Illinois Man Charged With Desecrating American Flag After Posting Photos On Facebook

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Abner, Jul 5, 2016.

Loading...
  1. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Oops!

    Forbes Welcome

    Why did this guy have to go and burn the American Flag for? He could have said what he said without doing that. I don't think I have ever heard of someone being charged for it though.

    "A 22-year-old Illinois man has been charged with desecrating the American flag after he posted photos on Facebook FB +0.28% along with messages decrying the state of violence and race in the U.S."
    This is the first time the Urbana Police Department has seen the flag desecration statute used in 27 years.

    "Bryton Mellott was booked into the Campaign County Jail at about 9:47 a.m. Monday after police received numerous calls from citizens concerned about his safety and theirs. The calls started coming in around 7:30 a.m., Sergeant Charles told me over the phone."

    "Mellott’s Facebook page also included the name of his employer, which created a problem, Charles added."

    Ay pendejito! - Dumb kid!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 5, 2016
  2. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

  3. Davewill

    Davewill Member

    Yep, the city is likely to find themselves sued. Bad move.
     
  4. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    I've folded flags as part of funeral details and presented them to the deceased veterans family. I've saluted the flag, performed numerous ceremonies involving the flag, was part of a detail presenting a flag at the Willamette National Ceremony 9/11 Memorial Dedication. I've worn a representation of the flag during my service in three branches of the military over 15 years. My father is buried in national cemetery, and I have his flag (from his funeral detail) along with that of a Vietnam veteran.


    Some dickweed like this trying to get a reaction and be "provocative" does not bother me at all.
     
  5. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    When you serve you swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and protect our nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Enshrined in our Constitution is the right to protest our nation, its government and its policies.

    Burn the flag. It doesn't actually bother me. The flag isn't sacred. What the flag can, and should, represent is. The flag itself is a piece of cloth no different from a shirt or a blanket.

    What bothers me is when veterans and civil servants feel that the respect for the piece of cloth trumps the civil rights of individuals. Because those veterans and civil servants should be protecting those civil rights even if people exercise them in a way that we find personally distasteful.

    If we allow that sort of thing to happen then we have no right to criticize places like Saudi Arabia with their morality police.
     
  6. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    For the record charges have been dropped, he will suffer no consequences and I sincerely hope he successfully sues the ever living hell out of some people.
     
  7. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Burning the flag is protected "speech", the SCOTUS has been very clear on that. However, there's no accounting for what other people might do who don't share that opinion.

    My minister once said, "You can do anything you want in life, provided you're willing to accept the consequences". If you burn a flag in public, I'd recommend doing it in a crowd of like-minded friends, or within an arm's reach of a police officer, because you very well could have your face smashed in by a Veteran with PTSD who isn't current with the latest Supreme Court rulings.
     
  8. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    That might happen, but if it does it just goes to show that those on the left hold no monopoly on expecting everyone else to accommodate their hurt feelings.
     
  9. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    There's a huge difference between hurt feelings and legitimate PTSD.

    What I find ironic is that the left insists on being able to burn the flag, display crucifixes in urine, and other outlandish stunts while wrapping themselves in the Constitution, and at the same time screaming bloody murder if a private business doesn't want to bake a lesbian wedding cake.

    Is it only the left's feelings that matter?
     
  10. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I swore an oath to defend this nation. As a retired officer, I retain the rights and responsibilities that go with the office. Our most sacred oath is to protect the Constitution of the United States. All of it. This person was doing something I don't approve of, but readily recognize as constitutionally protected free speech. There is no other reasonable conclusion. The state should not have on its books such laws, but it is common for states to have unconstitutional laws. That's why all that "states rights" is a bunch of hooey. We're one country, not 50 independent and sovereign nations. Without the SCOTUS, this person would have had his civil rights run over by an oppressive and unjust state government.
     
  11. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Bruce,

    The acts you describe above are those of extremists. They are not really representative of DEMS like me, or of other fair minded DEMS on this board, I imagine. I have never ever met another DEM in real life who wants to go around burning crucifixes, burning flags, flashing GWB (time warp) their bare balls and asses by mooning, etc. etc.

