Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Tennessee teen jailed 9 days for burning flag

- General Discussion (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/)

- - Tennessee teen jailed 9 days for burning flag (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/92042-tennessee-teen-jailed-9-days-burning-flag.html)

Tennessee teen jailed 9 days for burning flag

Quote:

Tennessee teen jailed 9 days for burning flag
Youth faces trial for what his parents say was a drunken indiscretion
LINK
The Associated Press
Updated: 5:04 p.m. ET July 15, 2005

A teenager was jailed for nine days after being accused of burning an American flag on the Fourth of July, and he faces trial next month.

While the case could test a state statute against flag burning — an act the U.S. Supreme Court says is protected under the First Amendment — prosecutors said Andrew Elisha Staley has yet to argue that he was exercising free speech rights.

“Bottom line is, the kid got drunk,” said Lisa Lee, his mother. “He’s never been in trouble before.”

Staley, 18, is accused of taking the flag from a residence and setting it on fire. His father said the teenager “has no reason for anger against the United States” and could easily have ignited a garbage can instead of a flag.

“He was brought up in church, and he knows right from wrong,” Doc Staley said.

Doc Staley said his son has been “floundering around” since dropping out of high school. “This is where the drinking came in. And he’s not very good at it,” the father said.

The teenager was released from jail Thursday on his own recognizance while he awaits his Aug. 2 trial on charges of desecrating a venerated object, underage drinking, littering, evading arrest, burning personal property and theft.

The Tennessee flag-burning statute makes the crime a misdemeanor, punishable by less than a year in jail and up to $2,500 fine.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Because he did not claim he was applying "freedom of speech" to this case he's being punished. Personally he's just a stupid and sloppy drunk, but can one recant his previous testimony and replead as "free speech"?

I personally think that while the application of "freedom of speech" is evident in cases like this, I would like to think that people and communities on their own decry these kinds of actions either politically or drunken motivated.

The U.S. Code
TITLE 4--FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES
CHAPTER 1--THE FLAG
Sec. 8. Respect for flag
(k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a
fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way,
preferably by burning.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...id=Cite:+4USC8

Sorry, I realize this might be a little off-base, but I wonder if anyone would notice if someone burnt a "Don't Tread on Me" flag on the steps of some U.S. monument. You know the one I'm talking about, with the snake. I hear it's technically supposed to get the same respect as the traditional stars and stripes.

I actually don't like the response of the parents to their kid's actions. Are they saying he should be let off lightly - because he was drunk? Last time I checked, it was wrong to destroy someone's property. End of story. Goes a little beyond harmless fun.

This is something that as a Brit confuses me - it's a flag. It's a SYMBOL.

Whether you love or merely tolerate the thing it's a symbol OF (i.e. your great nation) the flag is not the nation.

I know from observation that most Americans I've met and talked to about this are passionate about the flag itself as an object of veneration - but I don't understand it at a visceral level.

Can anyone explain to me WHY the flag matters so much in itself - not what it stands for, but the actual physical cloth?

if I saw someone burning the maple leaf, I'd kick them in the teeth

'nuff said...

Daniel, not everyone in America feels that way.

I'm... walking on a blade here, but as best as I can explain, a lot of Americans believe in, rest assured by, fought and died for, and flat-out love the idea of American Freedom. The flag of the US is indeed a symbol that represents that idea. But some people equate the burning of the flag with shitting on the idea, and thus shit a brick when they see it done; this, despite the fact that the freedom that the flag represents includes free speech, including burning of the flag.

As for the kid, he's an underage highschool dropout who went on a bender and burnt someone else's flag: He got off light.

The question here isn't flag burning its vandalism.

Quote:

Staley, 18, is accused of taking the flag from a residence and setting it on fire. His father said the teenager “has no reason for anger against the United States” and could easily have ignited a garbage can instead of a flag.

He is in trouble because it was someone elses flag.

I don't know what TN law is here, but I'm willing to bet if it was his own property he wouldn't be in trouble.

9 days for that? I would have saved the city some money and just fined him. I am not so sure about this flag burning stuff, its only a piece of fabric, its not like some guy burns a flag and now the whole country is in civil unrest. If the morals or whatever the flag represents can be so easily questioned just because someone destroys some mass produced item i am not sure i understand the big deal. some people put too much stock into things that just don't matter, burn a flag, who gives a shit the guy is probably a moron, burn down say the captial building then sure i'd get pissed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by from the article

“Bottom line is, the kid got drunk,” said Lisa Lee, his mother. “He’s never been in trouble before.”

Way to excuse behavior, mom, what if he had gotten in a car, whilst drunk and killed someone...

