NoFlaggingChallenge

"PotbellyJoe and 42 others" (potbellyjoe) 07/14/2015 at 00:04 • Filed to: NoFlaggingChallenge, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not murder

7

28

I see a ton of posts on Facebook and Twitter about this apparent game of stealing Confederate Flags from people. Obviously it’s being put out with race-baiting posts of Black or Mexican people stealing the flags. These posts are met with vacant threats of violence akin to, “Come get mine and you’ll get lead instead.” A few things to consider...

1. Theft is not good. Don’t steal.
2. Petty theft is not robbery, nor is it a threat to human life or personal safety, so deadly force cannot be a response. Don’t murder.
3. I find it interesting that a group who waves the banner of a group that operated as militant rebels against the government in a war that advocate civil disobedience nearly daily for other issues, now threaten to shoot kids over a racist symbol made of cloth.

Sorry the third point is a bit of a jab, and I know this is a highly charged issue, but I have long hated the flag, I’ve expressed it here before (around 6 years ago) and started a bit of a back and forth when I complained of a neighbor of mine in NJ who flew one. I also am not going to advocate a destruction of property, no matter how reprehensible it is, so don’t think i am defending the theft. As you’ll see it’s first on the list, for good reason. Without action there is no reaction.

Please everyone, do everyone else a favor. Don’t steal and don’t murder. Please remind friends and other posters you see that both of these are not acceptable behavior. Neither is a legal.

Not trying to start a flame war, as Conan says, “Keep cool my babies.”

jester74 > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 07/14/2015 at 00:09

8

I’ll be honest with you, if you come to steal from me, regardless of what it is, I’m going to do my best to make it hurt.

I'm not advocating anything other than defending what is mine.

DrJohannVegas > jester74 07/14/2015 at 00:12

3

PotbellyJoe and 42 others > jester74 07/14/2015 at 00:16

4

I understand the protecting what’s yours thing, but the law doesn’t see a piece of cloth in the same light as a car or house with your wife or kids inside. If there is a threat of physical violence, then it can be met with violence. In most states, that means it has to be reasonable, meaning you can’t shoot a guy stealing your bike from your shed. Use of deadly force (which can include a well-placed punch) requires a threat of harm to you or family, not a loss of possessions.

Like I said, i know this is a charged issue, I just don’t want to see Jalops, or their friends plot the killing of idiots and find themselves in jail for a long time because that’s where the response of shooting someone stealing something from your porch without ever taking a step, or offering any personal threat to anything but the flag will land someone.

AthomSfere > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 07/14/2015 at 00:18

0

1) Everyone has the right to free speech. They have the right to be ignorant, a racist, whatever... They also have the right to burn any flag they choose, it’s a right whether you approve or agree with it.

2) Your 100% right, killing over something as petty as a flag is ridiculous and unacceptable. Even the threat is too much!

jester74 > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 07/14/2015 at 00:21

4

But to get anything, whether it be a piece of cloth or something more valuable, you come onto my property. I have every right to defend that property because I really have no idea what the intent of this intruder is. In that light, I am going to put that person down, hopefully not permanently but they will go down.

CB > jester74 07/14/2015 at 00:23

3

... so what you’re saying is that you’d take another person’s life for stealing any knick-knack from you?

beardsbynelly - Rikerbeard > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 07/14/2015 at 00:24

6

I wouldn’t steal a flag. Id replace it with a rainbow flag though.

PotbellyJoe and 42 others > jester74 07/14/2015 at 00:26

9

And that would be against the law in most states. I hate to be “that guy” in this discussion, but trespassing does not constitute a threat on your life.

I have three kids and a wife. I would do anything to protect them, but a guy walking through my yard, even with the intention of taking something off of my porch or deck does not legally absolve me of assault or manslaughter. It just doesn’t.

Texas is easily among the most lax on this, and even then there is a requirement for it to be dark, or verbal threats to be made before you can use force against someone.

I’m not trying to start a war of hypotheticals, the fact is an idiot stealing a flag off a porch is not legal grounds for the use of deadly force.

1111111111111111111111 > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 07/14/2015 at 00:30

2

Oregon is an equal force state...so you’re going up for manslaughter if you shoot someone unarmed, not to mention civil liability. Long story short...you’re fucked.

jester74 > CB 07/14/2015 at 00:41

0

Please don’t think I’m shooting first asking questions later. I’m not advocating that at all.

But..unless I suddenly develop the ability to read minds, I’m assuming the worst but hoping for the best. The best being they get the hell off my property when confronted. If they press the issue then I may have to take more drastic means.

CB > jester74 07/14/2015 at 00:42

1

The way you word it, though, makes it seem a lot more threatening that that. You said “I’m going to do my best to make it hurt”, which doesn’t exactly sound like you’re going to be opening with warnings.

TheOnelectronic > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 07/14/2015 at 00:44

14

Remember folks: If you’re excellent to someone and they aren’t excellent back to you, you win.

jester74 > CB 07/14/2015 at 00:50

0

That was a tad bit hyperbolic on my part. I am of the mindset (military training) that if violence is called for, be willing to be completely violent. It's ingrained in me and I believe in that idea.

But I wouldn't just pop off and blow someone away as a first response, that's borderline psychopathic.

