give 10% discounts out like candy, obviously, but for small businesses with relatively high profit margins, increased business is worth it. It's something that nearly anybody could haggle for the majority of the time.
I don't think it should be outright illegal, however, I do think that any Active Duty servicemember or Veteran should have the right to kick their...rears.
I find it pretty disrespectful and don't like that it happens. With that being said, if these folks are gaining something from it I think it should just fall under fraud. Hit them with a appropriate punishment under those guidelines.
Every single case of "stolen valor" that I've ever heard of or seen was just painfully obvious, that's probably because I wear a military uniform though. I'm just astounded by sheer level of wtf these folks wear, I'm often like " Oh come on, that's not even the least bit believable". Also, who wears their uniform "dress or otherwise" just being out and about? I think that last time I wore my blue was for a buddy's marriage ceremony because I was too cheap to go rent a tux.
I think the law has it correct now. I don't have a problem with it if the person wearing a uniform isn't trying to gain a benefit from it.
In my own experience, I've met/worked with quite a few characters who claimed to have been U.S. Marines. To my knowledge they never put on a uniform, they just claimed to be something they weren't. I guess Valor can be stolen in multiple ways.
Deadp00l wrote: I play a lot of airsoft, where people like to dress up in full military gear for the realism. For the most part however, whilst you can emulate a particular regiment, if you've not been a part of it people tend not to wear the cap badge, or other insignia, as it's seen as disrespectful. Personally, I was medically discharged out of basic training with an Achilles tendon tear, and ended up meeting my missus on leave, never went back. I didn't finish my training, and therefore I don't wear the badge of the regiment I joined up to.....for me, it doesn't feel right.
Each to their own I guess. If you're into re-enactment, then fine. If you're doing it for some material benefit, then I agree with the people calling it fraud. What's the penalty for impersonating a police officer these days?
As another Airsofter, I feel pretty much the same as this.
I have never served or had any form of official military training and so, even during airsoft games, I never wear any patches or identification on the grounds that I have not earned them. (fun time removing Royal Marines Commando patches from army surplus stuff, they really sew them on hard)
It also bugs me when I see fourteen year olds sporting "Taliban Hunting Club" patches in the airsoft field.
I do however quite often wear military clothing (new and old) in my day to day life because it's comfortable and hard wearing.
However I make it a point to only wear one item of said clothing at a time so as not to give any illusion that I'm military
If my long hair doesn't give it away that is
My personal opinion is that appropraite amounts of the uniform shouldn't be banned from public use, but the medals and patches should.
Okay i hate people who pretend to be veterans as much as the next guy but i need clarification. I wear my uncles air force jacket (he gave it to me, it is from the 70s) it has a few patches he said not to remove. if i wear that in public is it stolen valor.
I don't take any Veteran discounts etc. I wear it any way i just want clarification.
Madoch1 wrote: Okay i hate people who pretend to be veterans as much as the next guy but i need clarification. I wear my uncles air force jacket (he gave it to me, it is from the 70s) it has a few patches he said not to remove. if i wear that in public is it stolen valor.
I sure as heck would not consider it to be 'stolen valor'.
I remember when my sons were into paintball. I gave them some old BDUs and ACUs to use. Neither of them claimed to be a sojer at any time when wearing them. I let them keep the name tape on, but cut off combat patches and airborne wings. I told them if they wanted to wear either of those, they needed to ruck up and earn their own.
Of course, Son2 is now an infantry ossifer and will likely get his chance to do just that.
Heck, I wear old BDU pants and a woodland cammo boonie hat from time in Panama when doing heavy yard work (wore them when I made a castle for the goats out of railroad ties last weekend for example). I will occasionally wear jungle boots or tanker boots when riding my motorsickle too.
If anyone can parade around with medals they didn't earn, how do people tell the legitimate people from those who are stealing valor? It's definitely, for all purposes outside of re-enactment and similar, immoral. Whether it should be made illegal, is quite hard to say.
NinjaJc01 wrote: If anyone can parade around with medals they didn't earn, how do people tell the legitimate people from those who are stealing valor? It's definitely, for all purposes outside of re-enactment and similar, immoral. Whether it should be made illegal, is quite hard to say.
Welcome to humanity where nobody has a solution that is both morally neutral and logistically feasible.
Laws like this are problematic, especially at the federal level. The initial "Stolen Valor" (which is a disgusting name- you cannot "steal" the bravery of our men and women in uniform, and such acts do nothing to lessen it) caused major problems for collectors of historical memorabilia. The Act made it illegal for unauthorized persons to wear, buy, sell, barter, trade, or manufacture "any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces."
In 2011 the Supreme Court struck the law in United States v. Alvarez. Not content to let such an urgent matter lie (but unable to do much on a budget....), Congress passed a new version in 2013 that was signed into law. Of course, the new version requires "intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit". You know, theft by fraud. The same thing that is already illegal in every state.
As to the question in the poll: absolutely not. To say no one can wear a medal they haven't earned is absurd for the many reasons already pointed out. It could be a family heirloom, part of a re-enactment, play, or movie, etc. Even if someone is falsely stating they earned it, they should deal with social consequences. Passing a federal law to abrogate free speech because it is distasteful is a bad path to follow and one that has been consistently struck down by the Supreme Court as it undermines the whole premise of free speech.
I think that wearing a uniform with no service isn't the worst thing in the world, but fundamentally isn't any worse than, say, wearing a pirate outfit and pretending to be a pirate.
But if you're using the uniform to get some benefit from it, than yes, that's fraudulent, and should be punished as such.
I'm not sure how heavy-handed one should be if someone's using a fake uniform to get a free coffee from starbucks, but it's definitely an ultra-douche move.
But I think that only going after people using a uniform to defraud something is a reasonable stance, as opposed to going after anyone.
Ghazkuul wrote: Ironically folks I just ran into the weirdest case of stolen valor today. Some guy thought it would be smart to wear his Army uniform to a Panera Bread in an Airforce Reserve Town. I asked him where he had been and served and he said he had just joined up.....he was wearing Captains Bars....
I decided to not make a big deal out of it, I Just called him a few choice words and asked him to go enlist and earn the uniform the right way.
Just as a heads up for the future, Doctors and Lawyers, often start as Capts. (Not saying it's the case here)
Kap'n Krump wrote: I think that wearing a uniform with no service isn't the worst thing in the world, but fundamentally isn't any worse than, say, wearing a pirate outfit and pretending to be a pirate.
But if you're using the uniform to get some benefit from it, than yes, that's fraudulent, and should be punished as such.
I'm not sure how heavy-handed one should be if someone's using a fake uniform to get a free coffee from starbucks, but it's definitely an ultra-douche move.
But I think that only going after people using a uniform to defraud something is a reasonable stance, as opposed to going after anyone.
