Air Force vet arrested for trying to stop flag desecration

[Ifreann]

Lying around for three days? What?

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/04/19/to ... esecration

Manhart learned about the flag desecration last week. A family acquaintance told her the demonstrators had been trampling on the flag for three days. So Manhart called the university to complain. She said she was told the matter would be investigated.

On April 17th Manhart learned the demonstrators had once again desecrated the flag - so she drove to the campus and eventually took matters into her own hands. She brought along her 19-year-old daughter who filmed the entire incident.

“I walked up, picked up the flag and walked away,” she said.

The video shows Manhart being surrounded by angry screaming protesters. An unidentified demonstrator grabs the flag - but Manhart refused to let go.

If the flag was abandoned, where did the protesters come from?

The unidentified demonstrator committed assault - only the flag's rightful owner had the right to grab it and try taking it away from her.

You reckon it's illegal to try to prevent the theft of someone else's property? Why?

And if it's assault, is Manhart pressing charges?

I doubt that highly.

And what charge would that be?

Something along the lines of theft or robbery. Of course, what I doubt is that any charges would be dismissed based on your reasoning that the flag constituted abandoned property.

Specifically. What charge could the college, not being the rightful owner of the flag, bring against her?

I wouldn't know. Though I suppose it's possible the college did actually own the flag and was letting its students use it in their protest.

[Scomagia]

She took something that did not belong to her.

When she was asked by the rightful owners to give it back, she refused to do so.

When asked by campus security to give it back, she continued to refuse to do so.

When campus security attempted to take it from her in order to return it to the rightful owners, she resisted and struggled.

That's not just theft, that's brazen theft.

She picked something up off the ground that was being stomped on like a piece of trash. She was asked to hand it back so they could continue to use it in their protest. She refused because she didn't want to see it damaged. That's remarkably different to her stealing the flag because she wanted to sell it or keep it or any of the usual reasons which people commit theft for. If she committed a crime, it was disobeying a lawful order. I'm a little confused as to why we can't discuss the issue as a whole and not break down each of her actions into specific crimes, because doing that plays up the entire issue much more than what it needs to be. I'm sure she and the protesters jostled with each other as well, yet nobody is crying assault?

Not really. She committed the crime of theft. She took property that did not belong to her without permission from the lawful owners. Stop trying to minimize her criminal behavior.

[Scandinavian Nations]

Whoever it was, it wasn't Manhart.

But, whoever it was, they almost certainly weren't there. Only the flag's rightful owner had any priority property right to the flag over Manhart.

This is a question of law, not ideology. Manhart had the same right to the flag as the unidentified protesters. So she had as much right to pick it up as they had to deface it.

[Imperializt Russia]

She picked something up off the ground that was being stomped on like a piece of trash. She was asked to hand it back so they could continue to use it in their protest. She refused because she didn't want to see it damaged. That's remarkably different to her stealing the flag because she wanted to sell it or keep it or any of the usual reasons which people commit theft for. If she committed a crime, it was disobeying a lawful order. I'm a little confused as to why we can't discuss the issue as a whole and not break down each of her actions into specific crimes, because doing that plays up the entire issue much more than what it needs to be. I'm sure she and the protesters jostled with each other as well, yet nobody is crying assault?

Not really. She committed the crime of theft. She took property that did not belong to her without permission from the lawful owners. Stop trying to minimize her criminal behavior.

Theft, in the UK at least, is considered an act to permanently deprive a person of property.
Under this, joyriding is not considered theft of a motor vehicle, since the intention is not to permanently deprive the owner of ownership of the vehicle.

Take as you will.

[Imperializt Russia]

Whoever it was, it wasn't Manhart.

But, whoever it was, they almost certainly weren't there. Only the flag's rightful owner had any priority property right to the flag over Manhart.

This is a question of law, not ideology. Manhart had the same right to the flag as the unidentified protesters. So she had as much right to pick it up as they had to deface it.

