Quote: (07-21-2016 05:25 AM)Goldin Boy Wrote:
Quote: (07-21-2016 04:55 AM)H1N1 Wrote:
To me the issue is not so much the flag burning itself - it is the provocation inherent in it. You very rarely see guys nip behind the bikeshed at lunchtime to discretely burn a nation's flag. Invariably, they get right up close to the opposing side and burn it when they know it will prove most enraging.
So for me, the principle is not that you burn a flag and should therefore be punished - it's that society should recognise that there are acceptable responses to provocation. Someone who burns a flag is picking a fight. Consciously, deliberately, looking for trouble. For me, if you go looking for trouble, you can have no complaints when you find it.
Flag burning should be legal, but it should also be treated as an act of self-defense when a patriotic citizen stomps you into the dust for doing so.
snip
Removed the rest of the post I agreed with.
Re: the bolded. I disagree with the reasoning presented.
This is a very unusual definition of self-defense, it shifts 100% of the onus onto the flag-burner as if the assaulter has no ability to control himself like a child: I don't think it's self-defense to attack someone who's burning a flag(unless he threw the burning flag at you haha). The flag-burner didn't do anything to you.
Just because your patriotic passer-by finds it morally reprehensible that doesn't justify him beating up someone else because he has no state control. Even if the flag-burner is picking a fight, that doesn't mean you have to respond to it.
That redefinition of self-defense creates a slippery slope where I could justify a motorist pulling out a gun and shooting and killing another driver who cut him off (the driver with the gun felt provoked and if your action is interpreted as provocation by a stranger, you should expect physical violence, because someone one else interpreted your action) or any crime of passion.
I agree that it is not straight forward.
However, assault, for the purposes of the common law is defined as the threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent capacity for causing that harm.
Case law abounds where 'Fuck you, bitch' or words to that effect, have been treated as grounds for finding an assault took place. In fact, you would struggle to find a judge or lawyer who didn't think aggressive language like that didn't constitute a nominal assault (whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute for it is a different thing).
If I say 'fuck you, motherfuckers' to a group of soldiers in uniform, and comport myself aggressively towards them, then I have committed an assault. Why should burning a flag, which may not involve saying anything at all, in front of an audience chosen deliberately for the effect such an action will have on them, be considered less of a provocation, or indeed less of a threat?
The proportionality of a response is something for a court and jury to decide. If a response to a present threat is proportional, then it will be an act of self-defense, by definition.
If an act is disproportionate, then sentencing may well be reduced due to the initial assault, but self-defense would not apply as a defense, as it is what's known as a complete defense - if it is found to be an act of self-defense you are completely absolved of any wrongdoing.
There is no redefinition of self-defense in what I describe. What I am suggesting is that a punch in the mouth as a response to an unsolicited act of aggression should be treated as a proportionate and reasonable response to an assault. Your mistake, to the extent you make one, is in thinking that the first assault is necessarily, categorically made by the hypothetical veteran in the situation where a communist burns a flag in front of him as an act of deliberate aggression. My belief is that contrary to what Phoenix suggests, society would be a far more civilized place if the threat of righteous violence from fellow citizens were more prevalent, as people would think twice before being unpleasant or unkind.