This is my personal view and comments on the issues and events that I feel a need to talk about or express my view. You don't have to agree, but lets carry on a adult, discussion and maybe you will see it the right way, mine. ;)
The death of freedom to fly the American Flag..
Published on June 9, 2004 By ShadowWar In Politics
This is the story of Richard Oulton, an American, a veteran, and a victim of the Ameircan Communist..the Leftys.

Richard Oulton put up a flag pole in his yard, and flew the American Flag and a purple heart flag. For those of you armchair libs, thats a medal you get for being wounded in time of war. Mr. Oulton was awared that medal while he was a member of the "Walking Dead Marines", the 1st BN, 9th Marine Regiment in Vietnam. His unit started out with 800 marines and lost 605 during the war. This unit suffered the highest casulty rate of any unit in the war. He has every right to be proud, and fly those flags, he earned it with his own blood.

In Richmond, Va., Richard Oulton's homeowner's association demanded his flagpole come down. But he said no way.

"To take it down now would be a total dishonor and an insult to everyone that has ever stood for the flag. If that flag comes down now, the next place it will fly will be over my coffin," Oulton said.

He's been raising the flag ever since he was a medic in Vietnam and flew the stars and stripes over his bunker. "I'm just trying to express my patriotism, my love for my country," he said.

Oulton is an attorney. When he moved into the Florida community he says he checked to see if there were any restrictions on flying the flag.

"There was no reference to flags or flagpoles anyplace," Oulton said.

So he put up a big flagpole next to the big home he built, on three lots. His neighbors say they don't object.

They say it's nice, it matches the house, and say it's an asset to the community.
(DID you get that, the neighbors had NO PROBLEM with the pole or the Flags, in fact they liked it!!))

Objection to Flagpole

But the homeowner's association board said the flagpole's too big.

"We had no idea someone would erect a flagpole that large when the guidelines were written," said Birdie Knuckols, former member of the association board.

Since the association guidelines did not mention flagpoles — the board instead ruled it was an unapproved structure. Later they adopted rules allowing flagpoles — but only small ones, no larger than 6 feet — and required them to be attached to the house.

"It's not an issue of patriotism. All we are asking Mr. Oulton to do is show his patriotism within the guidelines that everyone else in the community is willing to live by," Knuckols said.

Planned communities can set these rules because they're private, and many homeowners love the rules because they like the way the regulations make their communities look nice and uniform. They say this raises property values.

But sometimes the people on the boards of the homeowners' associations are very controlling. And the law is on their side. So, in 1999 the board took its complaint about Oulton's flagpole to court, and won. While he appealed, he was allowed to keep the flagpole up.

Oulton said, "I don't understand what the problem is. It's a property right that I have to fly this flag. It's a free speech right that I have to fly this flag."

He dedicated the flagpole to the Marine unit he served with in Vietnam, a unit dubbed the walking dead because three-quarters of its members were killed.

"I had a lot of guys die in my arms and once I put that plaque out there and said this flag will always fly because I owe it to my boys, my walking dead Marines … I owe it to my boys," Oulton said.

But it won't fly anymore. He took it down in March. All that remains is a hole in the ground, a broken plaque and mementos left by visiting veterans.

Oulton lost his case in local court, and then higher courts rejected his appeals. The presiding judge told Oulton, "You agreed not to erect a structure without prior approval. That's it. No more, no less. You violated that agreement." After a four-year battle, Oulton has lost his flag, and $150,000 to the association in legal fees.

Is this not a perfect example of the way in which the freaks, and deviants in this country take away our freedoms one at a time? Is this not a crime! Think about it, the neighbors LIKED the pole and flags, but some idiot with to much time on his hands and to little brain decided that he didn't like it, can this truely have been an American who felt that way? Does this not make your blood boil that they would go so far as to force him to remove them?? I can tell you where I would have told them to put the flag pole. Then they would have had to come take it down by force.

Another small part of American Freedom and the right to express your love of this Country died that day.
The like shows you pictures of this case and a little more in-depth info. I mistakingly said the ACLU was involved inthis case, they were not to my knowledge (now I know this) but this is just the type of thing thye would do. But this was just done by local idiots and leftys.. They must have had troubled childhoods and blame the USA for all the welfare checks they are forced to get.
Comments (Page 7)
9 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9 
on Jun 13, 2004
Association's stance in wanting it removed was anti-patriotic.


Of course, another way to look at it is: America is a country that believes in the rule of law (or at least it used to). The homeowner was being anti-patriotic by ignoring the "law" of the association where he lived. Likewise, the association was being patriotic by enforcing the law.