Quote:

Originally Posted by from the article

“He was brought up in church, and he knows right from wrong,” Doc Staley said.

Guess he missed church the day that underage drinking was the right thing to do... :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by from the article

Doc Staley said his son has been “floundering around” since dropping out of high school. “This is where the drinking came in. And he’s not very good at it,” the father said.

Oh and dad's not much better... I guess if the kid stayed in school he would have learned how to be a better drunk.

I don' have a problem so much with the flag being burned as a protest... this wasn't a protest... the dad said it best.. he could have easily burned a can of garbage...

would he be in the same amount of trouble for that vandalism?

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

Oh and dad's not much better... I guess if the kid stayed in school he would have learned how to be a better drunk.

They are from Tennessee... :p

well, surely the issue isnt that he burned a flag, but that he burned someone else's property.

As far as Im concerned, if he wants to buy a flag and burn it its up to him... if he destroys someone else's property, its clearly a crime... but just buying a replacement and apologising might be more sensible than a jail sentence

Yes, the flag is just a symbol but its one to be respected. We as americans have worked hard for our freedom and that is what the flag represents. We have lost many lifes to protect what we hold so dear. I don't think that being drunk and stupid is an excuse for bad behavior. I can't say exactly what the flag represents to other people but for me its one nation united under god. I have a hard time letting anyone off for having such disregard for something we hold so dear. The kid knew it was the 4th and drunk or not he thought it would cause a stink. He got the attention he wanted and more. We live by our choices and for every action, there is an equal if not greater reaction.

in a way this reminds me of the story about the US forces flushing Qu'ran's down the toilet to upset Muslim prisoners in Guantanamo Bay (sic?)

Although I am interested in theology, I am not really a follower of any religion... but I identify most strongly with judaism and the cult of Yeshua... but if someone flushed a Torah down the toilet, I'd just think "thats stupid, that will make the toilet block up"... defiling a book doesnt defile what I stand for, I just see it is as childish and puerile... and its the same as burning a flag. I dont see that I would be upset by someone burning my flag, I'd just think it was silly... I think it is just an issue of maturity and security...I can honestly tell you, anyone could burn a St George's cross, a Union Jack, or a Star of David... I wouldnt care less, I'd just think how foolish they were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel_

We're indoctrinated very early on into the Founding Father mythos here in America. We spend so much time discussing the great things these great men did that we fail to mention and subsequently tend to forget the flaws and overlook the minor details that comprised their lives. They were Patriots (with a capital P, no less) instead of rebels, or terrorists, if you like. Jefferson was great and noble man instead of a slave owner who lived a life stuck in substantial debt and was quite the busybody. Franklin was an electic genius who discovered electricity rather than a lecherous old fart who spent quite a bit of time during the Revolutionary War on holiday in France. Washington is heralded as this great military mind rather than what he was, an unseasoned officer from Virginia. Right after the Revolutionary War, artists like Horatio Greenough were putting the Founding Fathers in togas and laurel leaves reminiscent of the old Greek God statuary from the Mediterranean. The flag falls in the same category. It's 'untouchable' by proxy. It's borderline idolatrous.

However, like it's been mentioned that doesn't seem to be the case here. The kid got in trouble for burning someone else's flag not burning the flag. Although, I couldn't say for certain that the severity of the punishment didn't have something to with the fact that it was a flag.... 9 days?

Stupid is as stupid does Sir!

Technically he hasn't pleaded anything yet because he hasn't gone to trial. He can plead the 1st on the flag burning (sorry -- desecrating a venerated object) but he's not going anywhere on the other charges of theft, public intox, and underage drinking, evading arrest and the rest. It will be interesting to watch how the desecration charge plays out.

I'm surprised he didn't get a big time country ass whipping for torching the stars and stripes. He was certainly ripe for it.

And I agree with Mal on this... these parents are further proof that a parental certification is required before you are permitted to procreate. :eek: *ducks and runs for cover on that note*

Sorry - I realise that the kid stole and burned someone else's "stuff".

To a Brit, the crime would seem to be the same if it was someone else's bedsheets - it's "criminal damage" in our law, because someone else owns it.

The kid is a thief and a vandal, and deserves punishment, but I don't really get why it being the flag makes it worse than anything else.

After all - the founding fathers were largely christian fundamentalists, and venerated the 10 commandments as almost the most important foundation of a right thinking society, and yet the flag that they gave to the nation has become a graven image - the OBJECT is worshipped, as much as the thing it symbolises.

the founding fathers were mainly slave owners

does this help?

