Matt Uhrin honored for rescuing flag from protesters
Matt Uhrin, a FedEx driver in Iowa City, was honored by the American Legion for rescuing a flag from protesters last month, according to The Gazette;
Matt Uhrin of Cedar Rapids, was given a membership to the post in Marion. He also received a certificate of appreciation from the national Legion headquarters. during a Sunday ceremony in Des Moines.
The awards follow Urhin’s action on Jan. 26 when demonstrators were attempting to burn American flags on the Pedestrian Mall in Iowa City.
Uhrin, wearing his FedEx uniform, used a fire extinguisher on the flames and took away one of the flags. The action was captured in a video by the Iowa City Press-Citizen, which went viral.
Uhrin, who served with the Army in Afghanistan from 2010 to 2011, said he spotted the protesters while making deliveries. When he realized what was happening, he said he “just couldn’t let it happen.”
“My mind went back to having to load one of our sister company’s soldiers to an aircraft going home for his final flight. He was killed by a sniper,” Uhrin said.
“I flashed back to it, and I remember seeing his coffin on the cargo flight going home,” he said. “To me, it wasn’t just a flag. It was that flag. It was his memory being disgraced, and I couldn’t let it happen. It just wasn’t going to happen while I was there.”
From the original story in the Press-Citizen which quoted the stank-ass hippy cowards;
The flag burning was not intended to be anti-veteran, members of the group said, but instead meant to protest racial and social injustice and U.S. imperialism, they said.
“When I see the flag, I see racial injustice,” said Paul Osgerby of Iowa City. “I see social injustice from Native American genocide to African-American slavery to failing to recognize women as citizens until the 20th century.”
Yeah, well, when I see someone burn a flag, I see a coward drama queen who wants attention.
Category: Real Soldiers
“Yeah, well, when I see someone burn a flag, I see a coward drama queen who wants attention.”
Ditto, and if there were any hippies in my neck of the woods trying that shit, I’d show up with a dry chemical fire extinguisher in the interest of public safety. Any shittyassed fleabag pisspants hippie wanting to burn an American Flag should tightly warp themselves in it while igniting it and soak themselves in gasoline as well.
I’m sure it gives the children and retarded adolescents a thrill to just fly in the face of authority, and breaks up their day of lounging around in the coffee shop and Mommys basement.
As my CO in basic used to remark- “Aimless young people!”
And that’s putting it mildly. It’s the Flag that is draped over the coffins of everyone we’ve lost overseas, the one that was draped over my Grandad’s coffin (WWII Vet) when he was laid to rest and it’ll be draped over mine when my time comes, ditto for all other Honorably Discharged Vets. I’m sure that at least 99% of those Flag-desecrating fleabags HAVE NEVER been at risk of coming home in a flag-draped coffin, thus it means nothing to them. If I see someone stepping on an American Flag, I consider it MY freedom of Speech to step on their fleabag asses.
Not only “aimless”, the lazy bastards are “pointless”!!
You know it had to be a Vet that would do such a selfless act and put himself in danger yet again! I wonder how many time any of those cry baby bed wetting useless liberal stank hippies have ever defended anything, much less our wonderful country? God bless you young man, God bless!!!
Notice how the Left somehow manages to get their spokesperson to mouth the Howard Zinn alternate history of our country, on cue. Might one wonder how the media picked this moron to put out that antiamerican narrative? Just a face in the crowd, huh?
The hothouse flowers are gonna burn down their greenhouse, one of these days.
Good to see we still have Americans like this fine young man, whom you’ll note, was working for a living, unlike the Mommy and me mob.
Thank you Matt Uhrin for serving – again.
And thanks to the American Legion for publicly honoring his service.
“When I see the flag, I see racial injustice,” said Paul Osgerby of Iowa City. “I see social injustice from Native American genocide to African-American slavery to failing to recognize women as citizens until the 20th century.” Funny, when I see someone burning a flag I see a non-electric pop-up target who should immediately exit the US borders and not return – for health reasons.
Why do they consistently blame the US for slavery when it was brought to the American continent by the British?
Go burn the British flag, idiotstick!!
Bravo Zulu Mr. Uhrin!