Would you care to demonstrate that this is the case?
That the protesters hadn't, for example, bought the flag three days earlier and used it to stage a three-day protest?

Do I stop owning my house when I go and buy bread?

[Wisconsin9]

Whoever it was, it wasn't Manhart.

But, whoever it was, they almost certainly weren't there. Only the flag's rightful owner had any priority property right to the flag over Manhart.

This is a question of law, not ideology. Manhart had the same right to the flag as the unidentified protesters. So she had as much right to pick it up as they had to deface it.

She had absolutely no right to take it, just as the protesters would have had no right to desecrate it in the event that they didn't have permission from the rightful owner. Unless she was acting in the belief that it had been stolen (which I haven't seen her claim, and if that is the case she should have gone to the police) then she was absolutely, 100% in the wrong.

[Hladgos]

The vet was taking property that was not hers. No, I don't like flag burning because it's bad for the environment. I don't see any issue in the handling of this case. No charges, noone was hurt.

[Ifreann]

My family has a tradition of each generation of kids, having one of them go into the military, its not a tradition. It's a choice. A choice my grandpa made, my dad made, my brother (idoits) has made (he's still in college, he's at west point). I have a lot of respect for the military, and the military who decide to make the choice to serve. I respect the military, and I love my country and what it stands for. Along with the flag. Hearing about a vet who was trying to keep the flag from being vandalized and the police saying "This flag doesn't belong to you!" really got to me. The flag belongs to every american!

What? No it doesn't. If you were flying a flag outside your house, and someone came and took it and started walking away, would you just let them?

The fact they the police arrested a vet trying to do the right thing and stop the destruction of the flag , is bad. You shouldn't be arrested for doing the right thing.

She wasn't doing the right thing. She was stealing someone else's property, property they were using in accordance with their First Amendment rights.

---

Whoever it was, it wasn't Manhart.

But, whoever it was, they almost certainly weren't there.

What makes you so close to certain of this?

Only the flag's rightful owner had any priority property right to the flag over Manhart.

Where is this written? How do we know that the owner of the flag had not given permission for the protesters to make use of their flag?

This is a question of law, not ideology. Manhart had the same right to the flag as the unidentified protesters. So she had as much right to pick it up as they had to deface it.

According to what law?

---

Not really. She committed the crime of theft. She took property that did not belong to her without permission from the lawful owners. Stop trying to minimize her criminal behavior.

Theft, in the UK at least, is considered an act to permanently deprive a person of property.
Under this, joyriding is not considered theft of a motor vehicle, since the intention is not to permanently deprive the owner of ownership of the vehicle.

Take as you will.

Thus the charge of TWOC.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well yes, it's obviously still a criminal offence, the critical point was that it's no longer theft.

I worry the term "theft" is being thrown around a little here, possibly without regard for its actual legal definition.
But, like I said, I can only speak to what Road Wars taught me about joyriding in the UK.

[Dyakovo]

Should the protesters have been trampling over the flag?
They should have the right to. They shouldn't have done it by my own moral code, but I wouldn't impose it upon others. Like Voltaire said; "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." They should have the right to burn the flag, but even the flags of countries I disagree with fully should be respected in my opinion. Evidently they were doing it for a reason they believed in, and whether I believe in that cause or not, they do have that right, as they should. But if I were in their position, I never would have desecrated the flag.

Should she have tried to take the flag?
Yes. Just as they have a right to burn it, she had a right to want it not to be burnt. I have not seen the video, so if it was in a violent way that she tried to take the flag, then that is blatantly wrong. But as I understand it, it was done in a peaceful manner, so she was completely in the right assuming that is the truth.

Should the police have arrested her for taking the flag?
Not at all. She was acting (so far as I understand it peacefully) according to her own beliefs, and the police tried to stop her counter-protest, which shouldn't be done, as every voice and action has a right to be heard.

Should the university have banned her from ever returning?
DEFINITELY not. Just as they had a right to burn the flag, she had a right to try and peacefully stop them. The university should respect that.

