Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Always freedom of choice, never freedom from consequences should be what we all want.

Yep, the 'anarchists' had The Right to burn a flag. The consequences in this case was the pissed off bikers exercised their right to show they were pissed off. Maybe the bikers whined like bitches to prevent themselves being arrested, but the story doesn't mention that. I suspect the bikers involved would have accepted being arrested as the consequences of their actions if it came to that.

Kick a hornet nest, you get stung, even if it was your right to kick it. Burn a flag in front of some groups (obviously to include these bikers) and expect to get smacked a bit, even if it was your right to burn it. Actions have consequences. At times expressing Your Right to something will get you a beating. Ask the folks who marched at Selma. Expressing Your Rights only when it is safe to do so is pretty damned cowardly.

What if the flag burners had on being attacked, exercised their 2nd amendment, self-defence and Stand Your Ground rights by spraying the bikers with automatic weapons fire.

That's a damn good question. Frazz is saying that it couldn't happen in NY, as they don't have SYG.

But what if people started burning confederate flags in SC, and things got nasty...

Or any other state that has stand your ground. Suppose it happened in Texas...

We need answers!

Or any other state that has stand your ground. Suppose it happened in Texas...

Let me re-acquaint you with a cool event at a restaurant north of moi just a little while ago.

When bikers go to war and cops outside decide to intervene by just opening up on the restaurant. Comedy gold!
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/twin-peaks-biker-shooting/police-release-more-details-numbers-in-twin-peaks-shooting/article_fd337d6e-a7af-5e2b-84b9-fb5480b6efa0.html

Moral of the story. Don't start a biker fight in Texas. Our idea of warning shots is bad for your health.

I'd like to just highlight this first paragraph:

"Waco Police Chief Brent Stroman said Friday that three Waco officers fired a total of 12 shots during the May 17 Twin Peaks shootout that killed nine people and injured 18"

12 shots.

9 dead.

18 wounded.

2.25 casualties per round.

At least there are some police in the US that can hit what they're firing it. God Bless Texas.

He's lying fyi...

 Frazzled wrote:
He's lying fyi...

Oh wait, so those numbers are untrue?

Oh yea. Other witnesses said there was significant police fire.
I'm fine with it, but these guys have held everyone for weeks and lots of shenanigans are going on.

But to paraphrase an old movie. "Forget about it. Its Waco, Jake. Its Waco."

Well gak. And you got me all excited about their accuracy.

 Frazzled wrote:


Thats New York. In NY:
1. There is no stand your ground. You have an absolute duty to run away. If you are in a dwelling you hagve an absolute duty to try to exit the dwelling, even out the escape ladder, even if you're old. Thats why Stand Your Ground was created, because of NY case law.

2. Automatic weapons are illegal.

3. In NY weapons of any sort are generally illegal.

4. Self defense is only applicable if (in addition to 1) you have a reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm. In NY thats means it touch and go even if you're facnig the Son of Sam. In Louisiana that means if you can fit it in a pot.

I don't think this really would have been a case for stand your ground, I'm pretty sure they could have defended themselves in this case. Self defense is definitely allowed, you just aren't (generally) allowed to use deadly force. Or, more accurately, you aren't allowed to kill people. If a robber come into my house, I find him, and he attacks me, I'm most definitely allowed to defened myself, and if he comes at me with deadly force, I am sort of allowed to respond in kind. IIRC it will be investagated and they will determine whether that force was warrented, instad of the "they invaded your house, you can use deadly force" sort of thing other states have. If it is determined that I used undue force (like, they were running away, and I shot them in the back or something), I'd probably be arrested, but otherwise, I doubt anything would happen.

And it's not that you can't own weapons in NY, just not particular weapons, or clips/magazines/whatarethesecalledgain that have more than X capacity (I think it's around 20 or so, it's been a while). Now you don't have the same choices you have in other states (good or bad, depending on your point of view), but to say no weapons is ridiculous. Although getting a hold of more potent weaponry may be a problem, as there are very strict rules on the transport, buying and selling of weaponry.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Always freedom of choice, never freedom from consequences should be what we all want.

Yep, the 'anarchists' had The Right to burn a flag. The consequences in this case was the pissed off bikers exercised their right to show they were pissed off. Maybe the bikers whined like bitches to prevent themselves being arrested, but the story doesn't mention that. I suspect the bikers involved would have accepted being arrested as the consequences of their actions if it came to that.

Kick a hornet nest, you get stung, even if it was your right to kick it. Burn a flag in front of some groups (obviously to include these bikers) and expect to get smacked a bit, even if it was your right to burn it. Actions have consequences. At times expressing Your Right to something will get you a beating. Ask the folks who marched at Selma. Expressing Your Rights only when it is safe to do so is pretty damned cowardly.