Came here to say this, so I’ll echo ex-OS2’a sentiments!
Doesnt seem that FedEx has taken any negative action for what could(by idiots – but we are surrounded by idiots) be take as a political action.
If that remains the case definitely a reason to use FedEx more in my book…
FedEx made their statement….
http://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2017/01/27/fedex-issues-statement-iowa-city-flag-burning-incident/97150692/
They will be my only choice for express shipping moving forward.
Semper Fi
I wrote a letter to their corporate offices after that statement that I’d been using their service for 20 years, and I recently added it as an option to storefront style ordering portals I’ve created for clients to order consumable promotional items from. I explained based on this action I would be making them the exclusive option for shipping for all of my clients including international where I ship from Hong Kong and Australia to London, Munich, and Rome….
If we put our money where we claim our values lie more companies will be interested in assuming those values.
Way to go, man.
Setting the example.
Awesome.
I don’t want to see my flag burned any more than I want to see some sweaty fat-ass wearing an American flag shirt or wiping their mouth with an American flag napkin. They are all seriously disrespecting my flag.
As depicted in the video, Uhrin was showing a LOT of restraint as he saved one flag and put out the fire on the other flag with an extinguisher. If he had wanted to, he could have single-handedly demolished this rabble of out-of-shape stankass hippiescum, probably with just one hand. This guy deserves much kudos for staying within the ROE, as tempting as it would have been to beat the shit out of them; I know I would have been…
Peckerhead camo dude that tried to jerk the flag from Uhrin almost ate the extinquisher. The mild squirt he got was a clever non leathal response.
Concur on impressive restraint.
Watching him move, and the tidy uniform spoke, former NCO.
Jonn, I think the word for the “protesters” was Pu##y.
Or, as they would say in gay Paree… POOOSAY!
A bit off-topic, but what are your thoughts on introducing a flag to be used only for government purposes (E.g. Germany, where the government version has an extra shield and eagle in the middle)? For example, we could replace the stars with a congressional or presidential seal or something to that effect. The protesters could burn it instead and make it clear that they’re unhappy with the government, without offending anyone (except congress, but who cares about them?). Now I know you’re gonna say that they’re just doing it to be hateful or to get attention, but I’m not convinced. I believe that at least some are genuinely pissed off at our dear leaders and, to them, the only way to adequately demonstrate their anger, is by burning the symbol our representatives are supposed to steward. And for those people, I would like to keep that mode of speech, distasteful as it may be, available.
Little side note: iirc Saddam Hussain used to have a problem with protesters burning his/iraq’s flag as well. He solved that issue by adding a verse from the Koran, so that burning the flag now became blasphemous. Just a little food for thought.
How about they just keep using cardboard, sharpie and a paint stick.
They can adequately demonstrate their anger on their own property.
Wait, were they the mall’s flags? Sorry, I misread then. That whole story makes more sense now. I assumed they simply bought their own flags and burned those at the site. Because who in their right mind commits arson and destroys someone else’s property in public? Well I guess I know now. 🙂
That’s one hell of a stupid idea. I means, thank you for your input. I’ll take it up with Congress, the Chief Executive, and the Supreme Court when we next meet.
Thanks, I appreciate it. Say ‘hi’ to malania for me when you go! 😛
Sure thing. President Trump’s predecessor in office tees off at 9 a.m tomorrow. He would like his putter and his balls washed before he plays. I’m certain you will do your usual good job.
[…] also, Milo The Fatwa Yiannopoulos The Political Hat: Culpability By Presence This Ain’t Hell: Matt Uhrin Honored For Rescuing Flag From Protesters War Is Boring: This Weird Little Company Wants To Build The Next A-10 Weasel Zippers: The Twenty […]
I cringed at the explanation provided by Paul Osgerby, that burning Old Glory was a blow against this, that, and the other American thing and not an insult to Veterans. So, if you run into Paul, kick him in the nuts and let him know that it wasn’t personal, that you were just protesting male genitalia.
I’d rather kick him in the face and say I was protesting fleabag hippies.
That’ll work, too.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Matt+Uhrin&&view=detail&mid=20309CAD16FEFB327FF620309CAD16FEFB327FF6&FORM=VRDGAR
Barkeep- melted snowflakes and schadenfreude for my friends!