There is no "right to steal".

[Dyakovo]

And why is that?

Because flag is something more than just a piece of cloth. It represents the country and it's values, history, people etc.

No, a flag really isn't anything more than a piece of cloth.

[Ifreann]

Well yes, it's obviously still a criminal offence, the critical point was that it's no longer theft.

I worry the term "theft" is being thrown around a little here, possibly without regard for its actual legal definition.
But, like I said, I can only speak to what Road Wars taught me about joyriding in the UK.

Indeed, I couldn't claim to know what Georgia law would call this kind of stealing-type-thing. Theft? Robbery? TWOCery? Felony Being A Shitehawk?

[Dyakovo]

You didn't answer the theft problem.

Because there is no theft problem. Calling this theft as if she should be charged and convicted with theft is blowing this incident way out of proportion.

No, it isn't. She took someone else's property from them both without their permission and by force. She's really quite lucky that they chose to not press charges.

[Scandinavian Nations]

If the flag was abandoned, where did the protesters come from?

Ask them.
Did the protesters collectively formed an organization that then purchased the flag? Possibly, but this doesn't appear to be the case.

If it was one particular person who purchased the flag, then thrown it down, with the intent for it to be destroyed by unspecified others, with no intent to reclaim ownership of it after, they have relinquished control of it and made it, in law, abandoned property.

You reckon it's illegal to try to prevent the theft of someone else's property? Why?

Because the law says so, or more specifically doesn't authorize other crimes to do so.

In this case also because no theft was being committed - the first person to assert ownership of abandoned property has priority claim to it over all but the original rightful owner of said property.

Something along the lines of theft or robbery.

Even robbery?

http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/201 ... -2/16-8-40
Picking the flag up will not satisfy the criteria of immediate presence - to satisfy it, the property must be close enough to the owner and sufficiently under his control that had the robber not used violence or intimidation, the owner could have prevented the taking.

[Tekania]

In my country, the people burning the flag would be arrested, not the one trying to stop them.
Burning a flag is like shooting your leader. Totally treasonous.

Well, this is not your country. That flag stands for certain principals, one of which is the freedom of people to be able to do things like desecrate the flag.... as such arresting people for displays such like that is actually more a form of flag desecration that stomping on it physically.

[Scandinavian Nations]

Unless she was acting in the belief that it had been stolen

No. A belief that the flag has been abandoned by the rightful owner - that is, that the rightful owner had no intent to pick it up after the protest has been completed and return it to their possession - is sufficient.

Look up abandoned property law.

[Tekania]

Flag desecration is legal and according to the Supreme Court, it cannot be banned.

But it should be illegal.

Not based upon our principals, should it be. If it were, then the flag is already desecrated far worse than what these protestors were doing.

[Wisconsin9]

If the flag was abandoned, where did the protesters come from?

Ask them.
Did the protesters collectively formed an organization that then purchased the flag? Possibly, but this doesn't appear to be the case.

If it was one particular person who purchased the flag, then thrown it down, with the intent for it to be destroyed by unspecified others, with no intent to reclaim ownership of it after, they have relinquished control of it and made it, in law, abandoned property.

You reckon it's illegal to try to prevent the theft of someone else's property? Why?

Because the law says so, or more specifically doesn't authorize other crimes to do so.

In this case also because no theft was being committed - the first person to assert ownership of abandoned property has priority claim to it over all but the original rightful owner of said property.

Something along the lines of theft or robbery.

Even robbery?

http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/201 ... -2/16-8-40
Picking the flag up will not satisfy the criteria of immediate presence - to satisfy it, the property must be close enough to the owner and sufficiently under his control that had the robber not used violence or intimidation, the owner could have prevented the taking.

I mean, you'd think the fact that the protesters were using it for three days would be enough to assert ownership.