What if the flag burners had on being attacked, exercised their 2nd amendment, self-defence and Stand Your Ground rights by spraying the bikers with automatic weapons fire.

Who has automatic weapons again?

I do!

I mean, it fires nerf darts, but it still does it automatically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I agree with the 1st amendment, but I disagree with how the SCOTUS interpreted the meaning of it. Everyone should have freedom of speech, unless the goal of your "speech" is to inflame hatred or purposefully upset a group of people for no real purpose. And this is a perfect example.

If you want to protest the NYPD then why not hold a bunch of signs or some other such nonsense. Burning a US Flag has no purpose in this other then to piss off a bunch of Military Veterans who had to watch friends being draped in that flag for their long trip home. Kind of a d*ck move.

But you see, that's not free speech. Although it might not have a point in your mind, it does to those who burn it. It is a way of showing their dissatisfaction, hatred, fear, ect. of/with America/the American gov't. Just because their speech offends you, doesn't mean you have to ban, nor should you. Disagree with them, but don't ban it. Nothing good ever comes from banning speech or expression.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I do!

I mean, it fires nerf darts, but it still does it automatically.

I said automatic weapon, not automatic toy.

Maybe I should have put a at the end of that...

 Hordini wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I do!

I mean, it fires nerf darts, but it still does it automatically.

I said automatic weapon, not automatic toy.

I suspect that, just maybe, both of them were making a joke...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I do!

I mean, it fires nerf darts, but it still does it automatically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I agree with the 1st amendment, but I disagree with how the SCOTUS interpreted the meaning of it. Everyone should have freedom of speech, unless the goal of your "speech" is to inflame hatred or purposefully upset a group of people for no real purpose. And this is a perfect example.

If you want to protest the NYPD then why not hold a bunch of signs or some other such nonsense. Burning a US Flag has no purpose in this other then to piss off a bunch of Military Veterans who had to watch friends being draped in that flag for their long trip home. Kind of a d*ck move.

But you see, that's not free speech. Although it might not have a point in your mind, it does to those who burn it. It is a way of showing their dissatisfaction, hatred, fear, ect. of/with America/the American gov't. Just because their speech offends you, doesn't mean you have to ban, nor should you. Disagree with them, but don't ban it. Nothing good ever comes from banning speech or expression.

I understand that, I think US citizens who burn the US flag are useless sacks of words Im not allowed to use on Dakka. But as far as free speech goes they can do that.

These idiots burned a US Flag to protest a municipalities police department. There is ZERO relevance to the action when compared to their goal (showing they wanted the NYPD to be disarmed). So in reality they did this to annoy people, in this case it was a Veteran of Iraq/Afghanistan who watched his buddies being carried home in a casket draped with that flag and it pushed him to the edge and this happened.

So in reality this type of free speech should be banned because they are just trying to annoy a different group of people. THis also applies to hate rallies, I don't think you should have the right to march through jewish communities with a Nazi Flag nor to go around waving a Confederate flag around the NAACP headquarters. Your goal isn't to get a political view heard it is to be a Donkey cave.

If a veteran can't handle an idiot protester that is burning the flag, then the veteran fought for the wrong reasons. Which is pretty impressive considering the whole "you are only enjoying your freedoms because of the sacrifice made by the military" message that gets passed around on a pretty routine basis.

If we ban the burning of the flag for any reason, then it becomes a useless piece of cloth that serves no purpose of any kind and people would be idiots to consider fighting for it.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
So in reality this type of free speech should be banned

they are just trying to annoy a different group of people. THis also applies to hate rallies, I don't think you should have the right to march through jewish communities with a Nazi Flag nor to go around waving a Confederate flag around the NAACP headquarters. Your goal isn't to get a political view heard it is to be a Donkey cave.

You're absolutely right about the "trying to annoy people" thing. However, that's how freedom of speech (and press, by extension) works.

Ok, just to clear things up, is the following correct:

The 1st amendment gives you the right to burn the US flag

The 2nd amendment allows you to gun them down if they get annoyed and try to kill you, because you burnt the US flag

The 5th Amendment gives me due process for when the police turn up

The 6th gives you a fair trial

The 7th carries on the 6th

The 8th protects you from cruel and unusual punishments

The 9th does something

And something else. You get all that just for burning a flag

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What if the flag burners had on being attacked, exercised their 2nd amendment, self-defence and Stand Your Ground rights by spraying the bikers with automatic weapons fire.

1) Were the protesters in fear of imminent serious harm?
2) New York places very heavy restrictions on the Second Amendment
3) New York does not have SYG as you understand it. In public, or anywhere outside your home there is a duty to retreat
4) Trying to claim self defense as you are "spraying the bikers with automatic weapons fire" will not stop the DA prosecuting you if you harm innocent bystanders, or even come close to it
5) Do you know how difficult it is to acquire an automatic weapon legally?

