NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.theomahachannel.com/news/4762822/detail.html

Tsk tsk

Shouldn't you be proud that someone can make a political statement without being persecuted for it?
Oh, wait. You're not allowed to burn a flag in the US, hey?

Anyways...put up new flags. They don't cost much, do they? Don't worry about it, it's part of a democracy.

I guess you didn't read the title of the article.

Shouldn't you be proud that someone can make a political statement without being persecuted for it?
Oh, wait. You're not allowed to burn a flag in the US, hey?

Anyways...put up new flags. They don't cost much, do they? Don't worry about it, it's part of a democracy.
I think it should be ok to burn a flag you bought specifically to burn in order to make a statement, but these flags (not to mention the car) didn't belong to whoever burnt them.

I guess you didn't read the title of the article.
Oh, my cynicism goes much further than you think: I did read the entire article. Top to bottom.

Does the fact that the flags were hanging on a house where a soldier fell change the situation? Is there reason to believe that the culprits knew that? How many other flags are hanging on the other houses?

I guess you could sue for the value of the flags, but is it democratic to engage in attacks on the culprit further than that?

-snip-
True. So a normal case of vandalism then?

True. So a normal case of vandalism then?
Nope, not in this case. Although I agree with you on flagburning in general, this is much more like cross burning - destruction of a political or emotional symbol designed to hurt another person. What the vandals were doing was essentially telling him they were glad his son tied, and blowing up his car to hammer that home. Good kids :rolleyes:.

After reading the article from top to bottom, all I can say is that it's gonna suck being a teenager in Fairfield for the rest of the summer.

True. So a normal case of vandalism then?
Well, in a way. It's kinda wrong only to call it vandalism since they managed to destroy a car.

Nope, not in this case. Although I agree with you on flagburning in general, this is much more like cross burning - destruction of a political or emotional symbol designed to hurt another person. What the vandals were doing was essentially telling him they were glad his son tied, and blowing up his car to hammer that home. Good kids :rolleyes:.

You don't know that; that's supposition.

Destruction of private property (flags and car) not belonging to person who did it. Seems to be a case of vandalism taken a step higher. Arson perhaps?

Either way you look at it, torching somebody elses car is a crime. Jailtime if he/she/they get caught, no two ways about it.

You don't know that; that's supposition.
In a court, yes, of course.

But use common sense. Why would they use flags instead of a cheaper combustible? And why would it be the day after the funeral? And it only happened to be this guy?

What the vandals were doing was essentially telling him they were glad his son tied, and blowing up his car to hammer that home. Good kids :rolleyes:.
That is assuming though that they knew what had happened at this particular house.
It is possible that this was the only house in the village with those flags hanging off it. Maybe they were simple anti-American, anti-Globalisation type confused teenagers who just didn't like the flags. Who knows?

Well, in a way. It's kinda wrong only to call it vandalism since they managed to destroy a car.

Again, supposition - you don't know that. The article does not mention the fate of the car, it simply states that flags were burnt underneath it.

In a court, yes, of course.

But use common sense. Why would they use flags instead of a cheaper combustible? And why would it be the day after the funeral? And it only happened to be this guy?

You'd be surprised at what people who do vandalism/arson end up using. Maybe they thought it would be cool to use flags rather than a can of jerry. We don't really know.

Oh, and Dobbs.


The car, belonging to Wessel's daughter, was burned beyond repair.

To me, that means the car was more or less burned to a useless wreck.

That is assuming though that they knew what had happened at this particular house.
It is possible that this was the only house in the village with those flags hanging off it. Maybe they were simple anti-American, anti-Globalisation type confused teenagers who just didn't like the flags. Who knows?
Of course you can't know for sure - and couldn't prove anything in a court. But the chances of the coincidence versus the target theory, especially in a small town, are very, very, very low.

You'd be surprised at what people who do vandalism/arson end up using. Maybe they thought it would be cool to use flags rather than a can of jerry. We don't really know.

Oh, and Dobbs.



To me, that means the car was more or less burned to a useless wreck.
Above

Again, supposition - you don't know that. The article does not mention the fate of the car, it simply states that flags were burnt underneath it.I distinctly remember reading something about "the car was burnt beyond repair" in the article. Correct me if I'm wrong... I'm too lazy to reread it...

In a court, yes, of course.

But use common sense. Why would they use flags instead of a cheaper combustible? And why would it be the day after the funeral? And it only happened to be this guy?

Well, that's why it's a police matter, and not an expose editorial on FoxNews, I suppose.

I could comjecture any number of reasonable, alternative explanations. The display of twenty flags on a front lawn was seen as horrendously tacky by a local area resident who perhaps had had enough of ostentacious displays of cloying patriotism, and set the flags ablaze out of sheer esthetic rage. That a soldier had passed away might not have had anything to do with the action taken.

Perhaps an angry ex-lover, who had begged and pleaded for their dead beau not to go to war? An old high school nemesis getting the final indignity in? A random act? A drunken act? Perhaps the family is not noted locally for making friends and getting along well together?

It could be any of these, or none at all. This is a job for the police. And this why it's gonna suck being a teen in Fairfield this year.

Does it say which car?

Anyways, I love the way how the apparent point of the article (flags in memory of fallen warrior were burned) has changed into whether the car was hurt, and how badly...

It could be any of these, or none at all. This is a job for the police. And this why it's gonna suck being a teen in Fairfield this year.
Maybe the dead soldier was a really bad bully, and those teens were his subjects before he left for the army?

I distinctly remember reading something about "the car was burnt beyond repair" in the article. Correct me if I'm wrong... I'm too lazy to reread it...
No, my bad. On re-reading it, it would appear I dropped that tidbit out of short-term memory.

Does it say which car?

Anyways, I love the way how the apparent point of the article (flags in memory of fallen warrior were burned) has changed into whether the car was hurt, and how badly...If it was only the flags, heck, that's not much, who cares? But the car actually has some real value... You don't just do something like that.

If it was only the flags, heck, that's not much, who cares? But the car actually has some real value... You don't just do something like that.

Maybe someone should've donated a car instead of 200 flags, then eh?

Maybe someone should've donated a car instead of 200 flags, then eh?Of course. Why would anyone actually want 200 flags? (unless you wanted a stockpile for future burnings)
I mean TWO-HUNDRED flags in your front lawn? That's just sick...