Oklahoma man shoots woman trying to steal Nazi flag from his home, authorities say

[jhblaze1]

1A is ONE of the core issues here.

As much as I despise his chosen flag/message he chose to express

I defend it

What she did is no different a 1A violation than someone stealing political signs off a persons yard OR if you were to show up a a rally at the state capitol and assault/hinder/prevent those people from peaceably assembling.....

1A is not an issue at all here. Read 1A. It starts with "Congress shall make no law...". It has nothing to do with woke Karens pulling down offensive flags.

Stealing political signs also has NOTHING to do with 1A. It's just criminal trespass and vandalism and theft

The bill of rights limits the powers of the fedgov and states via incorporation. It does not, in any way, limit the actions or dictate the behavior of the people. I'm sorry but you're just wrong.

It would only be a 1A issue had the state showed up and took his flag not a dumb drunken Karen.

 

[snd1t]

1A is not an issue at all here. Read 1A. It starts with "Congress shall make no law...". It has nothing to do with woke Karens pulling down offensive flags.

Stealing political signs also has NOTHING to do with 1A. It's just criminal trespass and vandalism and theft

The bill of rights limits the powers of the fedgov and states via incorporation. It does not, in any way, limit the actions or dictate the behavior of the people. I'm sorry but you're just wrong.

It would only be a 1A issue had the state showed up and took his flag not a dumb drunken Karen.

Of course it at issue

What the ammendment reads these days is irrelevent to what the appointed bureaucrats that serve on the supreme court and lesser courts SAY its "Supposed" to mean

And simply put according to how government and the courts have been operating for decades.....she trampled his 1A rights.

As much as you and I would like the constitution to be enforced as written thats simply not our current reality

In Texas v Johnson in 1989 the supreme court issued a decision that included affirmation that flag burning was constitutionally protected free speech

If flag burning is protected according to the courts then his flying of the flag (as despicable as the nazi flag is) is also constitutionally protected free speech and the criminal that tresspassed/stole his flag similarly has violated his constututionally protected free speech

/thread

 

[jhblaze1]

/thread

If you say so. But you're still wrong.

 

[snd1t]

If you say so. But you're still wrong.

Simple fact of the matter is that SCOTUS has deemed that political speech is protected under 1A and it doesnt matter whether you or a school or some branch of government is the entity that violates that right......ie its not just limited to Government making some law.....its any actor preventing an individual from enguaging in protected free speech

 

[ISOTOX]

Hard lesson learned...Leave other peoples shit alone.

 

[number9]

In Texas v Johnson in 1989 the supreme court issued a decision that included affirmation that flag burning was constitutionally protected free speech

If flag burning is protected according to the courts then his flying of the flag (as despicable as the nazi flag is) is also constitutionally protected free speech and the criminal that tresspassed/stole his flag similarly has violated his constututionally protected free speech

Texas v Johnson was a challenge to Texas state law and was brought on by a private citizen who thought his rights were being violated by the state. To say that this extends to citizens having standing to sue each other for violating their constitutional rights is... not correct.

If I am banned from this forum, can I sue @Admin for violating my right to free speech? Of course not.

 

[xtry51]

Just remember she came seeking trouble.
He was fine just minding his own business, till she came into his life.
The guy is flying a Nazi flag and you want to go whack that hornets nest...
PSGWSP

This. Don't want to get shot? Don't steal shit.

 

[xtry51]

Whoah. So trespassing is enough to get you shot now?

She didn’t “violate his 1a Rights;” she’s not the government. She can’t.

She didn’t steal his stuff. She tried, but failed, and its value was at misdemeanor level anyway.

So she trespassed during a prank. A dare. And then ran away. You’re honestly saying she was enough of a threat to him at that moment that he should have shot her? That you would have, too?

ETA: I'm not trying to mock you. I'm just trying to make sure I'm 100% clear on what you're advocating. I don't want to take anybody out of context. You think what the shooter did was reasonable?

I am 100% in support of being allowed to shoot theives in the back as they run away. Don't steal. It's a simple straight forward rule.

No one is forcing you to shoot people in the back. If you feel bad for theives, let them run away. It don't tell other people how important their stuff is.

 

[jpm]

it still amazes me how many people here do not understand that the first amendment protects your right to free speech from THE GOVERNMENT censoring you. Not any individual or private company or message board or anything else, just the Government period.

 

[Picton]

I am 100% in support of being allowed to shoot theives in the back as they run away. Don't steal. It's a simple straight forward rule.

No one is forcing you to shoot people in the back. If you feel bad for theives, let them run away. It don't tell other people how important their stuff is.

She didn't.

She wasn't able to steal his property; it was still in his possession.

 

[xtry51]

She didn't.

She wasn't able to steal his property; it was still in his possession.

She was trying to steal it. Thats good enough for me.

 

[Bladerunner]

That Hitler stash is off the chain brah!

 

[Picton]

She was trying to steal it. Thats good enough for me.

I get that, but you know, realistically, that the courts would have you for lunch. I don't know about you, but the prospect of going to jail over a piece of fabric that didn't even get stolen makes zero sense, surely.

We're supposed to be rational people with good judgement in the use of our firearms. Nothing this guy chose to do makes sense.

 

[xtry51]

I get that, but you know, realistically, that the courts would have you for lunch. I don't know about you, but the prospect of going to jail over a piece of fabric that didn't even get stolen makes zero sense, surely.

We're supposed to be rational people with good judgement in the use of our firearms. Nothing this guy chose to do makes sense.

I think shooting theives is one of the most rational decisions a person can make.

