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.

 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.

I believe so, and I don't think that Frazz is necessarily correct. The way that it's typically described in concealed carry courses would extend "instigation" to verbal attacks and things of that nature.

This legal advice (which is worth as much as any offered on the internet) suggests that even approaching someone for a verbal confrontation counts as "instigation." http://community.lawyers.com/forums/t/125127/627423.aspx

Finally, burning something the size of a flag may be illegal according to local ordinances anyway. My point is that if someone attacks you for burning a flag, and you kill him, you are probably going to face murder charges, and you are probably going to jail.

I'm with d-usa here...

One can despise burning the American flag as a political statement and at the same time, support their rights to do so.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 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.

I believe so, and I don't think that Frazz is necessarily correct. The way that it's typically described in concealed carry courses would extend "instigation" to verbal attacks and things of that nature.

Your instructor needs to refresh themselves on case law and criminal statue. THE LAW is much more strict. Verbal exchanges do not impact self defense or crimes generally. Now usuually these are before a jury (if they get to trial) so you can only say usually.

If I call you a er and you attempt to attack me: you are committing battery and I can defend myself.
Having called you a er does not mitigate either the legal requirements of a battery charge or invitiate the right of self defense in this instance. *


*If by er I mean you are a cat person this is obviously incorrect. The Eiger sanction is warranted at all times.

EDIT:

Finally, burning something the size of a flag may be illegal according to local ordinances anyway. My point is that if someone attacks you for burning a flag, and you kill him, you are probably going to face murder charges, and you are probably going to jail.

This is accurate. I may be misinertpreting what you were saying before that.

I normally disagree with Frazzled's train of thought, and I can't comment too much on laws in the USA as I'm aware they change between states, but in the UK Frazzled's interpretation would be correct.

Shouting abuse at someone does not give them the right to physically attack you, no matter how upset they may be. Similarly displays that upset someone doesn't give them the right to get overly physical.

Reasonable force can be used to intervene when somebody is committing an illegal act - such as defending yourself when somebody physically assaults you because of something you have said or done that they object to. But any reaction must be defendable as reasonable.

 Frazzled wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 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.

I believe so, and I don't think that Frazz is necessarily correct. The way that it's typically described in concealed carry courses would extend "instigation" to verbal attacks and things of that nature.

Your instructor needs to refresh themselves on case law and criminal statue. THE LAW is much more strict. Verbal exchanges do not impact self defense or crimes generally. Now usuually these are before a jury (if they get to trial) so you can only say usually.

If I call you a er and you attempt to attack me: you are committing battery and I can defend myself.
Having called you a er does not mitigate either the legal requirements of a battery charge or invitiate the right of self defense in this instance. *


*If by er I mean you are a cat person this is obviously incorrect. The Eiger sanction is warranted at all times.

EDIT:

Finally, burning something the size of a flag may be illegal according to local ordinances anyway. My point is that if someone attacks you for burning a flag, and you kill him, you are probably going to face murder charges, and you are probably going to jail.

This is accurate. I may be misinertpreting what you were saying before that.

Still not certain that's accurate, and I'd refer you to other internet lawyers who agree that verbal "instigation" still counts as instigation: http://www.livesaymyers.com/self-defense-assault-battery/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Henry wrote:
I normally disagree with Frazzled's train of thought, and I can't comment too much on laws in the USA as I'm aware they change between states, but in the UK Frazzled's interpretation would be correct.

Shouting abuse at someone does not give them the right to physically attack you, no matter how upset they may be. Similarly displays that upset someone doesn't give them the right to get overly physical.

Reasonable force can be used to intervene when somebody is committing an illegal act - such as defending yourself when somebody physically assaults you because of something you have said or done that they object to. But any reaction must be defendable as reasonable.

In the US, shouting at someone doesn't give them the right to attack you, but it can push you "out of bounds" for claiming self defense (according to some internet lawyers, but not others). It is possible for both parties to be "in the wrong," you know.

Verbal instigation can push you into "assault" category. Participating in valid and allowed first amendment activities does not.

It's not like we don't have some valid case law as a result of people attacking the WBC when they were protesting.

 d-usa wrote:
Verbal instigation can push you into "assault" category. Participating in valid and allowed first amendment activities does not.

It's not like we don't have some valid case law as a result of people attacking the WBC when they were protesting.

And it is idiots like WBC which is the reason I think the 1st amendment needs to be looked at again. Why is it ok for these idiots to go to the funerals of dead soldiers and politicians and act like Aholes?

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Verbal instigation can push you into "assault" category. Participating in valid and allowed first amendment activities does not.

It's not like we don't have some valid case law as a result of people attacking the WBC when they were protesting.