So no difference from pretending to be a pirate to wearing a military uniform? Pirates don't exist anymore in the sense of having peg legs and parrots on their shoulders. The military sure does exist, people have earned it, gone through hell and back and were awarded those medals, and nearly 1.4million Americans died doing that. So to say that its not a big deal(kinda like wearing a pirate costume) is ridiculous. This isn't some $15 piece of trash you buy at the Halloween store. Military uniforms have meaning, history, and tradition built into them. So to put it on the same level "fundamentally" is an insult.
As far as criminal....If wearing Police/Fire/EMS uniforms are criminal and not "free speech" why the hell is not wearing a military uniform criminal? Im going to dress up like the FBI today....."free speech" no its impersonating a federal officer. Its a crime within the military to impersonate an officer but any old civilian can pretend to be a full Admiral and its "free speech". Its a double standard that needs to be fixed to protect the military, its traditions, and honor. Having people like 50 cent wearing a Marine Corps uniform is not only disrespectful but a misrepresentation of himself. Which IMO is criminal the same as misrepresenting yourself as Police/Fire/EMS which is criminal, felony in fact.
A guy in a USMC or US Army uniform cannot tell people what to do/pull people over/and so on. 'Impersonating' a soldier does not give the impersonator any fake authority like someone with a police uniform does.
Because they are indeed different, they are and should be treated differently.
CptJake wrote: A guy in a USMC or US Army uniform cannot tell people what to do/pull people over/and so on. 'Impersonating' a soldier does not give the impersonator any fake authority like someone with a police uniform does.
Because they are indeed different, they are and should be treated differently.
impersonating a firefighter in the state of Illinois is a class d felony. Firefighters have no real authority to tell anyone to do anything either. The ability they have for that comes from the fact the police have their backs and allow them as professionals do what they do. So your argument is invalid in that sense. It is still impersonating a representative of an official government agency. What if the national guard is called up for a disaster relief situation? They wear the same uniforms as the US Army. After Katrina the national guard were policing the streets of New Orleans, what then? Do we say its only criminal in those situations? Its a major grey area but the way I see it as people claim "free speech" as the reason to wear military uniforms is not valid. Free speech is protected by the 1st amendment except the SCOUS has ruled in Miller V California that their are times where it is unprotected.
"depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, contemporary community standards "the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".
What value does wearing a military uniform and awards unearned offer to society besides being inflammatory? The average American would say that wearing a military uniform and awards given to servicemembers that were unearned offers nothing of value to society and that it is offensive to those who served. So basing off the supreme court decision looking at general community standards in the united states that it is offensive and that it offers nothing to society besides being inflammatory towards military members its my opinion that it is unprotected free speech.
furthermore when someone is representing themselves as a member of the military it to me wouldn't seem out of the question to treat them as such
With respect to the United States Military, the federal government has extremely broad power to restrict the speech of military officers, even if such a restriction would be invalid with a civilian. The Supreme Court affirmed this principle in Parker v. Levy (1974) when the Court held the military was essentially a "specialized society from civilian society", which necessitated stricter guidelines.[68] Since Parker, there have been few cases to issue more specific limits on the government's control of military expression.
CptJake wrote: A guy in a USMC or US Army uniform cannot tell people what to do/pull people over/and so on. 'Impersonating' a soldier does not give the impersonator any fake authority like someone with a police uniform does.
Because they are indeed different, they are and should be treated differently.
impersonating a firefighter in the state of Illinois is a class d felony. Firefighters have no real authority to tell anyone to do anything either. The ability they have for that comes from the fact the police have their backs and allow them as professionals do what they do. So your argument is invalid in that sense. It is still impersonating a representative of an official government agency. What if the national guard is called up for a disaster relief situation? They wear the same uniforms as the US Army. After Katrina the national guard were policing the streets of New Orleans, what then? Do we say its only criminal in those situations? Its a major grey area but the way I see it as people claim "free speech" as the reason to wear military uniforms is not valid. Free speech is protected by the 1st amendment except the SCOUS has ruled in Miller V California that their are times where it is unprotected.
"depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, contemporary community standards
"the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".
What value does wearing a military uniform and awards unearned offer to society besides being inflammatory? The average American would say that wearing a military uniform and awards given to servicemembers that were unearned offers nothing of value to society and that it is offensive to those who served. So basing off the supreme court decision looking at general community standards in the united states that it is offensive and that it offers nothing to society besides being inflammatory towards military members its my opinion that it is unprotected free speech.
furthermore when someone is representing themselves as a member of the military it to me wouldn't seem out of the question to treat them as such
With respect to the United States Military, the federal government has extremely broad power to restrict the speech of military officers, even if such a restriction would be invalid with a civilian. The Supreme Court affirmed this principle in Parker v. Levy (1974) when the Court held the military was essentially a "specialized society from civilian society", which necessitated stricter guidelines.[68] Since Parker, there have been few cases to issue more specific limits on the government's control of military expression.
I'm just going to suggest that your understanding of 1st amendement law is misguided.
Miller is speaking about obscenity, a class of unprotected speech that wearing a uniform would in no way qualify. It's also an outdated test.
Basically, the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from infringing on speech, but the court has carved out handfuls of excpetions. Things like slander, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, etc. They're pretty narrow, because nearly all attempts to infringe speech really aren't in one of those categories, but in the general category of "offensive." And, of course, offensive speech is exactly what the 1st amendment is there to protect.
CptJake wrote: A guy in a USMC or US Army uniform cannot tell people what to do/pull people over/and so on. 'Impersonating' a soldier does not give the impersonator any fake authority like someone with a police uniform does.
Because they are indeed different, they are and should be treated differently.
impersonating a firefighter in the state of Illinois is a class d felony. Firefighters have no real authority to tell anyone to do anything either. The ability they have for that comes from the fact the police have their backs and allow them as professionals do what they do. So your argument is invalid in that sense. It is still impersonating a representative of an official government agency. What if the national guard is called up for a disaster relief situation? They wear the same uniforms as the US Army. After Katrina the national guard were policing the streets of New Orleans, what then? Do we say its only criminal in those situations? Its a major grey area but the way I see it as people claim "free speech" as the reason to wear military uniforms is not valid. Free speech is protected by the 1st amendment except the SCOUS has ruled in Miller V California that their are times where it is unprotected.
"depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, contemporary community standards
"the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".
the soldiers of the NG do not have police powers even in disaster relief conditions UNLESS the governor grants them. And guess what? At that point the same laws about impersonating police would likely come into play/ And as has been covered multiple times in this thread, using the uniform to gain some advantage, service or item is already covered under existing fraud type laws. Claiming arrest or detention powers is going to get you in trouble, regardless of what you are wearing.
So explain to a simple guy like me why you insist we need MOAR laws to cover things which are already illegal?
