U.S. Veteran convicted for patriotism??? On"Constitution Day?

Hello Rodney, Is it in violation of a law to fly another nation's flag without, or above our own? I was not aware of this. I always believed it was a matter of etiquette, not law. I would sure appreciate it if you would share any information about that law. Even if you could point me in the right direction. Was the man who cut the Mexican flag off of the flagpole out in California? If so, I believe that I read that story. I completely agree that La Raza was defacto declaring the UNM campus as Mexican soil, not US soil. This is quite consistent with theirs, and Aztlan's message. Their battle cry is that the whole of the Southwestern United States is really Mexico -- that we are actually the illegal aliens. Living near the US-Mexico border, we hear and see this alot. Especially from taggers. Who, I'm guessing are usually kids. They're spray-painting "Viva Aztlan!" and "We are La Raza" on all kinds of walls, building, and bridges. Hmmmm, where are these kids getting their heads filled up with these hateful messages, huh???

Lady Luna, Here is the address to a government site giving specifics to what I was saying. http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title4/chapter1_.html The one I was referring to is section 7. item (c).

Wow, that was lightning fast! Thanks Rodney!!!

"Do you remember the precedent setting case?" No. I just recall over the years reading of many local judges making the news with rulings of this type. They always quote the famous, "You can not shout 'fire' in a crowded theater." and/or the prohibition on using 'fighting words'. Judges too, sometimes let their bias into their rulings.

Hello Red, I think I know what happened. This article must be generating alot of 'hits'. So, since the time that I wrote this discussion and now, the newspaper is linking its invasive subscription 'pop up'. To spare anyone else the frustration, I will post the full article here: URL: http://www.abqjournal.com/news/metro/297867metro04-03-08.htm Thursday, April 3, 2008 Case Closed, But Not Debate By Joline Gutierrez Krueger And Martin Salazar Copyright © 2008 Albuquerque Journal; Journal Staff Writers "A University of New Mexico student says his behavior was "slightly overzealous" when he ripped up a Mexican flag on campus last September. A Metro Court jury decided Wednesday that his behavior was also illegal. And hours after the six-person jury convicted Peter Lynch, 31, of misdemeanor criminal damage to property for the flag flap, the debate over whether he was patriot or lawbreaker— or whether the whole incident was blown out of proportion— raged on across the UNM campus and on local talk radio. Lynch said he was shocked. "I'm really kind of floored that I was convicted in America," he said. In a call later to KKOB-AM radio talk show host Jim Villanucci, Lynch said he is through with the incident and the state. "I don't feel welcome in this state anymore, and I feel really bad about that. It's a beautiful state here," Lynch said on the air. "After my six months of probation is completed with no other unknown caveats to this coming up, I want to go. I want to be somewhere other than here." On campus, reactions were mixed. "It seems like they used this as an issue rather than someone who broke the law," said Joe Romero, 21 and a UNM art studio major. "It seemed like everyone's emotions got the better of them." That, Lynch said, may have been what happened to him the day he pulled down a Mexican flag from a pole in front of the UNM administration building Sept. 17. Lynch ripped the flag in two as a crowd goaded him on. Lynch has said he did so because it was flying unaccompanied by the U.S. flag— a breach in flag protocol and, he said, an attack "This was not a hate crime. It never was," Lynch's attorney, John D'Amato, told the court. "This was to preserve the integrity of the American flag." The incident occurred 72 hours after Lynch was discharged from the U.S. Air Force after eight years of service, D'Amato said. And it happened after Lynch tried to remedy the breach of etiquette by contacting officials at UNM and the Army ROTC, who did nothing, D'Amato said. "Not one person that you heard testify took responsibility for the protection of the flag," D'Amato said. But prosecutors argued the issue was not patriotism or protocol. "No one is on trial today for being a bad American," Assistant District Attorney Anthony Long told jurors. "Somebody is on trial today for destroying property." Jurors apparently agreed, convicting Lynch within 30 minutes of receiving the case. Metro Court Judge Clyde DeMersseman sentenced Lynch to six months of supervised probation, 48 hours of community service and restitution in the form of a replacement flag. DeMersseman also ordered Lynch into anger management counseling, saying "there may be issues between Mr. Lynch and behavioral control." Long reported to the court Wednesday that Lynch had a previous felony conviction in Arizona for aggravated assault. DeMersseman deferred Lynch's sentence Wednesday, meaning the case will be dismissed if he successfully completes his probation. He had faced as much as six months in jail and a fine of $500. Prosecutors had asked for 200 hours of community service. DeMersseman said that in rendering the lesser sanctions he considered that Lynch had honorably served his country and that he appeared to be motivated by patriotism. But the judge also acknowledged that what Lynch had done was a criminal act that deeply hurt others, especially the owner of the Mexican flag, El Centro de la Raza, one of UNM's ethnic centers. "This flag, anybody's flag, is more than a piece of cloth," DeMersseman said. La Raza officials have said the flag was an irreplaceable gift from a former student. Two messages left Wednesday for El Centro director Veronica Mendez-Cruz weren't returned. But UNM student Brenda Loya, who is actively involved with El Centro, said the verdict was fitting. "I'm not really either happy or upset. It's more my concern that underlying his action, there was another message," Loya said, referring to Internet postings made before Lynch ripped the Mexican flag. Lynch's attorney said his client didn't write the postings, which refer to Mexicans as "wet-backs" and talk about driving a semi through protesting Mexicans. "It's beyond Lynch," Loya said. "To focus on Lynch would be wrong because he did have his motive, and I think they were pretty strong motives, as well. To me the important part is the underlying mentality and feeling that arose from this. Peter Lynch is not part of my worries anymore." UNM spokeswoman Susan McKinsey declined comment. While Lynch admitted to being "slightly over zealous," he remained resolute that his actions were righteous. "I feel strongly in the colors of the United States of America," he said. Lynch said he attempted to present La Raza officials with a new Mexican flag shortly after the incident but that his offer was rejected. He has already agreed to pay for another replacement Mexican flag through an agreement with UNM to maintain his good standing as a student. Under the agreement, he remains on probation with the school through May 31, 2009, D'Amato said. Lynch said he does not expect to appeal Wednesday's verdict. "I'm willing to accept the court's judgment," he said." All content copyright ©