    The only time I can think of that something extreme happened was way back during the height of the GWB days. We were having a union meeting a hall, and thins guy put up a huge banner on the back of his truck that said "Fuck BUSH!" He had every right to do that, but myself and some others talked him in to taking that down because there were women and children around, and he had union symbols next to the banner. Not cool! He took that down. Those were interesting times though. Thinking back to the name calling from back then, the name calling from today seems kind of tame in comparison (I don't mean racially).
     
  12. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    That's true. Burning a flag might get your ass kicked. And when you burn a flag you should simply accept that.

    But burning a flag isn't illegal. Kicking someone's ass is. And the police don't get to arrest people for non-crimes because it hurt their sense of patriotism.

    And if a person goes to jail for kicking the ass of a flag burner then they shouldn't really be able to raise the defense that it was OK because they were "defending the flag." The flag is a piece of cloth. And defending the actual cloth doesn't give you license to break the law.

    Trying to silence asshats with more asshattery is not likely to achieve the desired outcome.
     
  13. Davewill

    Davewill Member

    It's not "feelings" that matter at all. In the case you describe, the constitution is NOT on the baker's side. It's not a "private" business, they are serving the public. They should have no more right to refuse to serve LGBT people than they do to refuse service to black people...and there were plenty of people making the same argument about that that you just did about serving LGBT people. There were also plenty of people pointing out that a black person had the right to insist on being served, but should ready to be beat up for it. Do we really want to go there?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 7, 2016
  14. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Except that the federal government is a threat to those same civil liberties. Separation of powers worked in this case, not federalism.
     
  15. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I didn't say anything about federalism. I do, however, enjoy the fact that we're in a federal government and not a confederation.

    Separation of powers? Yes, federal powers.
     
  16. Steve Levicoff

    Steve Levicoff Well-Known Member

    If I were a lesbian . . .

    (Somehow that line seems like it should be followed by, "Daidle deedle daidle daidle daidle deedle daidle dumb! All day long I'd biddy-biddy-bum..." But I digress. Kudos to anyone who knows the reference.)

    But seriously, I fail to understand why, say, a lesbian or gay couple who is arranging a wedding ceremony would want to patronize a conservative, born again, anti-gay bakery. Or florist. Or catering hall.

    There are many bakeries, florists, and catering halls that would not only welcome the business of this new and growing market, they have actively expressed their support for gay rights over many years. Why throw your money at those who are against you when you could support those who have supported you?

    The answer is obvious: people who attempt to purchase the services or products of those who are expressing their religious convictions are trouble-makers, nothing more.

    And that's why the only thing that bugs me as much as right-wing whack jobs is left-wing whack jobs. In short, my only agenda is to be against anyone who has an agenda. Ba-da-bum!
     
  17. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    I guess you've never heard of the 1st Amendment?

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

    Does that highlighted passage not apply to Christians? In the case of the bakers, they are devout Christians who don't believe in gay marriage, on religious grounds. Do you really want to have a society where the government can trample your religious rights? I'm not even religious, and that scares the hell out of me.

    .

    Of course it's a private business, and in a truly free society, they could refuse to serve whomever they want. If they want to refuse to serve LGBT, racial minorities, certain religions, whatever, that's their choice. It's beyond stupid, as well as a terrible business decision, but who is the government to dictate who has to have a cake baked for them?

    Let the free market decide; when I was in the Army, there were regularly posted notices of businesses that were off-limits to soldiers, due to being racially discriminatory. Even back in the 80's, there were quite a few, but my friends who are still in tell me that they're now non-existent. The market decided that their attitude wasn't in line with modern thinking, so they either changed their ways, or closed. If I walked into a bakery owned by blacks, Asians, Muslims, whatever, and they refused to serve me because I'm a white Christian, I'd just leave and find another bakery who will. I wouldn't run crying to the government, and look to file frivolous lawsuits.

    But, since the government is seemingly eager to jump into this, why haven't they activated their Diversity Enforcement Team to start harassing, fining, and closing down these businesses for the same thing?

    [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmdiqB_8l2k[/video]

    To protect individual freedoms, including the right to be a total jackass? You bet.
     
  18. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Arguing about constitutionality isn't very useful. It doesn't matter what the Constitution says. All that matters is what a majority of Supreme Court justices wish that it said.
     

Share This Page