Read the work as it is stated not as you see it. Offensive to "community standards" the community being the nation as a whole. The second part I quoted states that it if it "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" which wearing an unearned military uniform does. It brings nothing to the table. Obscene/offensive(to community standards) speech is protected if it does offer something along those lines. I am reading the SCOUS ruling as its written and maybe not as its intended but as I understand the English language and the meanings of these words this is where I get my opinion. I am all for free speech and saying what you want even if it isn't the popular opinion but only when it offers something to society, which this doesn't. It is strictly inflammatory in nature to prove a point. No advancements in American culture can be made by these "statements". Hence why in the spirit and letter of the ruling I do not see it as protected free speech.
namiel wrote: Read the work as it is stated not as you see it. Offensive to "community standards" the community being the nation as a whole. The second part I quoted states that it if it "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" which wearing an unearned military uniform does. It brings nothing to the table. Obscene/offensive(to community standards) speech is protected if it does offer something along those lines. I am reading the SCOUS ruling as its written and maybe not as its intended but as I understand the English language and the meanings of these words this is where I get my opinion. I am all for free speech and saying what you want even if it isn't the popular opinion but only when it offers something to society, which this doesn't. It is strictly inflammatory in nature to prove a point. No advancements in American culture can be made by these "statements". Hence why in the spirit and letter of the ruling I do not see it as protected free speech.
Just as an aside, I am a lawyer. I'm not your lawyer (or anybody's lawyer), I do not practice law in the private sector, and I am not giving legal advice.
That said: you can read a court decision any way you'd like. But, to actually have a court grant a judgment that you are requesting, you need to learn to read the documents as the courts themselve do. And you are, alas, simply not. Jurisprudence is not YMDC: you cannot cherry pick one line, and decide to apply it to any given situation. The test you cited is actually not from Miller, although it is quoted there, but from an earlier Court Decision called Memoirs v. Massachussets, which itself was raffirmed the holding of Roth v. United States.
Even worse, you cited two elements of a three element test! The full text of the test is:
We defined obscenity in Roth in the following terms: '(W)hether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest.' 354 U.S., at 489, 77 S.Ct., at 1311. Under this definition, as elaborated in subsequent cases, three elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value.
You cannot simply say that something meets two prongs of a three prong test, and then claim that it meets the test. That's not how the law works, even to a casual observer.
You might see that, but you are seeing it wrong. The test clearly indicates not only what the test is for (obscenity), but the three elements required.
Even worse, you cited two elements of a three element test! The full text of the test is:
We defined obscenity in Roth in the following terms: '(W)hether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest.' 354 U.S., at 489, 77 S.Ct., at 1311. Under this definition, as elaborated in subsequent cases, three elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value.
You cannot simply say that something meets two prongs of a three prong test, and then claim that it meets the test. That's not how the law works, even to a casual observer.
You might see that, but you are seeing it wrong. The test clearly indicates not only what the test is for (obscenity), but the three elements required.
When I was a single guy, venturing out in my spit shined tanker boots, Cav Stetson, jump wings and swagger, I was the epitome 'representation of sexual matters', was without any redeeming social value and definitely was an affront to the community standards of nasty legs and non-Cav types, especially the guys wishing they had a chance at the Babes who flocked to me.
Eventually they banded together and said 'There ought to be a law!'.
namiel wrote: Read the work as it is stated not as you see it. Offensive to "community standards" the community being the nation as a whole. The second part I quoted states that it if it "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" which wearing an unearned military uniform does. It brings nothing to the table. Obscene/offensive(to community standards) speech is protected if it does offer something along those lines. I am reading the SCOUS ruling as its written and maybe not as its intended but as I understand the English language and the meanings of these words this is where I get my opinion. I am all for free speech and saying what you want even if it isn't the popular opinion but only when it offers something to society, which this doesn't. It is strictly inflammatory in nature to prove a point. No advancements in American culture can be made by these "statements". Hence why in the spirit and letter of the ruling I do not see it as protected free speech.
Just as an aside, I am a lawyer. I'm not your lawyer (or anybody's lawyer), I do not practice law in the private sector, and I am not giving legal advice.
That said: you can read a court decision any way you'd like. But, to actually have a court grant a judgment that you are requesting, you need to learn to read the documents as the courts themselve do. And you are, alas, simply not. Jurisprudence is not YMDC: you cannot cherry pick one line, and decide to apply it to any given situation. The test you cited is actually not from Miller, although it is quoted there, but from an earlier Court Decision called Memoirs v. Massachussets, which itself was raffirmed the holding of Roth v. United States.
Even worse, you cited two elements of a three element test! The full text of the test is:
We defined obscenity in Roth in the following terms: '(W)hether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest.' 354 U.S., at 489, 77 S.Ct., at 1311. Under this definition, as elaborated in subsequent cases, three elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value.
You cannot simply say that something meets two prongs of a three prong test, and then claim that it meets the test. That's not how the law works, even to a casual observer.
You might see that, but you are seeing it wrong. The test clearly indicates not only what the test is for (obscenity), but the three elements required.
So what you are saying is that speech that is offensive in nature, has no socially redeeming value but not sexual in nature is perfectly acceptable? I would argue that those standards should be universal not just to material of a sexual nature. It is one in the same the nature of the content should not dictate the application of this statement. That is how I would argue it.
Either way you are probably right as im not a lawyer but ill go to the statement on "fighting words" simply put that any reasonable military member or veteran is still likely to put their boot up the backside of your head, thus your actions/speech provoked the violence. Right or wrong I still see it as inflammatory and offering no social value.
My original argument of wearing/impersonating the uniform of any other federal/state/local is criminal. To say the military has "no actual authority" does not work as neither do federal/state emergency management workers, firefighters/EMS, etc.
CptJake wrote: A guy in a USMC or US Army uniform cannot tell people what to do/pull people over/and so on. 'Impersonating' a soldier does not give the impersonator any fake authority like someone with a police uniform does.
Because they are indeed different, they are and should be treated differently.
impersonating a firefighter in the state of Illinois is a class d felony. Firefighters have no real authority to tell anyone to do anything either. The ability they have for that comes from the fact the police have their backs and allow them as professionals do what they do. So your argument is invalid in that sense. It is still impersonating a representative of an official government agency. What if the national guard is called up for a disaster relief situation? They wear the same uniforms as the US Army. After Katrina the national guard were policing the streets of New Orleans, what then? Do we say its only criminal in those situations? Its a major grey area but the way I see it as people claim "free speech" as the reason to wear military uniforms is not valid. Free speech is protected by the 1st amendment except the SCOUS has ruled in Miller V California that their are times where it is unprotected.
"depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, contemporary community standards
"the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".
the soldiers of the NG do not have police powers even in disaster relief conditions UNLESS the governor grants them. And guess what? At that point the same laws about impersonating police would likely come into play/ And as has been covered multiple times in this thread, using the uniform to gain some advantage, service or item is already covered under existing fraud type laws. Claiming arrest or detention powers is going to get you in trouble, regardless of what you are wearing.
So explain to a simple guy like me why you insist we need MOAR laws to cover things which are already illegal?