I like the Lone Ranger in the black hat as the groups muscle. Guy had no idea what he was up against. Skinny fuck would have snapped like a pretzel.
I’ve never had a wannabe badass like that boy last past my first or second punch.
Stands like a chick.
Hmmm, I know the majority here support his actions, but the “protest” was a lawful expression of speech.
All I see happening there is some jag-off inserted himself, into someone else’s event, stolen their property with force, and assaulted at least one person present with a fire extinguisher.
We must be sure to use the same standards of law for everyone, regardless of their viewpoint folks.
Don’t fall into the same trap the obama-ites did when it became OK for Obama to do the same “illegal war” that Bush did.
We are better than that…..
Since when is arson lawful free speech?
It’s not arson if it’s their own property, and the courts of already ruled, Time and you’re creepy uncle again; that burning the flag is free speech
Lots of places outlaw the burning of anything (anything would include papers, flags, trash, logs, and everything else that will burn) without a permit no matter who owns it. You can stand on a corner yelling about the flag, or your newspaper. That is speech. Burning either one is an action, not speech. It will get you arrested in a lot of places simply because open burning is dangerous.
Get over yourself.
HEY Uncle Nuthatch, say you had a pile of old tires on your property and decided to burn them, just wait and see how much heartburn the authorities would give you after you lit them up!
Huh. Maybe you didn’t read upthread. It wasn’t their flag to burn.
http://www.rif.org
Having read the original source article in the OP as I’m sure many did not, I noticed that two of the protesters were charged with burning within the city limits without a permit.
Nowhere in the article was it listed that anybody had stolen any property city or otherwise, the only theft I observed was perpetrated by FedEx boy
Why don’t they run for office and affect the changes they want in society? I know why they don’t and so do you.
Sane people see something burning, anything burning, and they put out the fire.
End of story.
A lot of the Stolen Valor cases we do here are technically legal, too, but that doesn’t stop law abiding citizens from expressing their opinion on behavior that they don’t approve of here.
“It’s not arson if it’s their own property, and the courts of already ruled, Time and you’re creepy uncle again; that burning the flag is free speech” Greepy
“[…]the only theft I observed was perpetrated by FedEx boy.” Creepy
A couple of things, genius. One, you have completely screwed up the arson business, taking part of the common law definition (“of another”) and using it to wrongly to support your conclusion that it’s not arson if the property is owned by the one who torches it. It may or may not be a variation on arson, depending solely upon the applicable statute. Also, while I’m at it, to satisfy the elements of the crime of malicious destruction of property, the property need NOT belong to another. The fact that certain expressive and repugnant speech is free speech, under the 1st Amendment, as construed by the Supreme Court, has no bearing whatsoever on whether the speech violates laws prohibiting malicious destruction of property or burning w/o a permit. Lastly, there’s that theft accusation against “FedEx boy” that you lodged. Theft requires the intention to permanently deprive the owner of that which was taken. And even if you clear that hurdle, there’s a nice expression, courtesy of the Supreme Court, that may or may not apply here: danger invites rescue. The Veteran and Fed Ex employee effectively saved the burner and onlookers from potential harm posed by the burning.
Speaking of danger, you are proof positive, Creepy, that a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
So your verbose response, I can only assume you posted on an attempt to justify lawless behavior you know is wrong morally, but you agree with in this instance is that to now steer away from arson towards malicious destruction of property.
And we now avoid the theft by implying that our hero may not have meant to ” permanently” deprive of property.
While you nicely sidestep the issue that the the speech is protected absent the burning without a permit portion, which I suggest is improperly used in this instance. Since there is no obvious health or safety involved.
The danger invites rescue might also be construed to mean that super-flag-man could have been legally beat down for his attempt to interfere with a persons lawful exercise of his civil rights.
You all may think I’m being obtuse with my argument, but I truly believe we have to start applying the law equally, even to our intellectual and moral enemies.
Speech is only protected from government interference, not among citizens. Your free speech or your perception of your actions as free speech can be responded to by other citizens exercising their own rights.
But no one has the right to steal someone else’s property and assault them when they resist that theft.