And it is idiots like WBC which is the reason I think the 1st amendment needs to be looked at again. Why is it ok for these idiots to go to the funerals of dead soldiers and politicians and act like Aholes?

Why not?

Do you think all 20-30 of them are such a threat that we require federal laws to suppress their point of view?

Or do private organizations such as the Patriot Guard Riders do an effective enough job of keeping their boorish behavior away from the families of the dead?

Who are we to second guess SCOTUS decisions

Who also decided that fee's, due's and donations is a form of "Freedom of Speech"

 Jihadin wrote:
Who are we to second guess SCOTUS decisions

Who also decided that fee's, due's and donations is a form of "Freedom of Speech"

exactly, the supreme court is not infallible, nor is it stocked with people who are necessarily responsible enough to be in the Supreme Court. I will never forget that Obama put Sonya Sotomayor in the Supreme Court...the woman famous for saying

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

Racism/sexism in the same instance and yet still nominated and approved to be a supreme court justice.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Who are we to second guess SCOTUS decisions

Who also decided that fee's, due's and donations is a form of "Freedom of Speech"

exactly, the supreme court is not infallible, nor is it stocked with people who are necessarily responsible enough to be in the Supreme Court. I will never forget that Obama put Sonya Sotomayor in the Supreme Court...the woman famous for saying

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

Racism/sexism in the same instance and yet still nominated and approved to be a supreme court justice.

Can we have the full context of that quote, please?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html

Having read that, my only conclusion is that she's mad.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Verbal instigation can push you into "assault" category. Participating in valid and allowed first amendment activities does not.

It's not like we don't have some valid case law as a result of people attacking the WBC when they were protesting.

And it is idiots like WBC which is the reason I think the 1st amendment needs to be looked at again. Why is it ok for these idiots to go to the funerals of dead soldiers and politicians and act like Aholes?

The fact that idiots holding signs saying "thank god for dead soldiers" are able to protest these funerals make their deaths more meaningful and I can honestly say that I feel that your desire to restrict their free speech cheapens the soldiers deaths and service to our country more than the WBC ever will.

"God bless our freedoms and the soldiers fighting for them, except for those idiots that I don't agree with, feth those guys and their constitutional rights."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: you also did nothing to counter the fact that being an insulting and confrontational douchebag (aka WBC) doesn't diminish your status as a victim when it comes to retaliation.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Verbal instigation can push you into "assault" category. Participating in valid and allowed first amendment activities does not.

It's not like we don't have some valid case law as a result of people attacking the WBC when they were protesting.

And it is idiots like WBC which is the reason I think the 1st amendment needs to be looked at again. Why is it ok for these idiots to go to the funerals of dead soldiers and politicians and act like Aholes?

The fact that idiots holding signs saying "thank god for dead soldiers" are able to protest these funerals make their deaths more meaningful and I can honestly say that I feel that your desire to restrict their free speech cheapens the soldiers deaths and service to our country more than the WBC ever will.

"God bless our freedoms and the soldiers fighting for them, except for those idiots that I don't agree with, feth those guys and their constitutional rights."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: you also did nothing to counter the fact that being an insulting and confrontational douchebag (aka WBC) doesn't diminish your status as a victim when it comes to retaliation.

As I stated above the 1st amendment is "Freedom of Speech" at the time it was made to allow political dissent. Not to insult casualties of war nor to belittle the sacrifice of others for our country. These idiots abuse the right because they want to piss people off and get attention. There are a lot better ways to go about doing this. Free speech is fine, Hate speech is not.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Verbal instigation can push you into "assault" category. Participating in valid and allowed first amendment activities does not.

It's not like we don't have some valid case law as a result of people attacking the WBC when they were protesting.

And it is idiots like WBC which is the reason I think the 1st amendment needs to be looked at again. Why is it ok for these idiots to go to the funerals of dead soldiers and politicians and act like Aholes?

The fact that idiots holding signs saying "thank god for dead soldiers" are able to protest these funerals make their deaths more meaningful and I can honestly say that I feel that your desire to restrict their free speech cheapens the soldiers deaths and service to our country more than the WBC ever will.

"God bless our freedoms and the soldiers fighting for them, except for those idiots that I don't agree with, feth those guys and their constitutional rights."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: you also did nothing to counter the fact that being an insulting and confrontational douchebag (aka WBC) doesn't diminish your status as a victim when it comes to retaliation.

As I stated above the 1st amendment is "Freedom of Speech" at the time it was made to allow political dissent. Not to insult casualties of war nor to belittle the sacrifice of others for our country. These idiots abuse the right because they want to piss people off and get attention. There are a lot better ways to go about doing this. Free speech is fine, Hate speech is not.