LOL


funny to see people chime in that burning the flag should be covered under free speech when lots of those people were complaining about people drawing Mohammad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
If a veteran can't handle an idiot protester that is burning the flag, then the veteran fought for the wrong reasons. Which is pretty impressive considering the whole "you are only enjoying your freedoms because of the sacrifice made by the military" message that gets passed around on a pretty routine basis.

If we ban the burning of the flag for any reason, then it becomes a useless piece of cloth that serves no purpose of any kind and people would be idiots to consider fighting for it.

Yup, there are better ways to protest burning the flag, and better ways to protest the police too.

Veterans dont fight to protect a piece of cloth, its the people/ideals, one of which is having the right to burn a piece of cloth if the mood strikes you.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Always freedom of choice, never freedom from consequences should be what we all want.

Yep, the 'anarchists' had The Right to burn a flag. The consequences in this case was the pissed off bikers exercised their right to show they were pissed off. Maybe the bikers whined like bitches to prevent themselves being arrested, but the story doesn't mention that. I suspect the bikers involved would have accepted being arrested as the consequences of their actions if it came to that.

Kick a hornet nest, you get stung, even if it was your right to kick it. Burn a flag in front of some groups (obviously to include these bikers) and expect to get smacked a bit, even if it was your right to burn it. Actions have consequences. At times expressing Your Right to something will get you a beating. Ask the folks who marched at Selma. Expressing Your Rights only when it is safe to do so is pretty damned cowardly.

What if the flag burners had on being attacked, exercised their 2nd amendment, self-defence and Stand Your Ground rights by spraying the bikers with automatic weapons fire.

That's a strawman if I've ever seen one. The laws concerning deadly force almost always stipulate that your protections are null if you instigated the altercation in the first place.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Maybe I should have put a at the end of that...

Maybe I should have too.

 easysauce wrote:
LOL


funny to see people chime in that burning the flag should be covered under free speech when lots of those people were complaining about people drawing Mohammad.

Who in here actually switched sides of the argument between the threads? I've been looking, but haven't seen anyone.

Also, thinking something is stupid isn't the same as wanting to ban something, as we spent the entirety of the last thread explaining to you.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
LOL


funny to see people chime in that burning the flag should be covered under free speech when lots of those people were complaining about people drawing Mohammad.

Who in here actually switched sides of the argument between the threads? I've been looking, but haven't seen anyone.

Also, thinking something is stupid isn't the same as wanting to ban something, as we spent the entirety of the last thread explaining to you.

I for one was one of the people that called the whole "draw the prophet" event stupid and I also think that the organizers should have expected an extremist response. I also said that they had the right to hold the event and that the violent response, while not surprising, will never be justified. In the same token I will agree that there will always be the possibility of having an angry and possibly violent response to a flag burning and that burning a flag is a stupid form of protest. Both are very disrespectful and stupid, both should be prepared for other free speech responses calling them out on their idiotic activities, neither justifies a violent response, and neither should be outlawed.

I don't think this really would have been a case for stand your ground, I'm pretty sure they could have defended themselves in this case. Self defense is definitely allowed, you just aren't (generally) allowed to use deadly force. Or, more accurately, you aren't allowed to kill people. If a robber come into my house, I find him, and he attacks me, I'm most definitely allowed to defened myself,

EDIT: Here's the actual law. Actual case law can change it, but per the actual law you are now indeed correct.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless: (a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or (b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or (c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. 2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless: (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is: (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or (b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or (c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/PEN/ONE/C/35/35.15#sthash.GPaiUjW1.dpuf

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Always freedom of choice, never freedom from consequences should be what we all want.

Yep, the 'anarchists' had The Right to burn a flag. The consequences in this case was the pissed off bikers exercised their right to show they were pissed off. Maybe the bikers whined like bitches to prevent themselves being arrested, but the story doesn't mention that. I suspect the bikers involved would have accepted being arrested as the consequences of their actions if it came to that.

Kick a hornet nest, you get stung, even if it was your right to kick it. Burn a flag in front of some groups (obviously to include these bikers) and expect to get smacked a bit, even if it was your right to burn it. Actions have consequences. At times expressing Your Right to something will get you a beating. Ask the folks who marched at Selma. Expressing Your Rights only when it is safe to do so is pretty damned cowardly.

What if the flag burners had on being attacked, exercised their 2nd amendment, self-defence and Stand Your Ground rights by spraying the bikers with automatic weapons fire.

Who has automatic weapons again?

My full auto canines automatically release area denial ordnance.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What if the flag burners had on being attacked, exercised their 2nd amendment, self-defence and Stand Your Ground rights by spraying the bikers with automatic weapons fire.