Well, I don't like flag burning. I'll defend his right to do it though. I actually give respect for the fact he's not taking the freedom of speech angle and just admiting he's a stupid drunk. Make him buy the person a new flag and fine him. Maybe send him to rehab for a little bit and see if they can get him to become something productive. Jail time for i is stupid though. Just a waste of tax dollars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

the founding fathers were mainly slave owners

does this help?

No, please explain the relevance.

I assumed that the point was that if they were so hot on the 10coms why own slaves.

Tat said there is no biblical sanction directly that I know AGAINST owning slaves - various biblical heroes had slaves.

By the standards of their time and location they were fine upstanding men that were decent to their slaves - I mean Franklin (or was it Washington?) was recently proved to have fathered children on at least one slave. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel_

Jefferson, but close enough.

Now in politics board fashion, I leave you a giant link to read, which is quite interesting on the founding fathers and slavery.

Quote:

The Founding Fathers and Slavery

by David Barton

Even though the issue of slavery is often raised as a discrediting charge against the Founding Fathers, the historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by, the Founding Fathers; slavery had been introduced to America nearly two centuries before the Founders. As President of Congress Henry Laurens explained:

I abhor slavery. I was born in a country where slavery had been established by British Kings and Parliaments as well as by the laws of the country ages before my existence. . . . In former days there was no combating the prejudices of men supported by interest; the day, I hope, is approaching when, from principles of gratitude as well as justice, every man will strive to be foremost in showing his readiness to comply with the Golden Rule ["do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Matthew 7:12]. 1

Prior to the time of the Founding Fathers, there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery. John Jay identified the point at which the change in attitude toward slavery began:

Prior to the great Revolution, the great majority . . . of our people had been so long accustomed to the practice and convenience of having slaves that very few among them even doubted the propriety and rectitude of it. 2

The Revolution was the turning point in the national attitude–and it was the Founding Fathers who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, many of the Founders vigorously complained against the fact that Great Britain had forcefully imposed upon the Colonies the evil of slavery. For example, Thomas Jefferson heavily criticized that British policy:

He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . . . Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [that is, he has opposed efforts to prohibit the slave trade]. 3

Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . .

. . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. 4

Further confirmation that even the Virginia Founders were not responsible for slavery, but actually tried to dismantle the institution, was provided by John Quincy Adams (known as the "hell-hound of abolition" for his extensive efforts against that evil). Adams explained:

The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [Great Britain] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. 5

While Jefferson himself had introduced a bill designed to end slavery, 6 not all of the southern Founders were opposed to slavery. According to the testimony of Virginians James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Rutledge, it was the Founders from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia who most strongly favored slavery. 7
Yet, despite the support for slavery in those States, the clear majority of the Founders opposed this evil. For instance, when some of the southern pro-slavery advocates invoked the Bible in support of slavery, Elias Boudinot, President of the Continental Congress, responded:

[E]ven the sacred Scriptures had been quoted to justify this iniquitous traffic. It is true that the Egyptians held the Israelites in bondage for four hundred years, . . . but . . . gentlemen cannot forget the consequences that followed: they were delivered by a strong hand and stretched-out arm and it ought to be remembered that the Almighty Power that accomplished their deliverance is the same yesterday, today, and for ever. 8

Many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves as British citizens released them in the years following America’s separation from Great Britain (e.g., George Washington, John Dickinson, Caesar Rodney, William Livingston, George Wythe, John Randolph of Roanoke, and others). Furthermore, many of the Founders had never owned any slaves. For example, John Adams proclaimed, "[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave." 9
Notice a few additional examples of the strong anti-slavery sentiments held by great numbers of the Founders:

[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil. 10 CHARLES CARROLL, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they may build up the system of the government on the broad, strong, and sound principles of freedom. Curse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery]. 11JOHN DICKINSON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA

That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent, as well as unjust and perhaps impious, part. 12 JOHN JAY, PRESIDENT OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, ORIGINAL CHIEF JUSTICE U. S. SUPREME COURT

The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. . . . And with what execration [curse] should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. 13THOMAS JEFFERSON

Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts . . . by agreeing to this duty. 14RICHARD HENRY LEE, PRESIDENT OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

I hope we shall at last, and if it so please God I hope it may be during my life time, see this cursed thing [slavery] taken out. . . . For my part, whether in a public station or a private capacity, I shall always be prompt to contribute my assistance towards effecting so desirable an event. 15 WILLIAM LIVINGSTON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY

[I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave-trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master. 16LUTHER MARTIN, DELEGATE AT CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

As much as I value a union of all the States, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade [slavery]. 17