And clearly letting the Feds define 'hate speech' and then outlaw it is a great way to ensure 'free speech' for every one. To be safe they should deliberately keep the definition of 'hate speech' vague so they can shoehorn in anything that comes up that needs to be outlawed.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Verbal instigation can push you into "assault" category. Participating in valid and allowed first amendment activities does not.

It's not like we don't have some valid case law as a result of people attacking the WBC when they were protesting.

And it is idiots like WBC which is the reason I think the 1st amendment needs to be looked at again. Why is it ok for these idiots to go to the funerals of dead soldiers and politicians and act like Aholes?

The fact that idiots holding signs saying "thank god for dead soldiers" are able to protest these funerals make their deaths more meaningful and I can honestly say that I feel that your desire to restrict their free speech cheapens the soldiers deaths and service to our country more than the WBC ever will.

"God bless our freedoms and the soldiers fighting for them, except for those idiots that I don't agree with, feth those guys and their constitutional rights."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: you also did nothing to counter the fact that being an insulting and confrontational douchebag (aka WBC) doesn't diminish your status as a victim when it comes to retaliation.

As I stated above the 1st amendment is "Freedom of Speech" at the time it was made to allow political dissent. Not to insult casualties of war nor to belittle the sacrifice of others for our country. These idiots abuse the right because they want to piss people off and get attention. There are a lot better ways to go about doing this. Free speech is fine, Hate speech is not.

And clearly letting the Feds define 'hate speech' and then outlaw it is a great way to ensure 'free speech' for every one. To be safe they should deliberately keep the definition of 'hate speech' vague so they can shoehorn in anything that comes up that needs to be outlawed.

Who said the feds would have to "Define" hate speech? why couldn't the population take a vote on it, add it to local elections and such and find out what should be protected and what is douchebaggery?

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Verbal instigation can push you into "assault" category. Participating in valid and allowed first amendment activities does not.

It's not like we don't have some valid case law as a result of people attacking the WBC when they were protesting.

And it is idiots like WBC which is the reason I think the 1st amendment needs to be looked at again. Why is it ok for these idiots to go to the funerals of dead soldiers and politicians and act like Aholes?

The fact that idiots holding signs saying "thank god for dead soldiers" are able to protest these funerals make their deaths more meaningful and I can honestly say that I feel that your desire to restrict their free speech cheapens the soldiers deaths and service to our country more than the WBC ever will.

"God bless our freedoms and the soldiers fighting for them, except for those idiots that I don't agree with, feth those guys and their constitutional rights."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: you also did nothing to counter the fact that being an insulting and confrontational douchebag (aka WBC) doesn't diminish your status as a victim when it comes to retaliation.

As I stated above the 1st amendment is "Freedom of Speech" at the time it was made to allow political dissent. Not to insult casualties of war nor to belittle the sacrifice of others for our country. These idiots abuse the right because they want to piss people off and get attention. There are a lot better ways to go about doing this. Free speech is fine, Hate speech is not.

And clearly letting the Feds define 'hate speech' and then outlaw it is a great way to ensure 'free speech' for every one. To be safe they should deliberately keep the definition of 'hate speech' vague so they can shoehorn in anything that comes up that needs to be outlawed.

Who said the feds would have to "Define" hate speech? why couldn't the population take a vote on it, add it to local elections and such and find out what should be protected and what is douchebaggery?

What you are describing is literallythe tyranny of the majority which is exactly what the people who wrote the constitution sought to avoid. I am on my phone so won't go into detail, but I am saddened that someone would suggest curtailing freedom in order to shield people from offense.

I wouldn't call it shielding people from being offended so much as stopping people from being Aholes. I'm not even saying make it illegal, im just saying don't make it constitutional to go about being a douche bag.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I wouldn't call it shielding people from being offended so much as stopping people from being Aholes. I'm not even saying make it illegal, im just saying don't make it constitutional to go about being a douche bag.

And I say that granting people the right to be douchebags (like the WBC and flag burners) is part and parcel of the right to free speech. The early revolutionaries were probably thought to be tremendous douchebags like Samuel Adams and the other raving extremists of the early Massachusetts liberty movement. We think of them now as heroes. I will gladly suffer 1000 D-bags like the WBC if it means 1 truly revolutionary idea gets off the ground. I am sure many people thought the abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement and the women's suffrage movement were all just Aholes.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I wouldn't call it shielding people from being offended so much as stopping people from being Aholes. I'm not even saying make it illegal, im just saying don't make it constitutional to go about being a douche bag.

And I say that granting people the right to be douchebags (like the WBC and flag burners) is part and parcel of the right to free speech. The early revolutionaries were probably thought to be tremendous douchebags like Samuel Adams and the other raving extremists of the early Massachusetts liberty movement. We think of them now as heroes. I will gladly suffer 1000 D-bags like the WBC if it means 1 truly revolutionary idea gets off the ground. I am sure many people thought the abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement and the women's suffrage movement were all just Aholes.

