Three Yale Students Arrested for Burning American Flag

Three Yale Students Arrested for Burning American Flag

www.foxnews.com

Three Yale University students were arrested and charged with arson and other offenses after they allegedly set fire to an American flag hanging from the porch of a New Haven neighborhood home.

The three were arrested early Tuesday after officers on patrol spotted the burning flag and tore it from the pole where it was mounted to the house on Chapel Street, police said.

Said Hyder Akbar, 23, Nikolaos Angelopoulos, 19, and Farhad Anklesaria, also 19, were arrested.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Is This Free Speech or is it arson?

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 4/5/2007 by shots]

The free speech flag burning spin isnt the issue at all. If they wanted to go ahead and burn their own flag thats perfectly fine but they set fire private property. Whats worse is they left the flag hanging and the flames were all over the underside of the roof and the wall. One of the officers had to rip the flag down away from the building.

If I saw somebody setting a fire on my front porch I wouldnt hesitate to shoot them. Im not going to let some idiot burn down my house with me and my family still inside.

They should be charged with more IMO.

I agree with thisguy, they burned other peoples property, that is arson. They are lucky they didnt start the guys house on fire.

These guys should be charged with arson and maybe even on a higher charge if there were people in the house. What's worse is the fact that people from schools such as these are supposed to be the future leaders of this country.

Originally posted by PrepareForTheWorst
These guys should be charged with arson and maybe even on a higher charge if there were people in the house. What's worse is the fact that people from schools such as these are supposed to be the future leaders of this country.

In fact, they were international students, if I recall correctly. Of course, that doesn't make a difference legally, but I think they have no intention to lead the US.

I read stories like this, and I can't help but get upset. I see people let in for an education, and they repay us by setting fire to things? It's one thing to say "hey, this place ain't perfect", and I agree, but am I unreasonable in seeing this as something altogether of a different character?

Interesting how the article says that they ALLEGEDLY burned the flag.

Well did they or didn't they?

Anyway, maybe they were just angry, because they were not accepted in Skull&Bones society because they wanted to dig up some skeletons of dead indian warchiefs.

well just look at the names... shouldn't they be charged with Terrorism

seriousy, burning a flag is wrong, I don't care about the "freedom of speech" thing.. it's just wrong.

If you don't like America thats one thing, but don't burn the flag, it's sort of childish in my opinion.

Originally posted by Souljah
Interesting how the article says that they ALLEGEDLY burned the flag.

The reason it says alleged is because they have just been charged and the case they are considered innocent until proven guilty.

Well did they or didn't they?

be patient old chap they have not been tried yet it will all come out in due course even the video evidence of the burned siding

Anyway, maybe they were just angry, because they were not accepted in Skull&Bones society because they wanted to dig up some skeletons of dead indian warchiefs.

Wrong or at least I think it is a wrong assumption, however it is very possible they did it because being foreign they were not educated in American laws VBG

Lets see Arson , along with reckless indangerment hmm that sounds like a good 8 to ten years in jail for them to study them., but no way to use what they learned because when they get out they will be kicked out of the country

[edit on 4/5/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by Souljah
Interesting how the article says that they ALLEGEDLY burned the flag.

Well did they or didn't they?

Of course the newspaper said "alledgedly". If they didn't say "allegedly", they could be sued for libel. This is SOP for journalists. "Did they or didn't they" isn't for the newspaper to decide -- it's for the justice system to decide.

This is not a case of being arrested for flag burning, but instead they were arrested for arson, reckless endangerment, criminal mischief and breach of peace. It is not illegal to burn a flag in New Haven, CT. I'd want them arrested, too, if they stole something from my front porch and destroyed it.

Originally posted by Togetic
In fact, they were international students, if I recall correctly. Of course, that doesn't make a difference legally, but I think they have no intention to lead the US.

In these times you never know who is going to try and lead this country.

Has anyone heard WHY they were "allegedly" burning a flag? Who knows, maybe they were really drunk and wanted to do something stupid. If that was the case they definitely passed that test with flying colors!