VES
on Jun 13, 2004
I agree that the Judge and law were enforced to the letter of the law but would like to say this....

There comes a time when one must look at the laws and see that the law is actually WORTH applying and should it be and is the law being applied accomplishing anything good and just. I say in this case that the whole issue had to be brought by someone that was against the flags and what they stand for. They clearly were not and eyesore or detracting from the area. At least I don't think so from the few photos I have seen. He tastefully did the whole thing. I would be interested to find out who the person was and the background of said person who made the complaint. If the background of that person shows a tendency to protest these types of things, how about the requesting it be taken down being a biased request and hence not in the best interest of the area.

There comes a time when a people need to say to those that are trying to use rules to twist them into their own use, STOP, we will not entertain lawsuits that really serve no purpose. The purpose of the no-structure rule is to prevent something that may be an eyesore, or reduce property values. This Flagpole and Flag do neither.

I believe in applying the law when it serves a purpose. You see I have a little experience in this. I have been a police officer for 24 years now and still kicking. In fact I teach full time at the police academy now. I don't believe that laws should be used to further ones own interest. Or for that matter enforced to the letter of the law. The poor guy working 2 jobs and raising a family of 4 who can't afford a car seat for his youngest kid doesn't need the $225 ticket for not having his kid strapped in, he needs help getting a childseat. The mom who steals food to feed her kids doesn't need jail time, she needs help getting on her feet. Would I write that ticket as a cop? No. Would I arrest the women? Not if I could talk the store out of pressing charges. Laws are not perfect nor are they right for every instance. Would I write the guy in the BMW for not having his child strapped in? Yes, he knows better and can afford a seat.

Just my look on the whole thing. Take it or leave it...

on Jun 14, 2004
I believe in applying the law when it serves a purpose. You see I have a little experience in this. I have been a police officer for 24 years now and still kicking. In fact I teach full time at the police academy now. I don't believe that laws should be used to further ones own interest. Or for that matter enforced to the letter of the law. The poor guy working 2 jobs and raising a family of 4 who can't afford a car seat for his youngest kid doesn't need the $225 ticket for not having his kid strapped in, he needs help getting a childseat. The mom who steals food to feed her kids doesn't need jail time, she needs help getting on her feet. Would I write that ticket as a cop? No. Would I arrest the women? Not if I could talk the store out of pressing charges. Laws are not perfect nor are they right for every instance. Would I write the guy in the BMW for not having his child strapped in? Yes, he knows better and can afford a seat.


I have a host of criticisms regarding the subjectivity of your approach here, but I think I'll just let your words stand. You will be lauded by many on here for your compassion for the poor. Others still will see why the standards you outline here are an injustice.

As an 18 year cop, I'll take your second option and "leave it."

VES
on Jun 14, 2004
Hey opinions are like orifices, everyone has one. You are entitled to yours. As a cop yourself I find it funny that you have NEVER used officer discretion when applying the law. If you have been a cop I know for a fact you have. You can not do law enforcement and not use discretion, or you would never get your work done and would be writing traffic tickets every 50 feet. If you can tell me honestly you have always arrested EVERYONE you saw break a law, regardless of the circumstances then you are one out of the thousands I have met training officers all over the world. Probably actually you are unique.

Laws are guidelines that have to be applied fairly and with reason. Your criticisms are fine, as long you you remember we are all entitled to my opinion, and since you felt compeled to answer give us yours, not just knock mine..

on Jun 14, 2004
As a cop yourself I find it funny that you have NEVER used officer discretion when applying the law.


As a cop yourself, I'm surprised that you leap to conclusions. I never said I haven't used discretion. I have, in fact. But I learned something different from it, and why I shouldn't use it so subjectively. Discretion is something you use to prioritize the importance of your efforts, not to pick and choose whose guilty based on their income. Discretion is how much you divide the time you spend writing tickets or going after dope dealers or thieves. It's not the discretion of whim as to who you will bestow you compassion on at any given moment. And it doesn't require you to stop every car every 50 feet, which is a ridiculous assertion, not to mention logistically impossible.

On one thing we probably agree. Some laws are stupid. The discretion is in realizing which laws are stupid and not focusing on those. But the laws that are proper should be enforced equally, in as much as humanly possible without losing sight of all the other duties you have. So no, you don't spend all day on traffic stops just because they keep passing by you.