Hello Red, I'm really sorry about that link snafoo. OK, to address your response: Hmmm, I'm sure that I'm asking alot, but do you remember the precedent setting case, or even a general time frame for the 'morally outraged' ruling? I agree that anything more than restitution is out of line. It seems pretty clear that this was a provocation -- La Raza decides to fly the Mexican flag on US soil on Constitution Day. Coincidence? I don't think so! Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts on this. The squelch level on local radio is blaring. So, I think it'll be a couple of days before this settles down.

Hello Emeraldisle, Thanks for sharing your thoughts here. I completely agree with you -- in every way! That Mexican flag was flown on a flagpole which stands right in front of the adminstration building. Peter Lynch expressed his objection to the administration, yet they took no action. So, you're 'spot on' the school was in violation of federal law! What you may not be aware of is: - NM is a sanctuary state ... - which distributes scholarships to illegal immigrants ... - And, has vacillated on the issue of driver's licenses for illegals. So much so that the law has been changed several times within our current governors term, based on Richardson's national political aspirations. It's actually sickening how many mixed messages our governor has sent over the issue of illegal immigration. That the jury found him guilty speaks to Redyellowblackdog's post above. Peter Lynch is white, and obviously pro-military. That makes him a target in a state which finds its largest population in a single metro area (Albuquerque), and that still demonstrates significant anti-anglo prejudice.

Hello Emeraldisle, In all fairness, I believe it prudent to paint a more wholistic picture of New Mexico. This state is now pretty evenly mixed: (in alphabetical order) Anglo, Hispanic, Native American. It wasn't when I moved here 19 years ago. Though many have fallen victim to New Mexico's charms. In fact, it's kind of a local joke: people who vacation here, end up staying. Northern New Mexico (where I live) experiences all four seasons, and is beautiful beyond belief! Aside from the many mountain ranges, a person can see as far as the eye will permit. It's actually truly spectacular! It's never too hot, and never too cold! In fact, I appreciate this climate more than I did when I lived in San Diego. Especially since we usually have snow for Christmas. Southern NM is desert, except for higher elevations like Ruidoso, and Northern NM is as pretty as W. Virginia & Arizona combined. Outside of the ABQ area, and a few small pockets, the state maintains a pretty friendly attitude. Though to be sure, the Hispanic prejudice is quite real. Yet, if one dispells the underlying fear that 'white's are only out to take advantage of them', then the folks are really pretty nice. In fact, New Mexico has been very good to me. And, in return I've done my best to be very good to her. For what it's worth: After college, I travelled all over the country to figure out where I wanted to 'set down roots', and here is where I chose, after much deliberation. In the whole of my life, no other place has felt more like 'home' to me!