Honored will that State be in the annals of history which shall first abolish this violation of the rights of mankind. 18 JOSEPH REED, REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA

Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men. 19 BENJAMIN RUSH, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery]–Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent . . . pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right. 20 NOAH WEBSTER, RESPONSIBLE FOR ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, ¶ 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION

Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law. . . . The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all. 21 JAMES WILSON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

[I]t is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others . . . and take away their liberty by no better means than superior power. 22 JOHN WITHERSPOON, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

For many of the Founders, their feelings against slavery went beyond words. For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America’s first anti-slavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. In fact, when signer of the Constitution William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:

I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and . . . I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity. . . . May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke. 23

Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more. In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts began abolishing slavery in 1780; 24 Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; 25 Vermont in 1786; 26 New Hampshire in 1792; 27 New York in 1799; 28 and New Jersey did so in 1804. 29

Additionally, the reason that Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a Congressional act, authored by Constitution signer Rufus King 30 and signed into law by President George Washington, 31 which prohibited slavery in those territories. 32 It is not surprising that Washington would sign such a law, for it was he who had declared:

I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]. 33

The truth is that it was the Founding Fathers who were responsible for planting and nurturing the first seeds for the recognition of black equality and for the eventual end of slavery. This was a fact made clear by Richard Allen.
Allen had been a slave in Pennsylvania but was freed after he converted his master to Christianity. Allen, a close friend of Benjamin Rush and several other Founding Fathers, went on to become the founder of the A.M.E. Church in America. In an early address "To the People of Color," he explained:

Many of the white people have been instruments in the hands of God for our good, even such as have held us in captivity, [and] are now pleading our cause with earnestness and zeal. 34

While much progress was made by the Founders to end the institution of slavery, unfortunately what they began was not fully achieved until generations later. Yet, despite the strenuous effort of many Founders to recognize in practice that "all men are created equal," charges persist to the opposite. In fact, revisionists even claim that the Constitution demonstrates that the Founders considered one who was black to be only three-fifths of a person. This charge is yet another falsehood. The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; rather, it was an anti-slavery provision to limit the political power of slavery’s proponents. By including only three-fifths of the total number of slaves in the congressional calculations, Southern States were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress. Based on the clear records of the Constitutional Convention, two prominent professors explain the meaning of the three-fifths clause:

[T]he Constitution allowed Southern States to count three-fifths of their slaves toward the population that would determine numbers of representatives in the federal legislature. This clause is often singled out today as a sign of black dehumanization: they are only three-fifths human. But the provision applied to slaves, not blacks. That meant that free blacks–and there were many, North as well as South–counted the same as whites. More important, the fact that slaves were counted at all was a concession to slave owners. Southerners would have been glad to count their slaves as whole persons. It was the Northerners who did not want them counted, for why should the South be rewarded with more representatives, the more slaves they held? 35 THOMAS WEST

It was slavery’s opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South. 36 WALTER WILLIAMS (emphasis added)

Why do revisionists so often abuse and misportray the three-fifths clause? Professor Walter Williams (himself an African-American) suggested:
Politicians, news media, college professors and leftists of other stripes are selling us lies and propaganda. To lay the groundwork for their increasingly successful attack on our Constitution, they must demean and criticize its authors. As Senator Joe Biden demonstrated during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the framers’ ideas about natural law must be trivialized or they must be seen as racists. 37

While this has been only a cursory examination of the Founders and slavery, it is nonetheless sufficient to demonstrate the absurdity of the insinuation that the Founders were a collective group of racists.

...well maybe the flag touched the ground

I really don't get it, sober people wear the flag everyday as snickers, underwear, bandanas, even as handkerchiefs, and nobody seems to see wrong in it, but then a "drunken" guy burns it and all hell breaks loose... I don't think it's a matter of respect, but a reaction to what in other countries a burning US flag has become to mean.

There's a difference between a flag-print sticker and an actual flag. The flag is a symbol of patriotism for the country, and destroying it (except in certain circumstances where the flag is damaged beyond repair) is equivalent to stating your hatred for a country - equivalent to treason. Being drunk is only a minor excuse, as you should be held accountable for your actions...you decided to drink.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor226

Wait a second...

The flag is the symbol of freedom for those of us who are Americans. Maybe even for some who aren't.

One of the freedoms most prized by Americans is freedom of speech. Typically (although evidently not the case here) burning the flag is an expression of protest. You would make it a criminal act to express yourself freely by burning the symbol of that freedom? That seems self-contradictory.

This kid got drunk and destroyed property. Flag burning really isn't the issue in his case.