The poor crook you let go out of compassion is a slap in the face of the poor honest person who goes through the same trials and tribulations, shops at the same store and never steals. You slap the face of the honest store owner who works for a living when you try to talk him out of prosecuting someone who has stolen from him. You're validating to the poor person that stealing is understandable IF your poor. You suggest that the reason to punish the parent of the child who isn't buckled in or in a child seat is based on his income, not the safety of the child. Poor kids and rich kids die in car crashes without restraint, the income level has nothing to do with that.

What I realize is that this is just more than your or my opinion. I realize that these opinions result in actions which have effects on other peoples lives and their perception of law enforcement. These opinions send messages to people. That message here is, there is no certainty to law enforcement, that it's consistency varies based on the whim of the enforcer, the lawyers, the judge and/or the jury. If you are this person we give you a pass, but if you are this person you get nailed. The difference between you and me is that I treat each person equally, but the laws with "discretion".

VES
on Jun 14, 2004

The poor guy working 2 jobs and raising a family of 4 who can't afford a car seat for his youngest kid doesn't need the $225 ticket for not having his kid strapped in, he needs help getting a childseat. The mom who steals food to feed her kids doesn't need jail time, she needs help getting on her feet. Would I write that ticket as a cop? No. Would I arrest the women? Not if I could talk the store out of pressing charges. Laws are not perfect nor are they right for every instance. Would I write the guy in the BMW for not having his child strapped in? Yes, he knows better and can afford a seat.

How do you determine that?  The way I see it- you don't have to take your kid in the car, if you don't have a seat, don't take them in the car.  And, how do you determine if he can afford it or not, how can *you* be the judge of that?  And, how about the stealing.  How do you know that the person is even telling the truth?  How do you know that she doesn't spend her welfare on crack and that's why she can't feed her kids?  You don't. 

The law is the law.  Being somebody who follows the law to the max, it doesn't do my heart good to know that police use their *own* discretion with the law.  So, if somebody has a good reason to break the law, then it is "OK"?  That just boggles my mind.  I guess it's the same frame of mind that allows State police to let off other State police wives off with a "warning" when speeding once they find out that they are the wife of another State police officer.  (And, that's not a dig, that's a real life example of family friends).  Of course, I'm not really shocked by much considering that I grew up next door to our city police chief......not exactly the model citizen that I thought he would be.  But, we're all human, right?

on Jun 14, 2004
[
As a cop yourself, I'm surprised that you leap to conclusions. I never said I haven't used discretion. I have, in fact. But I learned something different from it, and why I shouldn't use it so subjectively. Discretion is something you use to prioritize the importance of your efforts, not to pick and choose whose guilty based on their income. Discretion is how much you divide the time you spend writing tickets or going after dope dealers or thieves. It's not the discretion of whim as to who you will bestow you compassion on at any given moment. And it doesn't require you to stop every car every 50 feet, which is a ridiculous assertion, not to mention logistically impossible.


Whos leaping to conclusions, you just agreed with me. And as for the "ridiculous assertion" that you couldn't go 50 feet without stopping someones actually true, if you have ever been to Florida and seen our drivers you know You choose the violations you write and the ones you choose to ignore. Thats a fact not opinion.

You say you use it to prioritize your efforts, Not whim, I never mentioned whim, nor did I mention bestowing anything. I do the same but when forced to view a situation, I choose to view it with respect to the entire sitituation in mind, not locking out some of the issues invloved just because the law says this is it black and white. If anything I have learned the law is not always black and white.

The poor crook you let go out of compassion is a slap in the face of the poor honest person who goes through the same trials and tribulations, shops at the same store and never steals. You slap the face of the honest store owner who works for a living when you try to talk him out of prosecuting someone who has stolen from him. You're validating to the poor person that stealing is understandable IF your poor. You suggest that the reason to punish the parent of the child who isn't buckled in or in a child seat is based on his income, not the safety of the child. Poor kids and rich kids die in car crashes without restraint, the income level has nothing to do with that.


Who said I let them go?? I said if you read it correctly I try to talk to the store owner and then get the person help. More than I can say for locking up some Mom who is trying to feed her kids. I didn't say I wouldn't arrest her if the store owner forced me too, but I would still try to get her intervention. I am not slapping anyone in the face. I never said stealing was understandable so please don't put words in my post/mouth. In addition you say I base my child restraint decision on income, no thats not what I said, What I said again if you don't try to twist or put words into my post was that the poor slob may not have the ability to get a seat and therefore you help him get one. If this was such a bad idea our State Police would not offer free seats to those that need them. That is an actual program in our state. They, at the State level recognize that some people need that little extra help. And don't talk to me about poor kids vs rich kids die, I know. I worked THI for 7 years full time. I would still cut the guy some slack and get him a seat through the state program. Then if I stop him sometime in the future and Junior is standing around inside the car, he would get the fine. I have one for you since you are so set on not bending to much. Got a guy speeding rather badly, 75 in a 45, he is weaving in and out of traffic and rather a hazard. You stop him and find hes on the way to the hospital because he has burned his arms. Second and a few thrid degree. He is intense pain. You of course don't let him drive away and call EMS for him and they take him away to the hospital. Do you write the guy a ticket? Just curioys. This is an actual stop I made and am curious as to what you would do about writing him.