You are quite welcome. I think if I was Peter Lynch and i could afford it I would appeal the decision especially since it seems to be a well known prejudice going on. It's not so much the sentence I'd be appealing, it's the principal of the case. It should never have gone to trial to begin with. Well at least I now have another good reason never to move to New Mexico. I find the heat in Florida bad so couldn't picture it there and considering how Florida likes to bend over for certain groups I can just imagine how it is there.

Interesting that the guy decided to move out of New Mexico. I use to pass through there as a trucker and a good friend of mine was raised there. So, I know something about the place. Long story short, New Mexico, even years ago, was almost not a part of the USA. They use to not have reciprocity with almost any other state in the USA concerning anything. Trucking permits, certifications, liscenses, all kinds of courtesy states afforded one another use to not be extended by New Mexico to others. Additionally, whites were openly discriminated against in many places.

Hello Destiny, You raise a terrific point that disallowing the destruction of the Mexican flag, while allowing desecration and destruction of the U.S.A. flag, is quite a contradictory message! You're right about the judge not knowing the law of the land, or worse yet, not caring. Though, the judge isn't alone. It was the prosecutor from the District Attorney's office who wanted to try this as a Hate Crime, and who chose to pursue criminal charges in the first place. I agree that this was a planned, targeted campaign by La Raza. Given their history of radical politics, it seems to fit their M.O. quite well. Thanks for reading the La Raza link. Pretty bizarre, eh? Aztlan is that much more radical than LaRaza. And, our elected continue to ignore this growing radical, militant, revolutionary problem here in the USA. On my way home last week, I noticed new graffiti on a tunnel near my home. "Viva la Aztlan" was spray painted on the wall. Geesh, we just painted those walls two months ago to cover up La Raza tagging. So, these young people -- tomorrow's voters are certainly persistent!

Hello Red, I'm rather disheartened that Peter Lynch is planning on leaving our state. I wish we had more like him here! I've been here for just about two decades, about half of my life. And, in that time I have seen a shift away from that abandonment of non-reciprocity that you referenced. Specifically, back then this state didn't even run cross-state DMV checks on new license applicants. There was no professional courtesy to interstate police departments, etc... Suffice it to say, it has only been in the last few years that our legislature has seen fit to write laws to dissuade child predators from relocating here. And that only resulted from a public mob who tormented a pedophile who deliberately moved here because of the weak laws. We can thank the ABQ Sheriff's Dept. for alerting the public to his arrival! It was pretty ugly, though in the end that slimeball high-tailed it outa' here. And in all fairness, we have seen a shift, albeit slight, away from the blatant discrimination against anglos or white-skinned people. I'm white, yet I have never submitted to the power of prejudice, so I remain fairly unscathed -- thankfully! I believe that respect given is respect earned.

Hello Adoniah, I suspect that this post was a duplicate of the above. Yet, your points are so valid that I'll send another resounding "Thank You", here.

Greetings my friend, I'm so pleased to see you here today!!! Thanks for the chuckle! Now I'm going to have the altered phrase: Reiterated for the illiterated, in my head. Hey, I rather like that! Having given your service to our nation, and visited a great many lands, I'd say that you were in a position of expertise regarding the etiquette of flag prominence. Thank you for sharing your wisdom! Also, I'd say that you're 'spot-on' regarding Peter Lynch being alot angrier now. I know that I would be! And yes, I'd say that you are right, that La Raza was just looking for an excuse. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts on this issue. It means that much more coming from another Veteran!

Hello Taskr, I don't know how I missed this response. I was completely unaware that it had been posted until you responded. Thank you for drawing it to my attention. While I will respond individually to AJ1952Chats, I can't imagine that my response will be much different than yours. I believe that you have identified the incongruity of the analogies -- perfectly! Thanks again Taskr!!!