Im not saying we need more laws, we just need to include the military uniforms under the current laws. Like I said impersonating a firefighter is a felony and they have no authority except to enforce fire code which if you don't do it they just call the police. So again why knowing that would not military uniforms be included? It only causes problems people with this stolen valor crap
So what you are saying is that speech that is offensive in nature, has no socially redeeming value but not sexual in nature is perfectly acceptable?
I'm saying that the courts have held that such speech cannot be infringed. Whether that is acceptable is a different story, but it cannot be banned.
I would argue that those standards should be universal not just to material of a sexual nature. It is one in the same the nature of the content should not dictate the application of this statement. That is how I would argue it.
that's not an uncommon sentiment, but the courts have, wisely in my opinion, decided that allowing a state to ban speech it finds "offensive" basically means that there is no free speech at all.
Either way you are probably right as im not a lawyer but ill go to the statement on "fighting words" simply put that any reasonable military member or veteran is still likely to put their boot up the backside of your head, thus your actions/speech provoked the violence. Right or wrong I still see it as inflammatory and offering no social value.
Speech does not need social value to be protected. Social Value is evidence that it is not obscene, but all speech is protected unless it falls into one of a few very narrow exceptions. And "fighting words" basically mean overt, threatening speech. You cannot ban speech because it might make people so mad they commit violence. That's called a heckler's veto, and the courts don't allow it.
My original argument of wearing/impersonating the uniform of any other federal/state/local is criminal. To say the military has "no actual authority" does not work as neither do federal/state emergency management workers, firefighters/EMS, etc.
The military is actually prohibted from law enforcement under the Posse Commitatus act.
So what you are saying is that speech that is offensive in nature, has no socially redeeming value but not sexual in nature is perfectly acceptable?
I'm saying that the courts have held that such speech cannot be infringed. Whether that is acceptable is a different story, but it cannot be banned.
I would argue that those standards should be universal not just to material of a sexual nature. It is one in the same the nature of the content should not dictate the application of this statement. That is how I would argue it.
that's not an uncommon sentiment, but the courts have, wisely in my opinion, decided that allowing a state to ban speech it finds "offensive" basically means that there is no free speech at all.
Either way you are probably right as im not a lawyer but ill go to the statement on "fighting words" simply put that any reasonable military member or veteran is still likely to put their boot up the backside of your head, thus your actions/speech provoked the violence. Right or wrong I still see it as inflammatory and offering no social value.
Speech does not need social value to be protected. Social Value is evidence that it is not obscene, but all speech is protected unless it falls into one of a few very narrow exceptions. And "fighting words" basically mean overt, threatening speech. You cannot ban speech because it might make people so mad they commit violence. That's called a heckler's veto, and the courts don't allow it.
My original argument of wearing/impersonating the uniform of any other federal/state/local is criminal. To say the military has "no actual authority" does not work as neither do federal/state emergency management workers, firefighters/EMS, etc.
The military is actually prohibted from law enforcement under the Posse Commitatus act.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of that at all, and the facts presented I wouldn't argue.
The part of my argument that I have said numerous times and the only part that hasn't been argued effectively is why do agencies that have no policing or law enforcement powers are still protected by law preventing impersonation? Fire departments being the best example. Impersonating a doctor, with our without treating patients, is criminal. Why could not it be argued that active duty military and veterans be protected under the same thought?
The part of my argument that I have said numerous times and the only part that hasn't been argued effectively is why do agencies that have no policing or law enforcement powers are still protected by law preventing impersonation? Fire departments being the best example. Impersonating a doctor, with our without treating patients, is criminal. Why could not it be argued that active duty military and veterans be protected under the same thought?
Frankly it is not a hard issue to understand. A firefighter in many places does indeed have policing powers. For example:
In addition to such other duties as may be prescribed by law, the local fire marshal and those assistants appointed pursuant to § 27-36 designated by the fire marshal shall, if authorized by the governing body of the county, city or town appointing the local fire marshal, have the same police powers as a sheriff, police officer or law-enforcement officer.
The chief, chief engineer, assistant engineer, captain, lieutenant, executive officer or other person in charge of any volunteer fire company, association, fire district, or any other organization organized or created for the purpose of extinguishing fires and preventing fire hazards, or first aid calls involving either persons or property, shall have authority to do any of the following:
(1) Suppress any disorder and order all individuals or companies to leave the neighborhood of any fire or first aid scene.
(2) Command from the inhabitants of the city, village or town all necessary assistance for the suppression of fires and the preservation of property exposed to fire.
(3) Enter any property or premises to do whatever may reasonably be necessary in the performance of the officer’s duties while engaged in the work of extinguishing any fire or performing any duties incidental thereto.
(4) Enter any property or premises to do whatever may reasonably be necessary in the performance of the officer’s duties while engaged in the work of aiding persons or minimizing the loss to property at a first aid scene.
No person shall willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police officer or fireman invested by law with authority to direct, control or regulate traffic.
Police power is also used as the basis for enacting a variety of substantive laws in such areas as Zoning, land use, fire and Building Codes, gambling, discrimination, parking, crime, licensing of professionals, liquor, motor vehicles, bicycles, nuisances, schooling, and sanitation.
So your whole premise is flawed from the get go. Many fire fighters have police powers.
Also you are using one issue (impersonating a cop which has very real public safety issues attached) to justify making a law designed to prevent vets and active duty folks from feeling badly that their valor was stolen (NOT a public safety issue at all). The intent of the various "may not impersonate' laws has ZERO to do with cops/firefighters feeling bad or being offended. If you cannot separate the two issues, that is on you at this point. Most folks posting in this topic seem capable of doing so.
namiel wrote: The part of my argument that I have said numerous times and the only part that hasn't been argued effectively is why do agencies that have no policing or law enforcement powers are still protected by law preventing impersonation? Fire departments being the best example. Impersonating a doctor, with our without treating patients, is criminal. Why could not it be argued that active duty military and veterans be protected under the same thought?
That part is simple: its protect the value of licensing.
Doctors, and EMTs, and lawyers, are all licensed professionals, that have certain privileges others do not. As such, the public could be confused and rely on advice from a person impersonating such a professional.
I'm licensed in Ohio, and in Ohio, it is a misdemeanor to hold yourself out as an attorney if you are not one. However, (and this is the best part), you can sue a person impersonating a professional for malpractice!
@OP: I do believe dressing up as a member of the military or a veteran with the intent to procure some kind of benefit accorded only to military members and veterans should be a misdemeanor resulting in a fine, or communiy service. Doing so as cover to engage in a crime should be much more serious.
I don't believe dressing up as such for no reason but to gain the admiration of others should be a crime, and I actually feel sorry for people who do it, because it's a cry for help.
Also, there are some pretty clear freedom of speech issues here.
I also second opinions that Stolen Valour is a cringeworthy term.
It is a throwback to the propaganda culture that makes it appear that veterans deserve theme music wherever they go, and puffs up egos.
