It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fed-Ex driver vs flag burning SJWs

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You can protest all you want by burning the flag. That is your right. But for me it just shows how intellectually disabled you are as a human being. These people burning the flag are cowards also.


I do not disagree with your right to hold that opinion of them.

I think its more that they tend towards histrionic behavior in their day to day life, and sometimes its just caught on camera. The squeakiest wheels are the ones who usually have the smallest amount of filter on their outrageous behavior.




posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So you agree he committed theft then.

And clearly assault. Blasting people with a fire extinguisher? Really? He even strikes them with it in the struggle.

Must be a 1-way street for the way these new partisan laws work.

People literally sued over their Trump hats and signs being stolen, yet this man can steal American Flags? It isn't his freaking property.
edit on 28-1-2017 by ROBOTNINJADRAGON because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

I bet the FedEx guy was a vet...


I'll bet he was too. Poor guy will probably lose his job and be charged with theft for rescuing the flag + assault for shoving the jerk who got in his face. Sad.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

I am a believer in "fighting words".

I think the free, sane minded people can find themselves in a position were fighting words are said to them, and they are not liable for their reaction. Its the same concept as "inciting a riot".

In other words: I would actually stand up for your right to call my wife fat. But i'd kick your ass if you said it.

Was it theft? Technically, yes. Since they were going to burn it, there is no real monetary loss, so im not sure it'd be worth anyones time, especially the state, prosecuting it as theft.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON


People literally sued over their Trump hats and signs being stolen, yet this man can steal American Flags? It isn't his freaking property.


Since this was edited in ill respond separately:

If i had a Trump hat i was going to wear, and you stole it, i have a material loss.

If i had a Trump hat i was going to burn, and you stole it, I do not have a material loss. I planned to destroy the hat anyway.

Standing on technicalities isn't something I think taxpayer dollar should go to. If you are going to say hateful things (i.e., burn the flag), people are bound to take exception. Its the whole point.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Don't these people have a job to go to or leaves to rake at mom's house.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: riiver

originally posted by: Edumakated

I bet the FedEx guy was a vet...


I'll bet he was too. Poor guy will probably lose his job and be charged with theft for rescuing the flag + assault for shoving the jerk who got in his face. Sad.


You can't infringe on other people's rights because you don't like or agree with what they do.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You can make this monetary distinction all you want, he stole their flag, and now if they want to burn a flag, they must buy a new one. He is not entitled to cause them this loss. If he wants to protest burning American flags, guess what, you are allowed to do that, but it's much more shorter than blasting people with Fire Extinguishers.

You can call it no loss because it's burned, but if I smash your cigarette box, I'm sure the same logic doesn't apply. The point of the object to these people was to burn it, so the entirety of the monetary value is lost. He didn't buy it, it's not his property, and he's a thief. Same goes for the people that took the Trump stuff. I only make the distinction because it was no less 'theft' then to Trump Supporters.

People should be entitled to burn anything they want out of symbolic protest. I wouldn't enjoy burning a Trump hat, but to me, that's no different than a flag of any country.
edit on 28-1-2017 by ROBOTNINJADRAGON because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

If someone screams "fire" in a theater, then we find a limit to free speech that is both reasonable and actionable.

Another limit is "Fighting Words", as per Chaplinski v. New Hampshire


Held:

(1) That, so construed, it is sufficiently definite and specific to comply with requirements of due process of law. P. 573.

(2) That, as applied to a person who, on a public street, addressed another as a "damned Fascist" and a "damned racketeer," it does not substantially or unreasonably impinge upon freedom of speech. P. 574.

(3) The refusal of the state court to admit evidence offered by the defendant tending to prove provocation and evidence bearing on the truth or falsity of the utterances charged is open to no constitutional objection. P. 574.

2. The Court notices judicially that the appellations "damned racketeer" and "damned Fascist" are epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace. P. 574


The point being: if you are egging for a bruising, the law will not protect you. Your intention is to create negative reaction.

State by state may have variations on the above in their laws. But that is the base of national judicial precedent



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You can make this monetary distinction all you want, he stole their flag, and now if they want to burn a flag, they must buy a new one. He is not entitled to cause them this loss. If he wants to protest burning American flags, guess what, you are allowed to do that, but it's much more shorter than blasting people with Fire Extinguishers.

You can call it no loss because it's burned, but if I smash your cigarette box, I'm sure the same logic doesn't apply. The point of the object to these people was to burn it, so the entirety of the monetary value is lost. He didn't buy it, it's not he's property, and he's a thief. Same goes for the people that took the Trump stuff. I only make the distinction because it was no less 'theft' then.


Ok, he stole something valued under $20. Im sure it won't end up in civil court, as the filing fees would exceed a 20 spot. And im sure it won't end up in criminal court. But if it does, im also sure "the internet" will pay any fines for him.

If theft is your only observation/complaint, then you've missed the discussion.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You can make this monetary distinction all you want, he stole their flag, and now if they want to burn a flag, they must buy a new one. He is not entitled to cause them this loss. If he wants to protest burning American flags, guess what, you are allowed to do that, but it's much more shorter than blasting people with Fire Extinguishers.