As a decorated combat veteran (who fought for that freedom) I would have to say that the fact that we can burn the flag strengthens the freedom it represents.

Regardless of whether he had the "right" to burn the flag...it wasn't his to burn, and there I agree with you.

Still, needlessly destroying a symbol of freedom is a rejection of that freedom, or at least a rejection of those who gave that freedom.

I can't agree that flag burning rejects the freedom represented by the flag. It is generally a protest against the policies of our government. Expressing a freedom is not a rejection of that freedom.

If this gets to court, the "burning a venerated object" thing will probably be ruled unconstitutional. I'm sure he'll get slapped on the drunk and disorderly and criminal damage stuff.

This kid's parents amaze me, too. I have to agree with Maleficient. He's a high school dropout and he's getting drunk and destroying property. WTF? His parents seem completely unfazed by this.

His mother said he's never been in trouble before. He dropped out of school, isn't that trouble? He's under age and his father said he's been floundering around, thats where the drinking comes in. Isn't that trouble? He stole from people and burned their flag, he obviously is in trouble.

If it is illegal to desecrate a venerated object, does that make it illegal to piss on the Koran? To throw a Bible in the dumpster? To kill and eat a cow? To wipe your ass with a Ty Cobb baseball card?

Who defines "venerated"?

Oh, and if you get all drunk and burn somebody's stuff, you ought to go to jail for a few days and think about it. Then pay for the stuff. What a shithead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clavus

Who defines "venerated"?

According to Tennessee Code, Title 39, Chapter 17, Section 311, (Desecration of Venerated Object), a person commits an offense who intentionally desecrates:

(1) A place of worship or burial; or

(2) A state or national flag.

Tennessee code defines this as a misdemeanor. I'm OK with the place of worship or burial, but the flag thing is an attempt to impede free speech, and should be struck down.

the story almost reads like a drunken attempt at a kind of symbolic suicide.
i think ustwo is right about it as vandalism.
i dont see this particular situation as interesting with reference to the fetishism of the flag--not relevant, a seperate problem. same with the founders. (though frankly between the two fetishes, the flag at least makes some sense to me...i find it ridiculous, but at least it makes sense)

i hope this kid gets some help. he, and his situation, sound fucked up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The question here isn't flag burning its vandalism.

He is in trouble because it was someone elses flag.

I don't know what TN law is here, but I'm willing to bet if it was his own property he wouldn't be in trouble.

Indeed. People in Tennessee have for years burned their own crosses without fear of incarceration.
Welcome all this view of the separation of church and state.

I'm amazed by how many people continue to defend his actions even after it's been pointed out by several people that the kid STOLE the flag and DESTROYED it. Nine days is a rather light penalty for stealing someone else's stuff and burning it.

Plus, he's charged with a lot more than the desecration - The other 5 charges against him are completely legit (underage drinking, theft, destruction of property, evading arrest, and littering)

People always bitch about how rotten kids are. What better way to scare them straight than to throw their butt in jail for a few days to show them what it's gonna be like if they keep that crap up?

i think the problem is the title of the thread. he isnt punished for burning the flag per say but for stealing it and every other charge. things like this try to make ppl look "un american, but the only unamerican i know is bush"

Quote:

Originally Posted by pattycakes

OK come on. I can't stand Bush either but he has nothing to do with this topic. That's a blatant threadjack and it borders on (hell, maybe crosses the line on) trolling. There are plenty of threads where we can point out all the atrocious things Bush has done - we don't need to jack totally unrelated threads to do it.

ummm...at the risk of being beaten down...I really don't get why a flag is so important.

We also don't have all the facts here. What were the kid's intentions?

Yeah, he should get punished for destroying other peoples' property. But it should stop there.

[B]Maybe nine months in Marine boot would teach him a little respect for the flag. Most likely he would getthe butt-whomping he needs

This isn't a 1st ammendment issue, it's a "got drunk and behaved like a dumbass" one. 9 days in jail seems fair.

I find all of the views of this post very satisfying. Amazing how much ground can be covered over one news article. My hat goes off to all who added something, and made this an interesting read.

As for my own personal opinion, I think 9 days is a little steep. I would say overnight and a fine followed by court is how most of these things work. Destruction of personal property is wrong no matter how drunk you get. But the flag issue under how I interprete it is just him in a drunken haze saying...hmm..lets burn something. Most likely followed by famous last words of "Hey ya'll watch this!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by OPgary

[B]Maybe nine months in Marine boot would teach him a little respect for the flag. Most likely he would getthe butt-whomping he needs

nah it would teach him how to hold his liquor

but that would be after the first 9 months lol