July 4, 2005
IF FREEDOM OF SPEECH MEANS ANYTHING...:
War protester sets flag on fire (SARAH BURGE, July 3, 2005, The Press-Enterprise)
After a 19-year-old war protester set fire to an American flag at the Murrieta city birthday bash Saturday evening, angry bystanders attacked him before he could say a word, his mother said Sunday.Police said Lee Henry Vollick, of Murrieta, set an American flag ablaze around 7:55 p.m. in the middle of a crowded concert at the California Oaks Sports Park. [...]
[Barbara] Vollick said Sunday her son wasn't in any condition to speak with the press.
"He's actually in a lot of pain right now." She said his face was cut, his neck and back were hurt, and he had welts on his wrists from handcuffs police placed on him when he was arrested.
Vollick was up all night in jail, she said, and he wasn't released until nearly 10 a.m. Sunday morning.
According to a police news release, a Murrieta police officer approached Vollick because the fire posed a hazard to the crowd. The fire burned out quickly, but the officer tried to grab Vollick anyway.
Vollick resisted and tried to break away from his grasp, the release said. With the help of several bystanders, including two off-duty Murrieta police officers, the officer brought Vollick to the ground.
Vollick was arrested on suspicion of resisting a police officer, disturbing a public assembly and inciting a riot. Vollick's mother said he was just trying to stand up, not fight the officers.
"He was yelling, 'You're hurting me,' " she said. "He has a bad back."
Vrooman said, "From my understanding, there were quite a few people in the crowd who were displeased at what he was doing." When the police took the teen him away, Vrooman said, "people applauded."
...it means you can beat the tar out of someone burning the flag. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 4, 2005 11:37 PM
Bravo! Encore! Encore!
Posted by: obc at July 4, 2005 11:49 PMIf arson is speech, then battery is the proper succinct rebuttal.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at July 5, 2005 12:04 AM"Call off your on-bringers!"
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 5, 2005 12:29 AMNo Constitutional Amendment is needed to protect the flag...loyal citizens will!
Posted by: Dave W. at July 5, 2005 12:32 AMBattery is an inappropriate response to protected speech. However, in this case, it should not be surprising to anyone.
It would be nice if Mr. Vollick and his mommy were to realize that resisting arrest is not 'speech' and not protected under the Constitution, neither is creating a fire hazard.
I doubt Mr. Vollick could spell Iraq if you spotted him the I, the R and the A, much less find it on a map. He is a good example of the kind of feel-good, non-judgmental, no discipline, self-esteem focused crap that passes for child-rearing today.
Posted by: bart at July 5, 2005 6:58 AMI second Dave W.
If anyone needed a reason to end the attempt to ban flag burning by Constitutional Amendment, that is it.
Posted by: John J. Coupal at July 5, 2005 8:40 AMi believe this young man was unfairly tgreated; a proportional response would have been to light his clothes on fire and sing the national anthem.
Posted by: cjm at July 5, 2005 9:52 AMOooo. Not only is arson speech, but "protected speech". Is that some sort of reverse censorship in which instead of being prohibited, certain so-called "speech" has a privileged status which makes it exempt from criticism in kind?
If it's the burning of a flag is what makes it "protected speech", but burning other objects (draft cards, effigies, crosses, bras) are not "protected speech", then you've made the case for the Flag-burning Amendment. And similarly, you've also elevated related non-semantic activities, like battery, into proper responses to your "protected speech."
"Whiplash! Whiplash!" Give me a break!
In general, the comments have it rightly. It took Kent State to remind people that throwing rocks at men with rifles is non-habit forming. Is any pounded pinko anywhere ever going to be able to find a jury without at least one member who has a reasonable doubt about the culpability of one who found it necessary to restrain arson and disorderly conduct?
Posted by: Lou Gots at July 5, 2005 12:26 PMMr. Gots, Mr. Ortega;
I'm still waiting for an explanation of why this is in any way "arson". You seem to be using the word rather liberally (i.e., redefining it for inflammatory political purposes).
I think the endangerment charge is completely appropriate, but note carefully that the nature of the object set on fire is irrelevant and that no new law nor Amendment is required.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 5, 2005 12:42 PMMy solution to the flag-burning controversy has always been this: Anyone who wants to can burn the flag. Then, any US Marine with an honorable discharge can beat him up.
But without an amendment to that effect, we have unregulated beatings by amateurs, as in this case. How many more flag-burners must be ineffectually beaten, Mr. Speaker? How many more?
What a tonic reading these comments are. Haven't laughed so hard in a long time. Bob, I have a question. If there are no honorably discharged marines available, is it legal for us geezerettes to hit them with our purses?
Posted by: erp at July 5, 2005 4:43 PMWhen your act of protest creates exactly the enraged reaction you wanted, why are you surprised when somebody smacks you upside the head?
It's, like, DUH!
Posted by: The Wine Commonsewer at July 7, 2005 12:28 AM