 

[babygorilla]

Simple fact of the matter is that SCOTUS has deemed that political speech is protected under 1A and it doesnt matter whether you or a school or some branch of government is the entity that violates that right......ie its not just limited to Government making some law.....its any actor preventing an individual from enguaging in protected free speech

Usually I back you but you are wrong. the Amendments are literally restrictions on .gov, not on the people. She did interfere with his right to free speech, but since she is not .gov it is not a 1A violation. You have the right to say whatever you want, but you must be prepared for the reaction from others that feel different.

I still say he was within his rights to defend his property. Even though he's a scumbag Nazi.

 

[Reptile]

Did the flag touch the ground?

Not sure if Nazi Battle Flags have the same flag code as USA.

 

[shootymacshootface]

Who would f*** with someone proudly flying a Nazi flag without bringing their own heat? Or maybe some back up, like the Expendables did?
She was getting away, so he shot her tires, big deal.

 

[AHM]

If I am banned from this forum, can I sue @Admin for violating my right to free speech? Of course not.

What law do you violate if you sue @Admin for bannitation?

 

[Boris]

well, at least we know that woman was white ...

 

[teamRR]

Obviously a whole lot to say here about what I don't agree with regarding his ideas and actions but I do think they ought to charge her with the attempted theft, trespassing depending on local ordinances.

 

[snd1t]

Texas v Johnson was a challenge to Texas state law and was brought on by a private citizen who thought his rights were being violated by the state. To say that this extends to citizens having standing to sue each other for violating their constitutional rights is... not correct.

If I am banned from this forum, can I sue @Admin for violating my right to free speech? Of course not.

Had you read the DECISION that the court ISSUED you would have seen that the supreme court stated/affirmed that the specific action of the INDIVIDUAL was "Protected Speech"

Doesnt matter WHO"S doing the INFRINGING.....its illegal and contrary to 1A

 

[snd1t]

What law do you violate if you sue @Admin for bannitation?

None....cuz nothing posted in the forum is "Protected Free Speech"

This forum isnt our property......Admin kindly provides us a place to discuss/buillshit/post relevent info etc so long as we abide by the house rules

Its the difference between you or I voicing our own opinion on/in our own property vs going onto the NEIGHBORS property and trying to do same.....

First is protected
Second is at a bare minimum trespassing

 

[AHM]

None....cuz nothing posted in the forum is "Protected Free Speech"

So you're saying @number9 could sue @Admin if he got bannitated?

Hint: This is America and anybody can sue anybody for anything.
That says nothing about whether there's the remotest chance the plaintiff could win.

 

[snd1t]

So you're saying @number9 could sue @Admin if he got bannitated?

What part of "Nothing posted on the forum = protected free speech" didnt you get?

The dingbat could certainly TRY but the only person that would win would be the lawyers......

 

[number9]

Had you read the DECISION that the court ISSUED you would have seen that the supreme court stated/affirmed that the specific action of the INDIVIDUAL was "Protected Speech"

Doesnt matter WHO"S doing the INFRINGING.....its illegal and contrary to 1A

I have read the decision.

If it doesn't matter who's doing the infringing, that suggests I can sue Admin if he bans me, no? Why isn't this forum protected speech?

So go back to your little marxist/democratic socialist sewing circle up in hanover

 

[AHM]

What part of "Nothing posted on the forum = protected free speech" didnt you get?

Stop projecting.
I've never argued about that in any way.

The dingbat could certainly TRY but the only person that would win would be the lawyers......

Thanks for coming around to my point of view.

 

[snd1t]

Stop projecting.
I've never argued about that in any way.


Thanks for coming around to my point of view.

The point/argument you made has nothing to do with the thread nor does it have anything to do with 1A
There was never any point of yours to come around to.......

 

[snd1t]

I have read the decision.

If it doesn't matter who's doing the infringing, that suggests I can sue Admin if he bans me, no? Why isn't this forum protected speech?

Again.....reading and comprehension are clearly two different things......the distinction between the two you've clearly demonstrated repeatedly.....

 

[number9]

Again.....reading and comprehension are clearly two different things......the distinction between the two you've clearly demonstrated repeatedly.....

I genuinely don't understand your argument. You said "Doesnt matter WHO"S doing the INFRINGING.....its illegal and contrary to 1A", to which I ask: if it doesn't matter who's doing the infringing, how is @Admin not infringing my rights if he bans me from NES?

Then you said that's not a valid comparison because "This forum isnt our property......Admin kindly provides us a place to discuss/buillshit/post relevent info etc so long as we abide by the house rules", which is the first time the concept of property has been brought into free expression. Does infringement require property rights somehow? Because I'm pretty sure Greg Johnson didn't burn his own flag, he (or another protestor) took it down from a flagpole.

 

[snd1t]

I genuinely don't understand your argument. You said "Doesnt matter WHO"S doing the INFRINGING.....its illegal and contrary to 1A", to which I ask: if it doesn't matter who's doing the infringing, how is @Admin not infringing my rights if he bans me from NES?

Then you said "This forum isnt our property......Admin kindly provides us a place to discuss/buillshit/post relevent info etc so long as we abide by the house rules", which is the first time the concept of property has been brought into free expression. Does infringement require property rights somehow? Because I'm pretty sure Greg Johnson didn't burn his own flag, he (or another protestor) took it down from a flagpole.

NES isnt your private property NOR do you have a "RIGHT" to have an acct on the forum

EVERYONE'S access to this private forum is due to the kindness of Derek

That you're seemingly incapable of making the distinction between this forum being someone elses private property and you're own apartment/basement/home is profound

Go back to trolling on whatever leftist forum you came from