[edit on 5-4-2007 by PrepareForTheWorst]

Aside from what has already been stated, the act itself of burning the flag is and should be protected speech.

But the people that beat them to a pulp when they get out of jail shouldn't be charged.

As a non-American, I have to ask this question..

Is flag burning a federal crime?

It's still legal to burn the US flag (thank God). That is to say, it's legal to burn your own flag, if you bought it , or made it, and aren't risking burning down a house, or hurting someone.

If I had an Iranian flag on my porch, or North Korean, or Chinese, and someone set it on fire, I'd hope they'd be charged the same way. Connecticut is a fairly liberal state, so I doubt the "free speech" the burning of the flag will be an issue, but setting fire to someone else's property will definitely enter into this. If someone was home, it could even get to attempted murder.

If they would have burned their own flag on their own property and made sure that the fire didn't spread and was contained then their action would have been perfectally legal.

Supreme Court Strikes Down All Laws Banning Flag Desecration (1989): Outside the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag in protest against President Ronald Reagan's policies. He was arrested under Texas' flag desecration statute. In its 5-4 ruling in Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court struck down flag desecration laws in 48 states by ruling that flag desecration is a constitutionally protected form of free speech.

Flag Desecration Amendment (1990, 1995, 1997, 1999-2000, 2001, 2003, 2005-2006): Congress has made seven attempts to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court by passing a constitutional amendment making an exception to the First Amendment in order to allow the government to ban flag desecration. In 1990, when the amendment was first brought up, it failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority in the House. After the Republican congressional takeover of 1994, it has consistently passed the House but failed in the Senate.

civilliberty.about.com...

They set fire to a flag that was attached to someone elses house. In that case, it is arson.

They were not at a political demonstration. They were not burning a flag in a public place.

They tresspassed onto someone elses property and set it on fire. It would be no different than setting you planter box on fire.

I'd charge them with arson if I were the DA. This is way beyond just a prank. It could have caused serious injury or death.

Originally posted by infinite
As a non-American, I have to ask this question..

Is flag burning a federal crime?

Unfortunately no, it's fluctuated back and forth but as it stands now it is federally legal. Although several states have tired to limit that right by various means, which by themselves are not illegal.

Originally posted by Souljah
Interesting how the article says that they ALLEGEDLY burned the flag.

Well did they or didn't they?

Anyway, maybe they were just angry, because they were not accepted in Skull&Bones society because they wanted to dig up some skeletons of dead indian warchiefs.

The phrase "Allegedly (insert legally questionable activity here)" is one of the most over-used CYA phrases ever trotted out by journalists. The use of the word in the article is (supposedly) to avoid prejudicing potential jurors by essentially printing a story that says they're guilty before a trial begins.

It's a good idea, but sometimes taken to extremes. My personal favorite? A Chicago IL murder where the vitcim was stabbed 51 times in broad daylight. The story (on the evening news, not print): "Man allegedly stabbed to death". Yeah...right. Anybody doubt that 51 stab wounds were the collective cause of death? But, just to be legally safe, the "A" word had to be put there. Silly, but then again, life is like that sometimes.

Yup, about illegal what they did. They could burn their own flag on their own property and away from harm of others. That's freedom of speech, let them enjoy the fire.

However, when you go onto someone else's property and set fire to their property and possibly endangering their lives were they home; that's a whole different story. They are living in the states, they need to be aware of the laws. Just don't do anything stupid or what you think would get you in trouble.

Shattered OUT...

Wonder if they were skull and bones, arson seems in keeping with grave robbery. Referring to the desecration of Geronimo's grave by Prescott Bush during his stay in the exclusive club.

Hard to imagine how grave robbery can be seen as a war prize...but that's another story.

They're lucky they haven't been charged with attempted murder. If they were kids from a different school, they might be branded terrorists. Lighting fire to a flag to burn a house of full of patriots down.