Not to mention that the only time individuals can lawfully restrict the speech of another is when it is on private property (eg. their home or business).
Creepy. You are confused. I can’t help you with that. As for my verbose response, it’s 100 words fewer than your comments, excluding the quotes I lifted from those comments of yours. Still, it is apparent that you didn’t grasp the meaning behind my succinct response. Try to de-confuse yourself.
BTW, that creepy uncle tag is sick. Do you keep a pocketful of candy for the neighborhood kids to reach in and sample?
Does he creep around the neighborhood in a windowless van?
So now we devolve to ad hominum personal attacks of an obviously sarcastic Nickname on a forum? I hoped for more than that….
But, the question remains, are we a nation of laws or men? The law must be applied equally without regard to the favored status of the violator.
Switch the situation around, to a person burning a Koran they owned,in public; And having an Immam or members of a mosque coming out and taking the book and assaulting the “protester”.
Would you expect the muslim to be charged with theft? Assault? Violating his rights to free expression and assembly?
What is the net difference? Would you be OK with the protester in this case being charged with the “burning ban” violation? Or would you be bent out of shape over the prosecutor’s overreach?
Lets be intellectually honest in our debates, and not wear blinders to events because it’s ‘our turn now’…
What difference does the nature of the object make?
Please address the issue: the burning of something without proper precautions, permits, or whatever else the locale requires. If additional charges of theft, robbery, assault, or other criminal offenses exist, they are in addition to the burning issue.
Try setting your car or house on fire and see if law enforcement gives a big whoop whether you own it or not.
If I decided to burn my car, that I had clear title to in my pasture, there would be no law violated. Absent an extenuating circumstance such as extreme fire danger….
You can burn a house own own outright too. Ask your local rural fire department about “learn to burn” training. If someone else is on the title also, you have a problem…
we’re getting wrapped around the axle with the burning charges debate, when the larger and more important issue is whether the protesters have a civil right to do what they were doing.
I believe they do. I don’t like it, and wouldn’t do it myself, but there you are all the same.
You are wrong.
This is about the burning of something in an populated area, not you doing so out in a pasture. The IS the issue here, and that is all the issue is.
It’s not about speech. It not about your burning your own pasture in a legal manner. It’s about someone setting something on fire among a group of people in a populated area. A sane person responds to something burning, to someone endangering the surrounding people by flinging fire around, by extinguishing the fire.
That is all this is about. Your continuing to argue about it is you exercising your free speech. The moment you take action other than flapping your jaw, it may not be protected.
That is incorrect. If you decide to burn your car, you are obligated by local ordinances to observe the following:
1 – notify the fire department
2 – notify the police
3 – engage in this act in a place NOT within range of buildings of any kind, e.g., dwellings, schools, businesses, etc.
4 – GET A PERMIT TO HAVE THE FIRE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
5 – NOT attempt to hit up your insurance company for coverage, because if you do, you are intentionally destroying your own property and demanding compensation from an insurer is fraud called arson for profit.
Should I go further with this?
The same thing applies to book burnings, flag burnings, demolition of derelict buildings, etc., etc., etc.
It has nothing to do with speech of any kind.
If you set fire to a police car (see the Ferguson riot videos) you are engaging in arson, which is a felony.
And one WOULD NOT be allowed to burn say, during a drought when a Burn Ban is in effect.
This is what I am talking about. Creepy wrote this: “If I decided to burn my car, that I had clear title to in my pasture, there would be no law violated.” He speaks with authority, makes declarations that he earnestly believes to be true, but he is dead wrong.
Dead wrong…Hmmm then citing a law that would be violated should be easy….
Perhaps we can also starting teaching Civics and American History in schools again.
In this case, the protestors failed to obtain a permit for their “event”, failed to obey the open burn ordinance and jeopardized the safety of surrounding bystanders and private property.
we might even teach people that their rights end at the tip of MY nose…..Be offended however you want, but do it without interfering in my rights.
No permit was needed for the protest. I watched the video of the event and the protesters numbered less than 25. If we can agree to that number, here is the permit page for the city:
https://www.icgov.org/permits
Demonstration, rally, picket or protest
If the group wishing to demonstrate or protest is larger than 25 people and wants to use the streets and/or City Plaza and/or the sidewalks, a parade/public assembly permit will be needed unless it is a “spontaneous event.” The same is true if the group is larger than 100 people in a park.