What I realize is that this is just more than your or my opinion. I realize that these opinions result in actions which have effects on other peoples lives and their perception of law enforcement. These opinions send messages to people. That message here is, there is no certainty to law enforcement, that it's consistency varies based on the whim of the enforcer, the lawyers, the judge and/or the jury. If you are this person we give you a pass, but if you are this person you get nailed. The difference between you and me is that I treat each person equally, but the laws with "discretion".


You again jump to the "whim" statement. ANd in addition I think people in general would want police to be reasonable and take into consideration the entire situation before jumping in with both feet and wasting the courts time with cases that would not go anywhere or even be accepted by the State Attorney. You make it obvious that you don't treat each person as a person, not that you treat each equally. You apply the laws even in the cases where applying them is not what is needed. Did you ever stop to think if you help solve the problem that brought about the cause for the violation in the first place you may not have to ever apply that law to that person again? If I help the guy that needs the seat get a seat he may never get stopped for that problem again. If I help the Mom get some help, she may never steal again, your way, they keep getting tickets and arrested again and again. Which one would the public like better?

But we diverge from the original purpose of this thread and that was the Flag issue and not how you or I conduct our law enforcement. Lets stick to the issue at hand, unless of course you want to start a new thread, and then I would be happy to jump in..

Stay safe...
on Jun 14, 2004
The law is the law. Being somebody who follows the law to the max, it doesn't do my heart good to know that police use their *own* discretion with the law. So, if somebody has a good reason to break the law, then it is "OK"? That just boggles my mind.


Hi KarmaGirl,

Then I guess its not OK for a women who is being abused, and feels there is no other way out to kill her abuser. Since this is and has been a defence that is sometimes accepted in court I guess you disagree?

But again I diverge. Start another thread and we can discuss it there.
on Jun 14, 2004

Then I guess its not OK for a women who is being abused, and feels there is no other way out to kill her abuser. Since this is and has been a defence that is sometimes accepted in court I guess you disagree?

I don't agree that killing your husband for abuse should be OK, because though somebody feels it's the only way out, it's not, and it's against the law.  It's not an excuse.  I just watch a court case on that where the women claimed it was "self defence" that she killed her husband in his sleep because she was constantly abused.  Why didn't she pack the kids in the car and drive away while he slept?  Instead, she tucked the kids in, then shot her husband.  Nope- no excuse. 

But, it's the same thing with this flag issue.  I have a flag.  I like flags.  But, I don't live in association because I don't like the "laws" of them.  I am the opposite of Brad- I have a 25' flag pole, I have about 1/4 acre fenced in, and I have a DirecWay satellite dish on my roof.  But there are no laws against that where I live. 

Laws are Laws.  You can't say it is OK for one person to break them, but not OK for somebody else.  Isn't that why we have a judge and jury?  I wasn't aware that police officers had the power to be their own judge and jury. 

on Jun 14, 2004
And as for the "ridiculous assertion" that you couldn't go 50 feet without stopping someones actually true,


The "ridiculous assertion" is that you be required to stop someone every 50 feet, not that violations are or aren't committed every 50 feet. Read my quote again as that was what I said.

Not whim, I never mentioned whim,


You didn't have to say whim, you brought up the concept of enforcing the law based on income. Do you deny this? Here are two quotes from you:

The poor guy working 2 jobs and raising a family of 4 who can't afford a car seat for his youngest kid doesn't need the $225 ticket for not having his kid strapped in,


So he doesn't get a ticket, but the rich guy does:

Would I write the guy in the BMW for not having his child strapped in? Yes, he knows better and can afford a seat.


The only difference in you writing the ticket or not is income, not the wrongful action. And you also suggest that since he's richer, he "knows better". How insulting is that to poor people who also "know better" and do the right thing?

I try to talk to the store owner and then get the person help.