Hello AJ1952Chats, Peter Lynch defaced nothing! He destroyed the property of a publicly funded socio-political group. He destroyed that property after if flew, illegally on PUBLICLY OWNED and maintained USA territory for three days. Despite the fact that the school administration, which is charged with the ultimate responsibility for the actions of its students, was remiss in its duty to adhere to the law. And, its duty to monitor controversial political activism on the public campus. All other variables being equal, IF Peter Lynch had been physically harmed during the act of bringing down that Mexican flag, rest assured the ambulance chasers would be filing briefs, at this very moment, listing the University as culpable, and seeking millions in damages! You have a valid point about Peter Lynch having torn up the flag. That is the only area for which, I would even consider assigning any culpibility to Peter Lynch. THOUGH, he did offer to make restition, which is all that the court remanded as a sentence directly affecting LA Raza, anyway. So, why did they refuse his offer of restitution? Because they had an ulterior agenda, that's why. Here is something else to consider: If Peter Lynch had burned that flag, instead of tearing it up -- then wouldn't that action have been protected under the 1st Amendment? If La Raza claimed that they had a right to fly the Mexican national fly, illegally, as a matter of their 1st Amendment rights, then didn't Peter Lynch have the same Constitutionally protected right to demonstrate his reaction to La Raza having defacto declared the UNM campus as Mexican Soil? Freedom is a double-edged sword. We would all do well to remember that!

Are you kidding me? Seriously, at least come up with some comparable examples. You're dealing with apples and oranges. He didn't rip up a flag that was on someone's property. It was flying in front of a college. Every example you used involved a person's private property and the flag didn't belong to an individual. The issue is that the college was breaking protocol and potentially breaking the law by flying the Mexican flag unaccompanied. On private property you can do whatever you want, but a public, government funded university has certain protocols they must follow. The guy's actions were still vigilantism, making it illegal, but you should at least be able to realize the difference between that and your ridiculous examples.

Hello Bobmnu, Thank you for reminding us that Peter Lynch, though discharged, is still techically a member of the U.S. Armed Forces -- and will be for some time. For those who are unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution, please allow me to complete your quote: "... to defend the United States of America from all enemies, foreign and domestic...." Bobmnu, you are so right about the Treaty of Hidalgo, as well as the Gadsden Purchase. I have been shouting these historical facts from the mountain tops for years. Though, they fall on deaf ears. Because Aztlan, the Brown Berets, La Raza, etc... do not acknowledge any government. Their argument is that their ancestors were migratory. And, that where ever they rest their head at night, is their land! Which of course, includes anyone's private property!!! What should be remembered is that these radical groups are basing their argument on one of the most brutal, savage empires in the history of mankind. Though, they reference only the grand, mythical aspects of the Aztec Empire. Which according to their own historical references, was fabricated to establish a mandate, as well as to disguise their brutal oppression! In other words, it's all a fabrication to confiscate property & wealth, fueled by their belief that the U.S.A. is a pushover nation, hindered by its own laws, decency, and foolish embrace of political correctness.

If La Raza has the right to free speech by displaying the flag doesn't a US Citizen have the right to protest by destroying the Mexican Flag in protest. I forget we have to be politically correct and let anyone disrespect the US , or Flag and our country and we have to bend over backwards to not offend them. IF the members of La Raza have a problem with this country then go back to Mexico and live in paradise.