You can call it no loss because it's burned, but if I smash your cigarette box, I'm sure the same logic doesn't apply. The point of the object to these people was to burn it, so the entirety of the monetary value is lost. He didn't buy it, it's not he's property, and he's a thief. Same goes for the people that took the Trump stuff. I only make the distinction because it was no less 'theft' then.



Ok, he stole something valued under $20. Im sure it won't end up in civil court, as the filing fees would exceed a 20 spot. And im sure it won't end up in criminal court. But if it does, im also sure "the internet" will pay any fines for him.

If theft is your only observation/complaint, then you've missed the discussion.


No I haven't. There is a clear hypocrisy here. How much is a sign or Trump hat? Do I need to remind you what I meant when I said 'lawsuit'?

This is all minus the fact he's allowed to beat them and assault them to rip it from their grasps, using a fire extinguisher as a WEAPON. He didn't just sneak on their property or snatch it, he literally assaulted them to take it.

In the name of 'Murika tho, so it's 'kay.
edit on 28-1-2017 by ROBOTNINJADRAGON because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

Please read the above court ruling making your viewpoint out of line with legal reality.

it just doesn't work the way you seem to want it to.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

Please read the above court ruling making your viewpoint out of line with legal reality.

it just doesn't work the way you seem to want it to.


You're awfully mister 'technical' now with court rulings. The video wasn't enough proof for you of assault?

Okay. Maybe I'm not in reality after all.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   
If it was Trump Supporters burning anything out of symbolic protest and they were blasted with fire extinguishers, there would be outrage.
edit on 28-1-2017 by ROBOTNINJADRAGON because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Fire extinguishers have several active ingredients, one of which is Carbon Dioxide, which smothers the fire by removing its source of Oxygen, but it also comes out under pressure, is extremely cold, and can cause frostbite or loss of an eye if sprayed in the face or on exposed skin. The chemicals in dry extinguishers are not necessarily toxic, but they are under pressure so could be considered assault as they can also damage the eyes and lungs.



Stealing a fire extinguisher is a third-degree felony under state statutes and punishable by up to five years in prison, a fine up to $5,000 or both.



The only way it wouldn't be illegal was if the person doing the spraying was using the extinguisher as a means of self defense.

edit on 28-1-2017 by ROBOTNINJADRAGON because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

Please read the above court ruling making your viewpoint out of line with legal reality.

it just doesn't work the way you seem to want it to.


You're awfully mister 'technical' now with court rulings. The video wasn't enough proof for you of assault?

Okay. Maybe I'm not in reality after all.


Im usually Mr. Technical. Its just how i am. I just corrected someone on a math mistake in another thread before coming here.

I saw the video. What i saw were people exercising their right to free speech, which then incited a man to act in response. I think in all likelyhood it would be a landmark case on flag burning, because "fighting words" may render flag burning as unprotected speech. That is what I think

My opinion is: the Fed Ex driver should be a bigger man, and just go on with his day. But I don't carry the burden of his lifes experiences, so i am absolutely not in a position to judge him for that.

If the legal victims want to pursue civil cases, they'll likely lose. If they win, "the internet" will pay for Mr. Fed Ex.

If the State pursues, it'll be the aforementioned landmark case, and in the end no one will serve any time in jail over the case. But we will cement whether flag burning is protected free speech, or fighting words that put you at risk of retaliation?



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


My opinion is: the Fed Ex driver should be a bigger man, and just go on with his day.


I agree with this, this is why I believe he should be fined for his actions. To learn from them. Specifically the Fire Extinguisher part. That is not a weapon, and he could have blinded someone for life. He clearly didn't just attempt to spray the flag or fire, he weaponized it with the spray and as a bludgeon.

Protesters think they're immune to the law. They could be breaking laws without even knowing. I know you're not allowed to drive with feat out the window because it's distracting to other drivers, protests on the road can fall into a variety of traffic type obstructions. Also burning things is gray. If it's clearly controlled I think it should be allowed.

While they shouldn't believe they're immune to laws however, this man clearly thinks he's ABOVE the law, something far worse in my opinion, as he thinks he has the power to assault and rob people in the name of 'justice'. That's absurd. He needs to learn that is not acceptable and his place in society. Become a cop if you want to bash up protesters, or call the police. You know, the thing normal people do.
edit on 28-1-2017 by ROBOTNINJADRAGON because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: riiver

Got in his face? You mean from behind to grab his own flag? Or like all the Extinguisher smoke sprayed at his face in 1:04? That's probably what you meant by in his face. Maybe you mean the person that tore the non-violent FedEx man away from his attempt at a headlock on the first mans face.


I guess the mans provoked assault is justified, but the 'idiot protesters' are clearly violent people trying to reclaim their own property.


Ps. His Donkey Kong slam at 1:10 is super elegant. Like a rare peaceful majestic elephant.
edit on 28-1-2017 by ROBOTNINJADRAGON because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
robot...ninja...dragon,

Heh, yeah, your emotions are clear.

I will enjoy your posts going forward.

"Emotions"? you may ask; what does this mean(?)

You are neither "robot", certainly not "ninja" and "dragon" speaks to your maturity.

Sorry.

Enjoy.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join