So you reward the law breaker in this instance. You play social worker, I'll play law enforcement officer. When someone commits a wrongful act, my duty is to arrest them and take them before a judge. It's not a waste of his time, it's his job to hear cases and determine the outcome. Judges (and lawyers) go to school for many years in part to study the philosophy of law, something we as police officers do not do. That generally makes them more qualified to determine 1) if the law was broken, and 2) what is the appropriate punishment for the wrongful act if committed.

Engaging in social work as an answer to law breaking is a joke. Just look at the juvenile "justice" system. If you break the law as a kid, we aren't going to punish you, we are going to help you. Positive reinforcement for a negative act. Good message.

Now, when I write the poor person a ticket for the child seat violation, they can decide to correct the action on their own, and bring a receipt or the car seat to court. The judge can take that into consideration in his findings. Should they STILL CHOOSE not to get the car seat, the judge can also consider that in his findings. Either way, I have put the burden of doing the right thing on the person who commited the wrongful act in the first place, not on me, the tax payers, or the state. That teaches people the consequences of good or bad actions. Whether they choose to alter their behavior because of what they learned at that point is STILL their choice.

I would still cut the guy some slack and get him a seat through the state program.


You know, someone has to pay for that. It's nice that your state has a program and all, but it's costing some folks some money that have no choice in the matter, the taxpayers. Many law abiding tax payers who buy their own safety seats are in essence being forced against their will to buy them for others who choose not to buy their own. Geez, we could be living in the same state. That program should be done away with.

Got a guy speeding rather badly, 75 in a 45, he is weaving in and out of traffic and rather a hazard. You stop him and find hes on the way to the hospital because he has burned his arms. Second and a few thrid degree. He is intense pain. You of course don't let him drive away and call EMS for him and they take him away to the hospital. Do you write the guy a ticket? Just curioys. This is an actual stop I made and am curious as to what you would do about writing him.


I had a case similar to this except that it was a taxi cab driver with a passenger who was injured. I escorted him the rest of the way to the hospital at a safe speed which was about a 2 blocks so the injured person could get the assistance they needed. I then wrote the cabby a ticket and he was convicted in court. Cabbies are not trained in emergency driving, and he was putting himself AND his fare in danger by his actions. The fare called him to avoid the ambulance fee, stupid decision #1, and the cabby made stupid decision #2 by taking him and committing actions that made him liable.

You again jump to the "whim" statement.


I use the term whim by your reasoning, your choices of whether to enforce or not based on your examples, not simply because you used the word whim.

Our disagreement is fundamentally philosophical. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in punishing people for wrongful acts, not rewarding them. I believe in placing the burden of proper action on the individual who has done wrong, not on me, not the tax payers, not the state. Any charity they receive can come from family, friends, churches or other private institutions IF THEY CHOOSE to seek out such assistance because they are in a bad situation and they know it.

In short, I believe in the words, "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." - Ayn Rand.

Despite our disagreement, I extend you the same desire of staying safe. That said, I will leave this thread to it's original purpose.

VES
on Jun 14, 2004
Since this is and has been a defence that is sometimes accepted in court I guess you disagree?


Yes, but the case is going to court to be tried by a judge. That's a major difference from the law enforcement officer just deciding not to arrest or charge her for the crime because he feels for her plight.

VES
on Jun 14, 2004
Yes, but the case is going to court to be tried by a judge. That's a major difference from the law enforcement officer just deciding not to arrest or charge her for the crime because he feels for her plight.


Your joking right?? You are not implying I would not arrest her, right? I am sure your not that silly or lacking in common sense, the difference between murder and say a traffic ticket.
on Jun 14, 2004
WOW! Of all the petty things to compain about. Aren't we suppose to pushing patriotism? I can't believe anyone would even dream about harrassing a vet for hanging a flag. Why doesn't the home owners associations make people take their confederate flags or their 88 posters out of their front windows???That would make me not move into a neighborhood.
on Jun 14, 2004
WOW! Of all the petty things to compain about. Aren't we suppose to pushing patriotism? I can't believe anyone would even dream about harrassing a vet for hanging a flag. Why doesn't the home owners associations make people take their confederate flags or their 88 posters out of their front windows???That would make me not move into a neighborhood.


Thank you for bringing us back to the original issues.

Ya that 88 poster is enough to make me also, now if it was 48 or 24 that would be ok...JUST KIDDING!!!

I agree its the flag thats the issue. If it had been a ACLU or UN flag the courts would have fought each other to prevent it from being taken down..

on Jun 14, 2004

I agree its the flag thats the issue

Actually, it was the flagpole.  They told him he could fly a flag on a 6' pole on the side of his house, remember?

9 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9