I agree they violated the open burn codes as written, so it is up to the police to cite for that…whether or not that could be used for an infringement of free speech is a question for the courts to decide.
And I doubt anyone could honestly make the argument that the safety of bystanders and private property was in danger when the flags were being burned on a cold, damp, snowy day on a concrete and brick community plaza.
Intellectual honesty……Let’s try it…
No danger to other property or people because it was a cold, damp snowy day?
Okay, a couple of years ago, some squatters in a warehouse on Chicago’s south side started a fire to keep themselves warm. It went out of control very quickly and became a multi-alarm blaze. It was in the middle of winter, and was very difficult to put the fire out. Ditto two years ago, in the middle of winter, a fire started by an electrical short in a towing company’s garage became a multi-alarm fire very quickly.
Last year, in the middle of winter, an employee at Furniture Warehouse started a fire which consumed the entire building and inventory. Again, it was a multi-alarm fire, and firefighters had to let it burn itself out.
Fires do not care a whit what season it is. They only know about oxygen, fuel and opportunity. So if you think there was no danger of anything happening with this asinine incident, you are quite mistaken.
How about that warehouse fire in California where people were not only living in it, it was infested with substandard out of code wiring, no sprinkler system and yet they were also having shows and concerts in there. “Freedom” by what creepazoid says, but a fire erupted in there that killed people.
You just can’t admit defeat, can you?
Yeah, well, how’s about YOU trying a bit of that intellectual honesty that you are demanding of others?
You say, “…I doubt anyone could honestly make the argument that the safety of bystanders and private property was in danger when the flags were being burned…” knowing that the very flags being burned were private property, and not that of those burning them. The “protesters” indeed posed a danger to private property – they are the ones who burned private property.
Methinks that the “protesters” were hoping that more than 25 would show up. Or perhaps you really think that they had a plan to run off any more than 25, had they showed up. Because they were obviously so concerned with upholding the law. Uh-huh. And of course it was spontaneous. All 25 of them just happened to be on that particular street corner, with no prior contact among them. Sure.
I haven’t seen any statement to the fact that the protesters stole the flags. If I’ve missed it somewhere, I’ll retract.
Whether they planned on 24 or 24000 protesters to show is immaterial. Less than 25 where present. And a spotantrous protest doesn’t require a permit from the city.
I have read and, in a few instances, re-read Creepy’s comments and I must say that most of them aren’t wrong. All of them are. Every. Single. One.
Did a theft occur? I say yes. FedEx took a flag he had no legal claim to from the person who did.
Did an assault occur? I again say yes. He swings a heavy fire extinguisher at the legal owner of the property he has just stolen. One might even suggest that meets the statutory definition of robbery.
Did the protesters need a permit? No. Read the city website listed above.
Was their speech protected? I say yes. You disagree citing the open burning ordinances. I would be willing to debate that still.
I do not see where I have been wrong.
You may not agree with or like the answer, but it is my belief that the law is on the side of the protesters.
See below, creepy and stupid.
“Ebensberger said she and the others knew they were violating the ordinance….”
They knew they were violating an ordinance. If they can figure that out, as stupid as THEY are, HOW COME YOU CAN’T??????
I’d have to assume, based on YOUR interpretation of what is legal or not legal, that you’d also approve blocking highways and streets – PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION VENUES – and not allowing emergency vehicles to get through. That is EXACTLY what you are saying about yourself.
They knew they were violating the burning ordinance. They were not violating any free speech laws. Context is everything.
Your argument is non sequitur. They violated an ordinance and they knew it. It has nothing to do with speech. You can’t wiggle out of this.
I have not endorsed the burning in violation of the ordinance. the courts have ruled it IS speech. It is an action done to demonstrate your views. Much like campaign contributions are speech. Spending money to advocate for your view via a candidate.
I have never endorsed any violation of law here, to include blocking a roadway.
If they knowingly violated the burning ordinance, knew they could be fined for it, and were willing to accept that consequence for breaking the law, good on them.