Their is a HUGE difference between fighting for the right to vote and the end of slavery and human rights compared to saying showing up at a dead soldiers funeral to wave signs saying "God is happy he is dead"

what is their goal besides saying gay people shouldn't exist? why do they feel it necessary to go to a fallen soldiers funeral and further emotionally scar the parents/wives/children/friends of these men and woman?

Their is a time and a place for everything and a funeral is not one of them.

"Freedom of speech" that protects only speech that someone else approves of isn't really freedom of speech.

Like I said, I feel like you have to put up with the quacks if you want the truly amazing ideas to have room to flourish

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I wouldn't call it shielding people from being offended so much as stopping people from being Aholes. I'm not even saying make it illegal, im just saying don't make it constitutional to go about being a douche bag.

And I say that granting people the right to be douchebags (like the WBC and flag burners) is part and parcel of the right to free speech. The early revolutionaries were probably thought to be tremendous douchebags like Samuel Adams and the other raving extremists of the early Massachusetts liberty movement. We think of them now as heroes. I will gladly suffer 1000 D-bags like the WBC if it means 1 truly revolutionary idea gets off the ground. I am sure many people thought the abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement and the women's suffrage movement were all just Aholes.

Their is a HUGE difference between fighting for the right to vote and the end of slavery and human rights compared to saying showing up at a dead soldiers funeral to wave signs saying "God is happy he is dead"

what is their goal besides saying gay people shouldn't exist? why do they feel it necessary to go to a fallen soldiers funeral and further emotionally scar the parents/wives/children/friends of these men and woman?

Their is a time and a place for everything and a funeral is not one of them.

How many have even gotten near a soldier's funeral anytime in the past 6 years?

he PGR and similar groups have been VERY successful at keeping the crap bags at bay. Without a law curtailing my freedoms.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I wouldn't call it shielding people from being offended so much as stopping people from being Aholes. I'm not even saying make it illegal, im just saying don't make it constitutional to go about being a douche bag.

And I say that granting people the right to be douchebags (like the WBC and flag burners) is part and parcel of the right to free speech. The early revolutionaries were probably thought to be tremendous douchebags like Samuel Adams and the other raving extremists of the early Massachusetts liberty movement. We think of them now as heroes. I will gladly suffer 1000 D-bags like the WBC if it means 1 truly revolutionary idea gets off the ground. I am sure many people thought the abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement and the women's suffrage movement were all just Aholes.

Their is a HUGE difference between fighting for the right to vote and the end of slavery and human rights compared to saying showing up at a dead soldiers funeral to wave signs saying "God is happy he is dead"

what is their goal besides saying gay people shouldn't exist? why do they feel it necessary to go to a fallen soldiers funeral and further emotionally scar the parents/wives/children/friends of these men and woman?

Their is a time and a place for everything and a funeral is not one of them.

How many have even gotten near a soldier's funeral anytime in the past 6 years?

he PGR and similar groups have been VERY successful at keeping the crap bags at bay. Without a law curtailing my freedoms.

Making a bunch of noise with your motorcycle is speech as well, as is covering it with giant flags. Perfect example of using the 1st to fight someone else that is using the 1st.

One of the most memorable and moving things I got to participate in was to direct traffic for a soldiers funeral while I was volunteering with the fire department. We used the big engine to block a street to let the funeral convoy drive from the church to the cemetery. We also knew the WBC was in the area trying to protest, so we had the added objective of being a giant shield in case they showed up because it's hard to see their signs of there is a big fire engine in the way. We shut down the intersection as soon as the first police motorcycle topped the bill that was leading the way for the funeral, jumped out of the truck to line up and do our best civilian salute, and I still get chills when I remember the noise of 100+ motorcycles as they topped the hill covered in flags (US, service branches, POW/MIA), the silent salutes we got back from them, the faces of the family as they passed. I think what the WBC does is horrible and I was glad that we were able to do our part to help shield the family from their presence that day. But I also think that these idiots are also using the freedoms these soldiers died to protect. It's a very weird insult as well as validation of their sacrifice.

I will stand side by side with anyone that thinks the WBC is the scum of the earth and will gladly participate in 1st amendment activities in the future to stand up to them. But when anyone tries to remove their constitutional right to protest I will stand with the WBC, not because I think they are right, but because the constitution is more important than a grieving family.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Having read that, my only conclusion is that she's mad.

she also said she wouldn't want a white firemen saving her.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Having read that, my only conclusion is that she's mad.

she also said she wouldn't want a white firemen saving her.

I'd love to see a cite for that quote.


Which is probably going to be difficult to produce since you just made it up.