It is a counter-reaction to the Vietnam effect where too little respect was given and has been bolstered in to a common servile mentality.
Yes veterans fight, gratitude etc, but they fight in politicians wars and if the public are to have an opinion should use that to turn the common mans sacrifice in to the rich mans cause and do more to bring the profiteers of armed conflict to account. That of course will never happen.
Also its way too easy to find a veteran who did several tours on patrol in Iraq, we don't hear about any veterans who spent his entire service peeling potatoes or manning an office and phone line back home, and they outnumber combat soldiers by a considerable margin.
Yes those who claim to be servicemen to defraud or worse yet to infiltrate and cause mischief need to be stomped on, and there are various laws and bodies to do this.
However soldiers are people too, they aren't superhuman allstars, and those few who are don't tend to brag about it, and usually dont want others to brag on their behalf.
If society is now being engineered into wanting to place soldiers on a pedestal then make it a worthwhile one. Get them a cut in the benefits of society by extracting major welfare contributions from companies that profited from the invasion of Iraq.
A hot topic, but I dont think it should be illegal unless you benefit from it or use it to commit fraud.
I live in a country with conscription where "everyone" has to serve in the armed forces for a year. Its not considered anything special to be seen wearing a uniform, and in fact it usually means girls are NOT interested, since armyboys are 12 a dozen in the areas where the camps are.
The few people I've seen with false uniforms or medals are usually people with mental or emotional problems. They need help, not punishment.
Being a veteran of the U.S. army infantry for 10 years I don't care if a adult wears the uniform as long as they are not trying to benifit. I think it's rather funny that people want to be like me
It shouldn't be legal it's a stupid thing to do in most circumstances but not all. It's quite common in my local area for children of veterans to wear medals and walk in the annual rememberance day parades and I always find it quite poignant. One man wears his great grandfathers ww1 medals along with grandfathers ww2 medals and his own medals for home service during our troubles in NI. Despite his chest looking like a Soviet generals I think it great. Another young girl who's father was killed by IRA terrorists walks with her fathers medals every year and it would make you cry to see her with her head
high. So my vote goes to no more laws just people respecting medals and rememberance and wearing them appropriately
Knockagh wrote: It shouldn't be legal it's a stupid thing to do in most circumstances but not all. It's quite common in my local area for children of veterans to wear medals and walk in the annual rememberance day parades and I always find it quite poignant. One man wears his great grandfathers ww1 medals along with grandfathers ww2 medals and his own medals for home service during our troubles in NI. Despite his chest looking like a Soviet generals I think it great. Another young girl who's father was killed by IRA terrorists walks with her fathers medals every year and it would make you cry to see her with her head
high. So my vote goes to no more laws just people respecting medals and rememberance and wearing them appropriately
The difference between ALL of those people walking in a parade, and what tends to happen in the US, is that they are not out in a fraudulent uniform, asking for a "military discount", Or running for office saying, "I was part of X unit" or parading their relatives' medals as though they were earned by the person.
Just noticed this poll, for myself, Stolen Valor should absolutely not be illegal.
Im a libertarian, I think if some sad bastard wants to dress as a soldier and tell little white lies (short of lying to ellicit fake donations and steal the money or defraud anyone obviously) then I think they absolutely have that right.
I think its terribly sad, but they have the right. It seems terribly hypocritical to say we "fight for your freedom" and then ban people from doing something as harmless as playing dress-up for a few hours.
I actually talked about this at length on my blog a few weeks ago, if anybody cares to hear me elucidate further.
But yeah, I dont see what all the fuss is about, I actually met a guy who was lying about being in the RM in a pub about ten years ago and I found myself feeling very sorry for him. I started out asking him loads of questions thinking it would be funny to call him out 5 minute later, but after a few minutes I just got the feeling the bloke was really lonely.
Long story short, I never bothered saying "I'm actually in the Royal Marines you lying bastard!" I just let him finish his ridiculous story and said "rather you than me mate" because I was concerned he would cry and I would feel terribly guilty about it all.
Seriously I think fully half of the people that take to time to dress up and put medals on and all that gak have actual mental problems, and they deserve sympathy rather than jail time.
I mean, how many actual veterans can be fethed to get dressed up and go to parades if they don't have to?
I mean, how many actual veterans can be fethed to get dressed up and go to parades if they don't have to?
Only one's I've personally ever seen do so, were WW2 vets....
And the more I keep seeing this poll come up, the further I agree with you that so long as there is no fraud, or activity that is already covered by other laws, then there shouldn't be too much issue. Obviously, there's gonna be the odd person who is still actively in that will take offense and try to actually fight a person dressed up, but now that I'm out, I'm finding it VERY hard to care about what people do in the army any more. I've got a few war stories that I share with people, some others that only get shared with a select few people, and still others that I will only share with the guys who lived it. That's enough for me.
And the more I keep seeing this poll come up, the further I agree with you that so long as there is no fraud, or activity that is already covered by other laws, then there shouldn't be too much issue. Obviously, there's gonna be the odd person who is still actively in that will take offense and try to actually fight a person dressed up, but now that I'm out, I'm finding it VERY hard to care about what people do in the army any more. I've got a few war stories that I share with people, some others that only get shared with a select few people, and still others that I will only share with the guys who lived it. That's enough for me.
Yes exactly, I agree totally. We probably have a similar personality, in that we are both happy to admit to our perceived failings. I am a confident man, as such I have never backed away from my faults, I own my mistakes, I think a real man can do no less. With that in mind, I freely admit (to my shame) that all the parades I had to attend were duty attends. I am far too lazy to polish my gongs, don my uniform, listen the the ramblings of a priest whose words never touch me, and stand at a parade for 90 minutes for remembrance day when I can just go to the pub instead.
This is a failing on my part, I'm not proud of it, but there you go. I tell myself I honor my fallen friends in my own way and often remember them over a quiet pint. I think if someone actually spends their hard earned cash on fake gear and takes all that time just to fake it, their is something seriously wrong with them, and I pity them more than I hate them.
This leads to my other reason, men lie. I cover it on my blog in a more lengthy manner, but men lie all the time. Actual combat vets embellish stories, sailors say they are SEALS, guys in the Air Force talk about all their combat experience and badaassery when we all know they spend 90% of their time watching TV. (tongue only slightly inserted into cheek!) serving soldiers lie their asses off all of the time too, where do we draw a line in the sand? Is it ok to lie to chicks because you think it sounds cool to make warry gak up if you are serving? Why is an army radio operator who never fired his weapon in anger allowed to bs about clearing caves with a shotgun but a civilian isn't allowed to merely say he was in the army?
People lie to impress other people all of the time, it ain't illegal, I don't think a line has been crossed. Also, in barrack towns every soldier knows its actually harder to get laid if you tell girls you wear a uniform. We all used to see who could come up with the most ridiculous fake job title while talking to women. Dolphin trainers, cookie decorators, chimney sweep, wedding planner, ice sculptor, Lego designer, you name it. Should we all be in prison?