But hold Mr Uhrin to the same standard. he stole from and assaulted people on the street. accept the consequences.
He put out a fire that others had started with property they had stolen from the business/businesses in front of which they burned them. He then removed the materiel that they were burning. His defending himself from those who were assaulting him is hardly assault on his part. HE did not violate the law – they did.
You are just unable to admit that you are wrong. Continuing to maintain you’re right doesn’t make it so.
Some of us may be bored with you and may allow you the last word. That doesn’t indicate acquiescence either.
I just have to add this here. This is taken from the Press-Citizen article.’
“Ebensberger said she and the others knew they were violating the ordinance but said protesting should not be criminalized, expressing concern about a bill in the Iowa Senate that would make blocking traffic on highways a felony charge punishable by up to five years in prison. The bill comes after around 100 protesters marched onto Interstate Highway 80 in the days following Trump’s election.
‘If you start criminalizing one aspect of protesting it’s only a matter of time before they start criminalizing it all,’ she said.”
If this utterly dimwitted broad cannot distinguish between lawful protesting and impeding vehicular right of way on a public road – which is NOT a protest – then some day, when she wants the law on HER side, it won’t be there. She is exactly the kind of moron who thinks it’s just fine to block a state or federal or local highway so that emergency vehicles such as fire engines and ambulances can’t get through.
This is the spoiled brat syndrome personified. No thought for the effects on other people of what they do, as long as they can have their spoiled brat way because they just do not care who else gets hurt by it.
You mean the “You have no rights when I am expressing mine!” attitude?
Precisely. I want what I want and I want it right now and I’m going to throw a fit and sit in it until I get my way!!!!!
Creepy. You don’t like what the man you called FedEx Boy did. Fine. You don’t have to like it. You should have left it at that. But you didn’t. You maintain what is plainly wrong, things such as it is not a crime to burn your own car. You also misapply an element of common law arson, among other errors. Still, you insist on the correctness of your assertions. Now, I’m done.
I don’t like with the man did because what he did was a criminal act.
Some keep attempting to frame this discussion in the context of the protesters burning the flag, when the real question at issue from the beginning where the actions of FedEx boy.
I can see no lawful justification for what he did, by intervening in someone else’s lawful protest. The fact that you disagree with the basis of their protest has no bearing on the issue at hand.
Upthread, was a statement to the effect that the protesters had stolen the flags from the mall. If that is the case then prosecute them for that theft. It would appear that the city and the mall management were very helpful to these protesters by way of providing numerous pre-folded flags at ground level for protester use or theft what have you. My view based on observing the video would be that the protesters more than likely brought the flags themselves thereby making that their property.
I will state again I do not disagree that the protesters violated the burning ordinance, but it is not FedEx boys Purview to enforce the city ordinance for that violation, it is law enforcements job.
Any attempt to justify his actions by way of intervening in enforcement of sitting statute or ordinance is nothing more then out ride vigilante justice.
And if that is the road that we as a nation want to walk down, you had better be very very careful because at some point the other guy is going to be in power.
If Ol’ Poe may weigh in here, technically speaking, this Creepy asshole is probably correct that the flag burners were involved in an activity that the Supreme Court has declared to be an expression of free speech. To my knowledge, what has never been determined by that august forum is how far the free speech rights extend of an individual who perceives the same burning activity as “fighting words” inciting him to respond.
So Creepy, (what an apt handle) may be technically correct but he’s philosophically a mere bomb thrower doing the same thing here that the protestors did at the mall. He knows this forum is made up primarily of veterans and serving members of the armed forces, yet he comes in here and takes a big stinking dump just to piss all of us off.
Ignore the asshole.
My opinion on the matter is just as valid as anyone else here, and worth the same. Nothing.
I only asked that we view the actions through the eyes of the law, not our emotions.
And i know this forum is primarily Veterans and serving members. I am a Vet myself. I guarantee you that many of us view this the same way I do. From a position of Freedom and Liberty.
I don’t advocate for what the protesters did, but they do have the right to do it. FedEX did not have a right to act as he did.
And the attempt to turn the discussion away from the legality of the protesters actions with the “fighting words” doctrine is pathetic at best.
