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: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

What?

Are you making fun of my name?

So you're a flying clay disk?

Super relevant to what I said, Star.




posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

So then, does the FedEx driver have the right to stop a crime from being committed?

I hate flag-burning, but as it's legal (as per my understanding), I think it's better to rise above it and let the burners be seen for who they are. But since he technically stopped a crime in progress, that's a good thing, no?



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

You would be well to understand the context. Each element has meaning.

I am not a "ninja", nor do I know any "dragon"(s).



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

You would be well to understand the context. Each element has meaning.

I am not a "ninja", nor do I know any "dragon"(s).




I'm sorry you don't like 3 incredibly cool things, or think I can't be allowed to like them based on your perceived semblance of them to my 'character'.

You simply know I'm not a dragon? Do you have proof?

Can you prove you're a clay disk?

Maybe this poor thought should crawl back to where it came from for the sake of the topic.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperStudChuck
a reply to: Tardacus

So then, does the FedEx driver have the right to stop a crime from being committed?

I hate flag-burning, but as it's legal (as per my understanding), I think it's better to rise above it and let the burners be seen for who they are. But since he technically stopped a crime in progress, that's a good thing, no?


I reckon he does, if you stop an armed robbery and take the robbers gun from him, should you be charged with stealing his gun?
we don`t know what he did with the flag maybe he turned it over to the police as evidence?



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

Just like how if you see someone disciplining a child, you're allowed to kidnap the child.

It doesn't matter who it belongs to! It was mistreated!



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

if you saw someone trying to light a child on fire I hope you would intervene and keep the child safe until the police arrived.

the police were called and they didn`t charge the guy with theft so I reckon he didn`t steal anything.



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



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

if you saw someone trying to light a child on fire I hope you would intervene and keep the child safe until the police arrived.



If the child was the one burning the flag, no one cares if I douse his face right?

I mentioned calling the police a page ago. Only a sane person would call the police verses physically doing anything against a group of protesters. If the man was hurt, that would have been his own fault. If he blinded someone, he would have 100% deserved his lengthy sentence.

You also have an obvious fallacy in the way you interpret guilt. If I steal your lawn mower, and you never find me, I'm never charged either. Does this mean I never stole your lawn mower? I don't actually expect you to reply to this. It's a rhetorical example of what you said. AKA "It's only a crime if you get caught!"
edit on 28-1-2017 by ROBOTNINJADRAGON because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

Dude stop fu*king trolling us with this nonsense
Just stop with the Leftist sh'i* ok?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

You're right. I personally find flag-burning offensive, but since it's been declared freedom of speech I agree, they have the right to do it. I wasn't disputing that. Just feeling sad that the guy will very likely lose his job over it.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Now that's an interesting thought. If flag-burning is "speech," legally, than can it be considered "fighting words"? Especially if the person who reacts to it is, say, a veteran? Is there any precedent on this?

For the record--NOT trying to start a fight here. I just think it's an interesting question.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 02:35 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I would think--and before anyone attacks me, this is just on the basis of one college criminal law class years ago--that it might depend on the people involved? Because when it comes to "fighting words," some groups (such as police officers) are legally supposed to hold to a higher standard than the average man on the street...so it might just depend.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON
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.


Wow. I didn't say the FedEx guy DIDN'T get in anyone's face, OR that what he did was right. I just said I agreed that he probably was a vet, and that it was sad to think he'd likely lose his job. That wasn't condoning his actions--or criticizing them. I don't know the whole story, which means I don't feel like I should venture an opinion on whether he was right or wrong. It was more a comment on the sad state of affairs we're in generally.

The fact is that from that video, none of us really have enough information to pass judgement one way or the other because we have no idea what happened before someone started filming. The guy could have come to a screeching halt in his FedEx truck, jumped out, and started ripping flags out of people's hands. On the other hand, the dude could have been minding his own business taking a package into a store and had the protesters bar his way and shout obscenities or assault him because he had a political sticker or something. We don't know. All we know is the partial event we saw on film.

I still think it's sad that he could lose his job over it, and I hope he doesn't.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



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

I read this so many times on ATS. and I laugh at the disconnect with reality. You couldn't possibly in any shape of form be defending their right to free speech if the consequences of them delivering their free speech is already judged as worthy of using force to shut them up even before they have acted.



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.


So by your logic the definition of theft comes down to they suffered "no monetary loss as they were going to destroy it anyway".
If you were about to demolish your rental house so you could build 4 apartments in 2 years time - would you find it ok for the Federal govt to borrow it for 2 years to house refugees without any recompense?

Whilst a lot can be criticized about Ayn Rand there are still pearls of wisdom in her writings.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: RazorV66

I do a lot of business on ebay, opticsplanet, and others. I WILL use FedEx
everytime from now on (when I can) because of this Patriot. However, if they punish him, I will Never use them again.
Make America strong again.
SnF

edit on V122017Sundayam31America/ChicagoSun, 29 Jan 2017 03:12:14 -06001 by Violater1 because: for star and flags



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
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


Why does the "fighting words" doctrine not apply to Westboro Baptist?

I mean protesting at a soldiers funeral is fighting words just as much as burning a flag.

Oh, I remember now. They both are considered free speech by the SCOTUS!!!!!



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Now that's an interesting thought. If flag-burning is "speech," legally, than can it be considered "fighting words"? Especially if the person who reacts to it is, say, a veteran? Is there any precedent on this?

For the record--NOT trying to start a fight here. I just think it's an interesting question.


Yes, there is precedent. Westboro Baptist goes to veteran's funerals specifically to cause a reaction.....AKA.....fighting words, yet that was ruled free speech by the SCOTUS. Same with flag burning.

The Fed Ex driver was in the wrong here just like anyone who assaults Westboro protestors.

Not that I personally would burn the flag or protest at a funeral, but it is protected by law.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

There is no disconnect. I believe people have teh right to actively pursue being an asshole. If they want to say asshole things, im willing to defend their right. Doesn't mean i'd step in to prevent the ramifications of being an asshole, though.

RE: theft....the state is not going to pursue charges on your behalf since the value of the item stolen is exceedingly small. Technically, illegal. In reality, the state won't waste their time (unless they see you as recidivist, anyway), but will follow through if the citizen wishes to waste his time.

Something to consider: a rental house is known as "real property". Meaning it does not depreciate over time, it is a real asset who's value is set by the market and not by its age. A flag is not "real" in the sense that it is a consumable item. In other words, while I get where you're coming from, it really is apples and oranges. But, related: if i do not return to my property for prolonged amounts of time, squatters can move in and gain rights to my property which I may not be able to recover monetary exchange for. And which I will have to pay for a prolonged eviction process to remove from my property.

Me, as a juror hearing a case like the OP, would have the position that since the flag was thrown on the ground and lit on fire, it was essentially discarded and no longer the property of any individual. I don't have much sympathy for hitrionics.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Lughnasadh

Im not sure how it shakes out elsewhere, but in the State of Texas, free speech i limited by "breach of the peace". So wile Texas v Johnson may have decided the act of burning a flag is, itself, free speech, there are ways that it could be considered "breach of the peace".

But im not a lawyer.

What I do know is FedEx stood behind their employee, and there are currently no plans to arrest the driver. I suspect the flag burner didn't have a permit for his activity, and it will be viewed as illegal to begin with, meaning FedEd Driver did his citizens duty by putting out a wild fire.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: RazorV66
I Totally Agree.

All this Stupid Train of thought Makes me Want to
go and RIP OFF all of My Mattress Tags.

LMAO what a World we Live in.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join