Although, I maintain that it is never actually impressive, even when you aren't in an army town. The fact is, men are stupid and think macho bs impresses women, when it only impresses a very small and very stupid minority. Chicks don't like soldiers, they like guys that wear suits or labcoats to work, and grizzled auld grunts like us score in spite of the fact we fought in wars, not because of it.
Smart is the new sexy, it sounds cliched but it is very true.
People lie to impress other people all of the time, it ain't illegal, I don't think a line has been crossed. Also, in barrack towns every soldier knows its actually harder to get laid if you tell girls you wear a uniform. We all used to see who could come up with the most ridiculous fake job title while talking to women. Dolphin trainers, cookie decorators, chimney sweep, wedding planner, ice sculptor, Lego designer, you name it. Should we all be in prison?
Man... that probably would have worked better than what many of us did when I was a wee young lad first in....
Around Fort Drum, they call it hunting for Water Buffalo, other places may call it "whaling" but you get the idea of the game
mattyrm wrote: Just noticed this poll, for myself, Stolen Valor should absolutely not be illegal.
Im a libertarian, I think if some sad bastard wants to dress as a soldier and tell little white lies (short of lying to ellicit fake donations and steal the money or defraud anyone obviously) then I think they absolutely have that right.
I think its terribly sad, but they have the right. It seems terribly hypocritical to say we "fight for your freedom" and then ban people from doing something as harmless as playing dress-up for a few hours.
For those that might be interested we had a high profile case involving a guy last year pretending to be a Sgt from one of our infantry regiments but his uniform and medals were not quite right. He wore a para beret, no Senior NCO infantry sash, a pathfinder pin and a medal of bravery just for starters. These things stick out. The guy was even interviewed on national TV on rememberance day. He was outed in no time flat, charged and has just been sentenced. It is ilegal here.
If you're using it for some material gain in some fashion that counts as fraud, it's fraud. If the lie you're using them to tell isn't the kind of lie that wouldn't get you in trouble I don't want military medals to be in some kind of special class.
See it boils down to respect. About the only angle you can take to make lies-via-medals special in a way that demands prosecution where other ones don't is that it's disrespectful to the military. I'm not at all comfortable with the government regulating what is essentially mandatory respect for a government intuition and it's employees.
Is it a dick thing to do? Yeah. However I'd much rather put up some people being dicks, than be legally mandated to show a certain level of reverence for the militarily and it's ceremony.
I have seen many youtube videos about this problem now, and have seen that some people use it as an excuse to bully the mentally sick, the socially inept, and just plain normal people who dressed up for fun.
I dont think the concept of Stolen Valour is one that is viable judicially. How does it really offend someone who wore a uniform that someone is wearing it for show or costume?
Heck, people are wearing army surplus gear all the time, and no one cares.
triplegrim wrote: I have seen many youtube videos about this problem now, and have seen that some people use it as an excuse to bully the mentally sick, the socially inept, and just plain normal people who dressed up for fun.
I dont think the concept of Stolen Valour is one that is viable judicially. How does it really offend someone who wore a uniform that someone is wearing it for show or costume?
Heck, people are wearing army surplus gear all the time, and no one cares.
well for the most part if offends people who have had friends die in that uniform or who had to wear it every day of their lives for years on end and had to bleed to even earn the right to wear it. And then you have some jerk pretending to be Active Duty Military to impress people. It is offensive. I agree it is not against the law (until they use it to benefit monetarily) but it is highly offensive.
Freakazoitt wrote: But wearing real medals without earning it is a fraud.
No, it's not. Just like sitting at home dressed in scrubs and a name tag saying "SilverMK2, Consultant Brain Surgeon" isn't fraud. The act of using those medals or that unearned credential to commit fraud is what makes it fraud...
well for the most part if offends people who have had friends die in that uniform or who had to wear it every day of their lives for years on end and had to bleed to even earn the right to wear it. And then you have some jerk pretending to be Active Duty Military to impress people. It is offensive. I agree it is not against the law (until they use it to benefit monetarily) but it is highly offensive.
Many things are offensive. Doesnt make it ok to act as you want and yell at people though. Also, who the heck are people to be offended on behalf of their friends? I had relatives die in several uniforms for several countries, but dont feel entitled to ruin say a graduation day for a kid, just to film how I embarass his weird uncle, who showed up in a Navy Seal uniform or whatever.
I also had uncles killed by italians and germans in uniform. Now that really offends me, when I see people, especially in america, and some of them even veterans, dress up in SS uniforms or whatever for halloween. They still have a right to do it though.
well for the most part if offends people who have had friends die in that uniform or who had to wear it every day of their lives for years on end and had to bleed to even earn the right to wear it. And then you have some jerk pretending to be Active Duty Military to impress people. It is offensive. I agree it is not against the law (until they use it to benefit monetarily) but it is highly offensive.
Many things are offensive. Doesnt make it ok to act as you want and yell at people though. Also, who the heck are people to be offended on behalf of their friends? I had relatives die in several uniforms for several countries, but dont feel entitled to ruin say a graduation day for a kid, just to film how I embarass his weird uncle, who showed up in a Navy Seal uniform or whatever.
I also had uncles killed by italians and germans in uniform. Now that really offends me, when I see people, especially in america, and some of them even veterans, dress up in SS uniforms or whatever for halloween. They still have a right to do it though.
How often do you see Americans dress as SS for halloween? I've lived through over 40 Halloweens in the US, in several places/states and don't think I've seen it once. And frankly, Germany (where your displayed flag seems to indicate you are from) is pathetic when it comes to protecting speech. You can't even sell accurate decals for WW2 models because your country can't handle it.
How often do you see Americans dress as SS for halloween? I've lived through over 40 Halloweens in the US, in several places/states and don't think I've seen it once. And frankly, Germany (where your displayed flag seems to indicate you are from) is pathetic when it comes to protecting speech. You can't even sell accurate decals for WW2 models because your country can't handle it.
I'm from Norway and the flag is usually displayed as norwegian, perhaps because I posted from a plane wifi recently is it german. Couldnt care less about german cencorship laws.
I saw SS and blackface dancing happy together in the research triangle homegrown halloween in both chapel hill and raleigh the years I lived there. Only the blackface made any sort of stir though, so perhaps your own country's overtly touchyness when it comes to enforced cencorship should also receive some of your energy, you seem to have plenty to spare.
well for the most part if offends people who have had friends die in that uniform or who had to wear it every day of their lives for years on end and had to bleed to even earn the right to wear it. And then you have some jerk pretending to be Active Duty Military to impress people. It is offensive. I agree it is not against the law (until they use it to benefit monetarily) but it is highly offensive.
Many things are offensive. Doesnt make it ok to act as you want and yell at people though. Also, who the heck are people to be offended on behalf of their friends? I had relatives die in several uniforms for several countries, but dont feel entitled to ruin say a graduation day for a kid, just to film how I embarass his weird uncle, who showed up in a Navy Seal uniform or whatever.