[Dyakovo]

If we're going to get litigious about this, then let's let the other side have a shot. The flag is considered a living symbol of the country it represents, as the US Flag Code states. Subsection 8 is as follows:

No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
... j.No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing....

In stomping on the flag, this is considered disrespect, and some might argue desecration. In taking the flag, which was no longer being used for its intended purpose (display) and was being infringed upon for the purpose of disrespect (stomping on an improperly disposed of burning flag), the AF vet was breaking up an illegal public disturbance. Not violating MUH RITES.

Don't get me wrong, I loathe Faux News' jingoism as much as the next free thinker, but this leftist cherry picking really gets to me. If you want people to obey the law, then please obey the law, don't decide that you get to be above it and look down on those who try to enforce it as fascists.

There are no penalties associated with violating the flag code, and desecrating the flag is a constitutionally protected action.

[Ifreann]

If the flag was abandoned, where did the protesters come from?

Ask them.
Did the protesters collectively formed an organization that then purchased the flag? Possibly, but this doesn't appear to be the case.

If it was one particular person who purchased the flag, then thrown it down, with the intent for it to be destroyed by unspecified others, with no intent to reclaim ownership of it after, they have relinquished control of it and made it, in law, abandoned property.

Which law, specifically?

You reckon it's illegal to try to prevent the theft of someone else's property? Why?

Because the law says so, or more specifically doesn't authorize other crimes to do so.

Which law, specifically?

In this case also because no theft was being committed

You still haven't shown that to be true.

- the first person to assert ownership of abandoned property has priority claim to it over all but the original rightful owner of said property.

And using the flag in their protest over the course of several days doesn't constitute asserting ownership in your mind?

Something along the lines of theft or robbery.

Even robbery?

Well I don't especially know Georgia's law

http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-8/article-2/16-8-40
Picking the flag up will not satisfy the criteria of immediate presence - to satisfy it, the property must be close enough to the owner and sufficiently under his control that had the robber not used violence or intimidation, the owner could have prevented the taking.

So not robbery. Whatever.

And to repeat myself, what I doubt is that any charges would be dismissed based on your reasoning that the flag constituted abandoned property. You still haven't addressed that. Indeed, you seem to be specifically avoiding doing so.

---

Unless she was acting in the belief that it had been stolen

No. A belief that the flag has been abandoned by the rightful owner - that is, that the rightful owner had no intent to pick it up after the protest has been completed and return it to their possession - is sufficient.

Look up abandoned property law.

Support your assertions yourself.

[Wisconsin9]

Unless she was acting in the belief that it had been stolen

No. A belief that the flag has been abandoned by the rightful owner - that is, that the rightful owner had no intent to pick it up after the protest has been completed and return it to their possession - is sufficient.

Look up abandoned property law.

I can't see any reason to believe it had been abandoned, considering it was being used, and even if, legally speaking, it had been, it still seems like the protesters would have assumed possession.

[United Russian Soviet States]

It can not be suppressed. Flag burning is technically illegal, but it should be legal.

No it isn't. Are you intentionally not reading people's posts?

A law that is ruled unconstitutional is null and void.

I have a rigid mind.

[Dyakovo]

I think the above argument is a valid one. It's just that I respect Michelle Manhart.

You respect someone who is a thief and who does not support the right of freedom of expression despite having sworn an oath to defend that (and other) rights?

[-The West Coast-]

I would beat the shit out of anyone I saw trying to desecrate the American flag, no questions asked. If you are American, you don't burn the flag of the country you belong to, the country you owe everything to.

And you'd get arrested for assault. Well, except for the detail that you'd do no such thing.... Playing the ITG impresses no-one.

I'm not an internet tough guy. If anyone here is guilty of being an internet tough guy, its you. All I'm guilty of is expressing my opinion.

[Tekania]

And why is that?

Because flag is something more than just a piece of cloth. It represents the country and it's values, history, people etc.

Those who would make flag desecration illegal show far less respect for the values that flag represents than these protestors ever could. This vet in this news article is worse than the protestors.