Hello Latrivia, Thanks for sharing your thoughts here. Although, you're probably not going to like my response. Did you open the link that Rodney so kindly provided? It cites the United States Civil Code. Please check #7, just as Rodney instructed. There, you will see the law of the land regarding the flying of our nation's flag. It clearly states that the referenced laws have been in effect since the latest revision on 1/3/06. [b]"No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof..."[/b] "[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2006] [CITE: 4USC7]" Regarding your meritless claim that the substitution of the Mexican flag for the USA flag was some sort of educational observation of "the upcoming" Mexican Independence Day: Even if it were legal and appropriate to do so, Mexico's Independence Day is celebrated annually on September 15th. Peter Lynch took down that Mexican flag on September 17th., two days later, on the day designated as the "U.S. Constitution Day". And, he only did so after requesting responsible removal from the school's administration as well as the school's ROTC. When no one else saw fit take action, he did! If you'd like to confirm when Mexico's Independence Day is, I've provided a link below: http://teacherlink.ed.usu.edu/tlresources/units/Byrnes-celebrations/mid.html Moreover, the UNM Campus is PUBLIC PROPERTY! It is accredited and owned by the citizens of the State of New Mexico, and these United States. The administration IS responsible for the actions of the students. And, rest assured La Raza had to get permission to fly that Mexican flag -- from someone in the administration. As the flagpole is in front of the Administration Building! If the students wanted to 'express themselves' vis a vis an allegiance to another country, they could have done so legally by displaying the Mexican flag below the USA flag. And, they should have taken it down on the morning of September 16th! Though, to be sure, if someone chooses to declare their allegiance to another nation, by way of insinuating it on everyone else, they had darned well better be prepared to be challenged on it. As to the spirit of the 1st amendment: I would say that you are in egregious error here. We may have the freedom to speak or write our minds, though we DO NOT have the freedom to declare USA territory as the property of another nation. And, that is precisely what the flying of a national flag does -- it designates national sovereign & assignment. Please don't make Constitutional law arguments that are fully erroneous. This only serves to perpetuate misinformation.

Actually, I amend my statement. It was not that law, but an amendment to make it legal to outlaw flag desecration. However, my point still stands that flag desecration is a legal and constitutional practice, as decided by the Supreme Court in 1989.

I read a book many years ago during the cold war(1968-70). The story was how do you bring down a powerful country like the US. The USSR wanted to distroy the US but did not have a strong enough army to do it without distrying themselves. They set up a business man to figure out how to do it. He got the idea after spending the day with a room full of lawyers trying to hammer out a business contract that he and the other party had agreed to. By the end of the day both people were mad at each other and the deal fell apart. He then decided that the US could be brough down from within by the lawyers. His thought was if they could screw up the simple deal he had worked out with his friend what could they do to this country if they were i power. He started to contribute to candidates from all parties and all political backgrounds. He told people he wanted people to have a choice. His only secret criteria was they had to be a lawyer. Look what we have 40 short years later. Foreign flags flying over our land in place of the US flag. We have rapist who have right to visit the child of the rape. We prevent students from carrying Bibles in schools, but put in foot baths for others. Christians can not express their faith but are forced to practice the Muslim faith in Public Schools. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36118 I have to let a dirty smelly homeless person in my taxi if he has the money or lose my cab but a Muslim cab driver can refuse to transport a blind person with a seeing eye dog. Maybe the USSR did win the cold war and we just have not fallen from within yet. If the book is true maybe Russia did win the cold war.

Hello Hatley, Your suggestion that La Raza was deliberately thumbing their noses at the USA makes perfect sense. As, part of their pronounced platform is that the USA stole the Southwest territory from Mexico. I guess their history lessons never covered the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, or the Gadsden Purchase. As for Peter Lynch: he did seek remedy from the UNM Administration as well as the UNM ROTC. Mr. Lynch only removed the flag after neither took appropriate action. You raise a very good question: Why is it that La Raza seeks to function through controversy? Perhaps an even better question is: Why is La Raza funded by taxpayer dollars? [i]"But the National Council of La Raza succeeded in raking in over $15.2 million in federal grants last year alone, of which $7.9 million was in U.S. Department of Education grants for Charter Schools, and undisclosed amounts were for get-out-the-vote efforts supporting La Raza political positions. The Council of La Raza succeeded in having itself added to congressional hearings by Republican House and Senate leaders. And an anonymous senator even gave the Council of La Raza an extra $4 million in earmarked taxpayer money, supposedly for "housing reform," while La Raza continues to lobby the Senate for virtual open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens."[/i] http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=13863 Hmmmm??????

Hello Bobmnu, Hmmm, interesting! If you remember the title, please do share, as I'd like to read this book. As for your provocative theory: The optimist in me says that there is still time to undo the damage. Yet, the pragmatist in me recognizes how very difficult this will be. President Lincoln was correct, when on June 16, 1858 he said: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."