DrJohannVegas > jester74 07/14/2015 at 00:50

0

Your language to date suggests you take some kind of additional pleasure in the concept of using force. If you had opened with “I reserve the right to use force to defend my family and my property”, you would sound like a reasonable person. Instead, you used innuendo about “making it hurt” and putting someone “down”, which just makes you sound like a sad midlife crisis Rambo wannabe.

Berang > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 07/14/2015 at 00:51

6

No, go ahead and be that guy. There needs to be a voice of reason somewhere.

Let’s be completely honest here “I didn’t know what they were going to do, so I HAD TO DO SOMETHING!” is in most situations not only unnecessary, but an unreasonable way to act. Brings up memories of idiots shooting toddlers or foreign exchange students who only wanted to ask for directions...

jester74 > DrJohannVegas 07/14/2015 at 00:53

1

Well, if I gave a shit about your opinion, that might bother me.

CB > beardsbynelly - Rikerbeard 07/14/2015 at 00:58

2

“What happened, sir?”

“I don’t know, officer, they replaced my flag with a gay one!”

“Welcome to the 21st century, sir.”

PotbellyJoe and 42 others > Berang 07/14/2015 at 01:00

0

Haha, I think it was more “that guy” in going back to the same argument again and again, not minimizing my point, but I wasn’t clear on that, so thank you for calling me a voice of reason, it doesn’t happen often. Haha. Especially when cars are involved.

samssun > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 07/14/2015 at 02:42

0

New Jersey and its neighbors are pretty far removed from “most states”. In nearly every other place, a homeowner is understood to be at his most vulnerable against a nighttime intruder, so actions to defend his “castle” from someone with unknown intentions, weapons, and numbers are pretty universally accepted, short of a really unreasonable response (beating someone who’s been subdued, shooting someone who’s fled the property, etc).

samssun > 1111111111111111111111 07/14/2015 at 02:57

0

Not sure what an “equal force state” is, but sounds like a reference to self defense laws which for a few states include a “duty to retreat”. Most have no duty to retreat (including Oregon), the idea being if you’re somewhere legally you have no obligation to turn your back on your attacker and hope for the best. The less honest members of the media call these “make my day” laws, and they apply to public locations.

Laws for homeowners facing intruders, particularly at night, are far more victim-friendly. Oregon has the fairly universal “castle doctrine”, which says a homeowner at his most vulnerable doesn’t have to find out exactly how bad a criminal he’s facing before defending his home. It also lists burglary as a Class A Felony, which is typically sufficient for a self defense argument.

PS9 > samssun 07/14/2015 at 03:22

1

He didn’t say Oregon requires a ‘Duty to retreat’. He said the use of force in the name of defense in that state must be proportional to the threat. Here’s what the relevant laws say;

161.219

Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person

Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person) , a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or

(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person.

161.209

Use of physical force in defense of a person

Except as provided in ORS 161.215 (Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person) and 161.219 (Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person) , a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose.

161.229

Use of physical force in defense of property

A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief of property.

Deadly force can be used to defend people but not property, with the exception of burglary (breaking into a building with the intent to commit a crime as defined by Oregon law). Otherwise, the only times you can use deadly force is when you have reason to believe you are facing the same level of threat. Any other time, you have to respond with a proportionate amount of force to mitigate that threat.

tl;dr-> Only people in Oregon can be defended with deadly force. Property cannot. Shooting someone for snatching your rebel flag off your truck or porch will open you up to criminal prosecution in that state.

Tohru > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 07/14/2015 at 05:24

1

When you mentioned race-baiting posts involving the flag, it reminded me of this deplorable post I saw on Facebook :

This is even worse than what you mentioned.

PotbellyJoe and 42 others > samssun 07/14/2015 at 07:40

0

Jag, “castle laws” and the like would need someone to be an intruder to a building, not the yard. That’s pretty universal in states that have recognized the use of deadly force as acceptable in protecting your home from a threat inside, but even then many states have provisions when that protection can involve deadly force.

I live in NJ now, but have lived open carry states and shall issue states as well, so I have been in high gun ownership states where I heard many discussions on Castle Doctrine, unfortunately many of them were misguided by propaganda (both sides of the argument.)

Ultimately there has to be a legitimate threat to your life, or a significant threat to your health or your family in both before you can fire a weapon at someone. Any self-defense reference guide will say that. There are myriad precedents of people who shot too early and either were sued heavily or jailed.

I never said you can’t defend yourself, I said you can’t shoot an idiot stealing your flag from your yard. That would be a very, very hard case to win.

BigBlock440 > AthomSfere 07/14/2015 at 07:55

1

No, they don’t have the right to burn any flag they choose. They don’t have the right to burn a flag someone else purchased and owns, which is the issue here.

McMike > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 07/14/2015 at 10:14

0

Them duke boys better park up near the house so they can hear the nibbler.

/end of joke about cutting the roof off a car

Seriously, everyone... Leave people’s things alone.

AthomSfere > BigBlock440 07/14/2015 at 10:20

1

Yes, I meant they can burn the confederate flag, American flag, etc.. Not one that belongs to someone else.

jester74 > DrJohannVegas 07/14/2015 at 17:00

0

I want to apologize for my jackassedness last night. I was on a night shift, felt like crap and I acted like a dick. I am usually more levelheaded about most things and this was just me being a dick.

DrJohannVegas > jester74 07/15/2015 at 23:08

0

No need. I said my piece, and you were within your rights to respond as you did. Thanks for taking the time to check back in, though. Good luck with the work; keep fighting the good fight.