An honest response from the ‘Murica crowd here, could be, That the protesters DO have the right to do what they did, (burning ordinance excepted), and FedEx did not act legally. Then with the supposition that he went to trial, jury nullification would be the answer to look for, and I would support that 100%.
“FedEX did not have a right to act as he did.”
Stupid shit right there. Dumbest shit ever written on this blog. Ever. When you understand what rights are, come back and discuss this with us.
Are you suggesting that he had the right to take property that is not his?
*i’ll await an answer in moderation jail*
Your comments keep going to moderation because you keep changing your display name.
Best advice for several of these scumballs posting lately.
Oh, I beg to differ, Poetrooper, mostly because I just got back from walking over to the bank and back, and the sight of a deep blue clear sky with a bank of stratocirrus clouds to the west made me laugh out loud at people who say the air is polluted everywhere,
In my opinion, ignoring a pompous ass who is smugly sure that he’s right and we’re all too stupid to understand anything is the worst thing possible to do. As you know, the internet never goes away. What we post doesn’t go away, either, so answering a smart-alecky, smug individual by refuting his claim, which is hollow, is the only answer.
As I said before, his response that it’s all about free speech is non sequitur when one of the protesters (quoted above) freely admits that they knew they were violating an ordinance.
Ordinances apply to ALL persons, not just certain ones. if there is a local ordinance against loud noises after a specific hour of the day, and you violate that ordinance, I have every right to file a complaint against you, regardless of what the noise is or what you are doing to cause it.
Creepy may think he has the right to burn his own car in his pasture, but he can only do so if he applies for a burn permit and notifies the fire department and local PD. Why? Because a pasture is usually full of flammable material like grasses and weeds, which will act as fuel to spread a fire, especially if accelerants are in the car’s gas tank and engine. And if his pasture is within a viable distance of a forested or wooded area, and the weather has been dry enough to make local officials issue a ‘No Fire’ warning for everyone, including people who own barbecue grills, he can’t get the permit or burn the car.
We keep coming back around to the safety of the burning flags. It was a cold, damp, snowy day and they were burned in an area surrounded by inflammable materials.
They did violate the ordinance. but to presuppose that vigilante boy was there acting as a junior firefighter is ludicrous. Neither was he acting as a person who is witnessing a ‘crime’ occurring in his presence.
He was obviously butt hurt about the flag burning because of his service etc…. but he let his emotions get the better of him and violated the law in his response.
Regardless, CREEP, it was illegal – which inconvenient truth (to coin a phrase) makes it against the law. (Since you and your ilk appear to be unable to make that connection.)
The hero Matt Uhrin has not been charged with any crime to my knowledge, and despite your slanderous pejoratives to the contrary.
Not that your are capable of logic, it appears.
I’m not debating whether the burning was unlawful or not, it obviously was a violation of the city ordinance.
The fact that the hero hasn’t been charged is the issue. If the roles were similarly reversed, and a stank-ass hippie stole a flag of someone who was supporting the troops, and then assaulted them to keep it, YOU ALL would be shitting yourselves demanding and immediate trial and subsequent execution (hows that for a little hyperbole?)
I know some kind of asexual reproduction or anal resultant must somehow have cloned Lars, I’m just not sure how. Please don’t tell me you were an MI officer, too…
Oh, geez! And I thought the Piuperdink was thick!
‘They’ violated a city ordinance about starting a fire without a permit. “He” put the fire out and removed the flammable materials from them.
How blinking bleedin’ hell is THAT so hard to understand?
Okay, someone starts a fire in YOUR trash can. I come by on the way to MY garage and see the fire, and immediately get out with the fire extinguisher I keep in my car and put the fire out, AND remove the flammable stuff from its proximity to your property.
Why is either concept too difficult for you to understand?
Give it up. You’re wrong. Cry ‘uncle’ and go home
I guess I didn’t realism that his interest in anti-pyro-whatever was the driving force behind his actions.
In the interest of community building and in due deference to his heroic actions in the face of near-certain death in a raging inferno on the public plaza, I will accede the argument.
Oh, do admit, will you? You refuse to accept what anyone else says, even if it’s correct for a simple reason.
You’re an asshole.