1) Were the protesters in fear of imminent serious harm?
2) New York places very heavy restrictions on the Second Amendment
3) New York does not have SYG as you understand it. In public, or anywhere outside your home there is a duty to retreat
4) Trying to claim self defense as you are "spraying the bikers with automatic weapons fire" will not stop the DA prosecuting you if you harm innocent bystanders, or even come close to it
5) Do you know how difficult it is to acquire an automatic weapon legally?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Always freedom of choice, never freedom from consequences should be what we all want.

Yep, the 'anarchists' had The Right to burn a flag. The consequences in this case was the pissed off bikers exercised their right to show they were pissed off. Maybe the bikers whined like bitches to prevent themselves being arrested, but the story doesn't mention that. I suspect the bikers involved would have accepted being arrested as the consequences of their actions if it came to that.

Kick a hornet nest, you get stung, even if it was your right to kick it. Burn a flag in front of some groups (obviously to include these bikers) and expect to get smacked a bit, even if it was your right to burn it. Actions have consequences. At times expressing Your Right to something will get you a beating. Ask the folks who marched at Selma. Expressing Your Rights only when it is safe to do so is pretty damned cowardly.

What if the flag burners had on being attacked, exercised their 2nd amendment, self-defence and Stand Your Ground rights by spraying the bikers with automatic weapons fire.

That's a strawman if I've ever seen one. The laws concerning deadly force almost always stipulate that your protections are null if you instigated the altercation in the first place.

LMFAO... It's ammazing how many people can't see such an obvious joke.

Guys, I think maybe, just maybe, KillKrazy was making a joke...

 Steve steveson wrote:
LMFAO... It's ammazing how many people can't see such an obvious joke.

Guys, I think maybe, just maybe, KillKrazy was making a joke...

I know it's an attempt at humour. That being said when an individual continually throws in references to American gun culture that have little to no bearing to the topic, or the laws pertaining to firearms the joke gets a wee bit thin.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What if the flag burners had on being attacked, exercised their 2nd amendment, self-defence and Stand Your Ground rights by spraying the bikers with automatic weapons fire.

1) Were the protesters in fear of imminent serious harm?
2) New York places very heavy restrictions on the Second Amendment
3) New York does not have SYG as you understand it. In public, or anywhere outside your home there is a duty to retreat
4) Trying to claim self defense as you are "spraying the bikers with automatic weapons fire" will not stop the DA prosecuting you if you harm innocent bystanders, or even come close to it
5) Do you know how difficult it is to acquire an automatic weapon legally?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Always freedom of choice, never freedom from consequences should be what we all want.

Yep, the 'anarchists' had The Right to burn a flag. The consequences in this case was the pissed off bikers exercised their right to show they were pissed off. Maybe the bikers whined like bitches to prevent themselves being arrested, but the story doesn't mention that. I suspect the bikers involved would have accepted being arrested as the consequences of their actions if it came to that.

Kick a hornet nest, you get stung, even if it was your right to kick it. Burn a flag in front of some groups (obviously to include these bikers) and expect to get smacked a bit, even if it was your right to burn it. Actions have consequences. At times expressing Your Right to something will get you a beating. Ask the folks who marched at Selma. Expressing Your Rights only when it is safe to do so is pretty damned cowardly.

What if the flag burners had on being attacked, exercised their 2nd amendment, self-defence and Stand Your Ground rights by spraying the bikers with automatic weapons fire.

That's a strawman if I've ever seen one. The laws concerning deadly force almost always stipulate that your protections are null if you instigated the altercation in the first place.

LMFAO... It's ammazing how many people can't see such an obvious joke.

Guys, I think maybe, just maybe, KillKrazy was making a joke...

It's very hard to tell who is joking and who is delusional. There's a lot of both going on around here lately.

The 1st amendment only protects you from the government punishing you. It does not indicate that people outside of the government can respond negatively. That is why defamation law suits still exist.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
That's a strawman if I've ever seen one. The laws concerning deadly force almost always stipulate that your protections are null if you instigated the altercation in the first place.

Are you implying that the flag burners instigated the altercation, therefor they have no legal right to protect themselves against anybody who acts violently in response to their flag burning?
Asking for clarification.

 Henry wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
That's a strawman if I've ever seen one. The laws concerning deadly force almost always stipulate that your protections are null if you instigated the altercation in the first place.

Are you implying that the flag burners instigated the altercation, therefor they have no legal right to protect themselves against anybody who acts violently in response to their flag burning?
Asking for clarification.

it would have to be an immediate cause-and that cause usually has to be illegal.

ie thief breaking into a house confronted by homeowner can't claim self defense in shooting the homeowner (except in NY or California )