I also had uncles killed by italians and germans in uniform. Now that really offends me, when I see people, especially in america, and some of them even veterans, dress up in SS uniforms or whatever for halloween. They still have a right to do it though.
Well generally when im talking about having friends die in the uniform im talking about service members who had to watch their buddies get blown up or shot and bleed out in front of you. I was extremely lucky, I only had to watch one of my friends die, and only two of our guys got major wounds. I was even luckier because the worst that happened to me was I got blown up and lost some hearing.
Since you don't seem to find it offensive for people to pretend to be Combat veterans then don't get offended when an actual combat veteran calls out a poser in front of all his friends. Idiots like that deserve public shaming.
well for the most part if offends people who have had friends die in that uniform or who had to wear it every day of their lives for years on end and had to bleed to even earn the right to wear it. And then you have some jerk pretending to be Active Duty Military to impress people. It is offensive. I agree it is not against the law (until they use it to benefit monetarily) but it is highly offensive.
Many things are offensive. Doesnt make it ok to act as you want and yell at people though. Also, who the heck are people to be offended on behalf of their friends? I had relatives die in several uniforms for several countries, but dont feel entitled to ruin say a graduation day for a kid, just to film how I embarass his weird uncle, who showed up in a Navy Seal uniform or whatever.
I also had uncles killed by italians and germans in uniform. Now that really offends me, when I see people, especially in america, and some of them even veterans, dress up in SS uniforms or whatever for halloween. They still have a right to do it though.
Well generally when im talking about having friends die in the uniform im talking about service members who had to watch their buddies get blown up or shot and bleed out in front of you. I was extremely lucky, I only had to watch one of my friends die, and only two of our guys got major wounds. I was even luckier because the worst that happened to me was I got blown up and lost some hearing.
Since you don't seem to find it offensive for people to pretend to be Combat veterans then don't get offended when an actual combat veteran calls out a poser in front of all his friends. Idiots like that deserve public shaming.
Agreed. Have an exault from another wounded veteran.
Ghazkuul wrote: [Since you don't seem to find it offensive for people to pretend to be Combat veterans then don't get offended when an actual combat veteran calls out a poser in front of all his friends.
I don't. The same amendment that protects someone's right to dress up in a uniform that they didn't earn protects the rights of others to call them out. In fact, I think it's the best medicine, within reason... I've seen a few that go a little too far with essentially stalking them, and then shoving them (which crosses the line into assault).
But just calling them out is totally, totally appropriate.
Since you don't seem to find it offensive for people to pretend to be Combat veterans then don't get offended when an actual combat veteran calls out a poser in front of all his friends. Idiots like that deserve public shaming.
As a real conscript, in a country where you actually defend your own country, instead of blowing up arabs and their fragile states, I dont really see why professional contractors should get to strut around harassing people. What separates them from other hazardious salaried occupations? The uniform is not protected by law anymore in the US. If you get paid to go abroad and soldier around, when in reality you are a professional contractor who chose to go in return for money, I dont see why you get offended by your friends dying in uniform other people wear. People on the deadliest Catch on Discovery Channel have a dangerous profession too, and most important; it is voluntary. You might get upset others wear the uniform, but I dont see the issue.
I had the choice between service and prison, like all male conscripts. Was an easy one. If you sign up on your own accord, be it upon your own dumb ass. And dont come back and pretend there is some mythos to a uniform you wore for pay. McDonalds people gets shot and stabbed too at work, but you dont see them complaining if someone highjacks an apron. My dumb ass friends who went to Afghanistan, when it had turned into a hotspot for the peacekeepers, can blame themselves. I did my duty, because it really was a duty, but never bought into these rectruiters crap. If you get a paycheck, stop talking about having done a service; its a job you chose to do.
Wearing uniforms to impress people might be silly and unethical, but its not illegal, and calling them out on it and posting it on youtube is just as silly. Also, half of the people who wear uniforms to impress, are usually mentally slowed or struggling otherwise. You even get results such as real veterans posted as fakers since their unit or salat wasnt recognized by these self importants.
Wearing uniforms to impress people might be silly and unethical, but its not illegal, and calling them out on it and posting it on youtube is just as silly. Also, half of the people who wear uniforms to impress, are usually mentally slowed or struggling otherwise. You even get results such as real veterans posted as fakers since their unit or salat wasnt recognized by these self importants.
Wearing the uniform by itself isn't exactly illegal, however gaining something not normally available to a person while in that uniform IS illegal... I know it's been covered here ITT, but things like getting a discount at a store due to your "uniform" status is fraud.
It's a little aside, but what do folks think about the whole "recycling uniform" craft trend?
I've seen a lot of bits and pieces surface recently about female military, wives and girlfriends using old uniforms to make purses and tote bags, using the features and names to decorate them.
I mean ignoring the fact they're of dubious aesthetic merit, how's that sit with you?
I'm honestly not sure, personally. I've seen the idea celebrated and lambasted alike.
I mean ignoring the fact they're of dubious aesthetic merit, how's that sit with you?
I'm honestly not sure, personally. I've seen the idea celebrated and lambasted alike.
I agree it's terrible looking. But it does help us identify the dreaded "Dependapotamus" around base. Usually these are the same women who refer to themselves by their husband's rank (which is BS, and doesn't apply to them)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I agree it's terrible looking. But it does help us identify the dreaded "Dependapotamus" around base. Usually these are the same women who refer to themselves by their husband's rank (which is BS, and doesn't apply to them)
Explain to me like I have no idea what that is, because I don't, and it sounds hilarious/horrifying.
After chewing it a little, I think it would be a really sweet thing to do with a young child, to make something tangible and long-lasting. Hell, it could be a cushion or a book cover, or even a lined memory box.
The purses? I'm not entirely sure I know what to think.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I agree it's terrible looking. But it does help us identify the dreaded "Dependapotamus" around base. Usually these are the same women who refer to themselves by their husband's rank (which is BS, and doesn't apply to them)
Explain to me like I have no idea what that is, because I don't, and it sounds hilarious/horrifying.
After chewing it a little, I think it would be a really sweet thing to do with a young child, to make something tangible and long-lasting. Hell, it could be a cushion or a book cover, or even a lined memory box.
The purses? I'm not entirely sure I know what to think.
"Dependapotamus" is a largely derogatory term that we (at least in the army) used to refer to the military spouses who were complete leaches off their husbands. Usually this manifested in her being rather... rotund, and as I said, usually claiming their husband's rank as their own (as in, Staff Sergeant Snuffy was married to Sheila, around the base commissary or BX/PX, she would talk down to, and berate the employees, saying "I'm Staff Sergeant Sheila" or some such)
Ohh, and usually she is so large, not because of pumping out 4-5 kids and never exercising, but rather because she's trying to eat the family out of house and home (as in, the husband looks rather skeletal, while she is Blue Ribbon quality at the county fair, speaking in terms of hogs and cows)
Though I do agree with you, there are some crafty things that can be done for the children using an old uniform, but the purses are both hideous and a near certain sign of the above term.
Buttery Commissar wrote: It's a little aside, but what do folks think about the whole "recycling uniform" craft trend?
I've seen a lot of bits and pieces surface recently about female military, wives and girlfriends using old uniforms to make purses and tote bags, using the features and names to decorate them.
I mean ignoring the fact they're of dubious aesthetic merit, how's that sit with you?
I'm honestly not sure, personally. I've seen the idea celebrated and lambasted alike.
They actually have kiosks inside the PX (seen them at Stewart and Bragg) that sell this stuff. I guess if the garrison commander and whomever else has to sign off on kiosk use thinks it is okay, it is okay by me. They look dumb, but if folks like them, so be it.
As for Dependapotamuses, I is one at this point (wife still active duty and I'm not). I joke around that when I go on post depending on how I want to be treated I:
If I want to be treated neutrally I show my Dependapotamus ID If I want to be treated poorly I show my IRR ID If I want to be treated like the dirtbag I am I show my Contractor ID
And heck, I've repurposed my old BDU pants and Boonie hat as "Do heavy nasty work outside" clothes.
And my tanker boots are making great motorcycle boots, and my jungle boots still get used as work boots now and then too (though a lot of what I use work boots for lately, I tend to want a steel toe which the jungle boots don't have).
Here in Canada it's agiest the law to pretend to be a member of the military. Their was a large deal when someone got interviewed on a program for remembrance day who was pretending to be a veteran.
As for Dependapotamuses, I is one at this point (wife still active duty and I'm not). I joke around that when I go on post depending on how I want to be treated I:
I also am one... Though I do everything humanly possible to NEVER go on base.... There's also the tragedy that every time I have gone on base, something "bad" happens to my vehicle (last time I went, a logging truck heading the opposite direction kicked up a rock that put a pretty nasty sized crack in my windscreen)
Since you don't seem to find it offensive for people to pretend to be Combat veterans then don't get offended when an actual combat veteran calls out a poser in front of all his friends. Idiots like that deserve public shaming.
As a real conscript, in a country where you actually defend your own country, instead of blowing up arabs and their fragile states, I dont really see why professional contractors should get to strut around harassing people. What separates them from other hazardious salaried occupations? The uniform is not protected by law anymore in the US. If you get paid to go abroad and soldier around, when in reality you are a professional contractor who chose to go in return for money, I dont see why you get offended by your friends dying in uniform other people wear. People on the deadliest Catch on Discovery Channel have a dangerous profession too, and most important; it is voluntary. You might get upset others wear the uniform, but I dont see the issue.
I had the choice between service and prison, like all male conscripts. Was an easy one. If you sign up on your own accord, be it upon your own dumb ass. And dont come back and pretend there is some mythos to a uniform you wore for pay. McDonalds people gets shot and stabbed too at work, but you dont see them complaining if someone highjacks an apron. My dumb ass friends who went to Afghanistan, when it had turned into a hotspot for the peacekeepers, can blame themselves. I did my duty, because it really was a duty, but never bought into these rectruiters crap. If you get a paycheck, stop talking about having done a service; its a job you chose to do.
Wearing uniforms to impress people might be silly and unethical, but its not illegal, and calling them out on it and posting it on youtube is just as silly. Also, half of the people who wear uniforms to impress, are usually mentally slowed or struggling otherwise. You even get results such as real veterans posted as fakers since their unit or salat wasnt recognized by these self importants.
Just my opinion.
Pardon me for not caring what you say, you know since im talking about the US, and also since your from norway and talking about the military.....
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I agree it's terrible looking. But it does help us identify the dreaded "Dependapotamus" around base. Usually these are the same women who refer to themselves by their husband's rank (which is BS, and doesn't apply to them)
Explain to me like I have no idea what that is, because I don't, and it sounds hilarious/horrifying.
After chewing it a little, I think it would be a really sweet thing to do with a young child, to make something tangible and long-lasting. Hell, it could be a cushion or a book cover, or even a lined memory box.
The purses? I'm not entirely sure I know what to think.
"Dependapotamus" is a largely derogatory term that we (at least in the army) used to refer to the military spouses who were complete leaches off their husbands. Usually this manifested in her being rather... rotund, and as I said, usually claiming their husband's rank as their own (as in, Staff Sergeant Snuffy was married to Sheila, around the base commissary or BX/PX, she would talk down to, and berate the employees, saying "I'm Staff Sergeant Sheila" or some such)
Ohh, and usually she is so large, not because of pumping out 4-5 kids and never exercising, but rather because she's trying to eat the family out of house and home (as in, the husband looks rather skeletal, while she is Blue Ribbon quality at the county fair, speaking in terms of hogs and cows)
Though I do agree with you, there are some crafty things that can be done for the children using an old uniform, but the purses are both hideous and a near certain sign of the above term.
"My Husband is a second lieutenant! You better salute me!" *Foaming at the mouth*
Having run into a few of those types....its not funny. I actually had my wifes friend tell us she couldn't be friends with us anymore because she married an officer and therefore we couldn't fraternize. Different services, different MOS's, Completely different parts of the country......yeah needless to say I hate those types of military spouses.
Side note: I am a dependapotamus now to I got out in 2014 and my wife is making a career out of it.
Ghazkuul wrote: Having run into a few of those types....its not funny. I actually had my wifes friend tell us she couldn't be friends with us anymore because she married an officer and therefore we couldn't fraternize. Different services, different MOS's, Completely different parts of the country......yeah needless to say I hate those types of military spouses.
Side note: I am a dependapotamus now to I got out in 2014 and my wife is making a career out of it.
Truly, as of this time I don't have much of a right to comment on the issues in the military. I'm in the middle of trying to get back in, and if my waiver goes through well, I'll have a dependent myself.
So it's all in jest. I am unsure if it's been mentioned yet but, one thing that bothers me is actually when Poolee's tout they are military when they have not even shipped for recruit training yet.
Ghazkuul wrote: Having run into a few of those types....its not funny. I actually had my wifes friend tell us she couldn't be friends with us anymore because she married an officer and therefore we couldn't fraternize. Different services, different MOS's, Completely different parts of the country......yeah needless to say I hate those types of military spouses.
Side note: I am a dependapotamus now to I got out in 2014 and my wife is making a career out of it.
Truly, as of this time I don't have much of a right to comment on the issues in the military. I'm in the middle of trying to get back in, and if my waiver goes through well, I'll have a dependent myself.
So it's all in jest. I am unsure if it's been mentioned yet but, one thing that bothers me is actually when Poolee's tout they are military when they have not even shipped for recruit training yet.
I got to Feth with poolees when I went home on leave after Afghanistan....yeah it was fun. hazing is not allowed though, remember