While I do not agree with what this guy did; I can not help but feel like my tax dollars are at waste. Is it really that big of a deal that some douche lose bank teller wanted to pretend at his class reunion that he was a decorated marine officer. I am sure plenty of people bullshit when they go to this crap.

How much do you think was spent though for the FBI to investigate this guy, execute a search warrant at his house, than send this guy to trial???

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/12/california.medals.charge/index.html

Quote :

"Los Angeles, California (CNN) -- A California man faces a federal trial in January because of what he allegedly wore to his 20th high school reunion earlier this year -- a U.S. Marine uniform decorated with some of the nation's highest military medals. Steve Burton, 39, never served in any branch of the U.S. military, but he was seen and photographed several times wearing a Marine uniform and various medals, including the Navy Cross, the highest medal awarded exclusively by the U.S. Navy, federal investigators said..."

Quote :

" Lt. Cmdr. Colleen Salonga, a U.S. Navy supply officer, recognized the Navy Cross and knew how rarely that honor is awarded, the sworn statement said. She posed with Burton for a photo, which she sent to the FBI in June, it said...."

Quote :

" A search warrant was executed at Burton's home, said Akrotirianakis, who did not divulge what was found there. Akrotirianakis also would not say where authorities believe Burton obtained the medals. However, an Internet search showed several medals -- or possibly replicas -- for sale online, despite a law banning their advertisement or sale. Even if a medal is a replica, wearing it still violates federal law, Akrotirianakis said."

but ZOMG HUR its against the law. Maybe the FBI should be spending its time going after drug dealers and terrorists than conducting investigations of some dipshit marine wannabe.

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 6:33 PM. Reason : l]

11/12/2009 6:32:47 PM

This is a law that should be enforced. Imagine if it weren't.

11/12/2009 6:34:21 PM

Could you spell out the consequences of non-enforcement? I'm not seeing any.

11/12/2009 6:45:11 PM

The uniform would mean nothing?

11/12/2009 6:49:48 PM

its silly, and sad. but they should punish him by letting real marines pound him into an unrecognizable pile of goo.

11/12/2009 6:52:34 PM

It's clear that HUR does not respect or support our fine men and women who risk their lives each and every day to protect his right to post such trash.

11/12/2009 7:20:27 PM

If you take this to it's logical conclusion, why should only police officers get to wear police uniforms? Why can't anyone?

If you're more concerned about your tax dollars being spent on this than on fighting multi-billion dollar wars, then I think you have a serious case of misplaced priorities.

11/12/2009 7:31:19 PM

Quote :

"This is a law that should be enforced. Imagine if it weren't."

Uh, nothing would happen?

Quote :

"The uniform would mean nothing?"

Quote :

"If you take this to it's logical conclusion, why should only police officers get to wear police uniforms? Why can't anyone?"

What do you think it means now? It's not like marines have any authority in this country, so it's not like you're going to gain much from wearing a uniform...well, except maybe free food at some places.

Point is, it's totally different than say...impersonating an officer. In the United States, you kind of have to respect the authority of police officers, since they can actually arrest you, which means being able to recognize one when you see one. It's not like that for military personnel.

Quote :

"its silly, and sad. but they should punish him by letting real marines pound him into an unrecognizable pile of goo."

Yeah, that would be reasonable...

11/12/2009 7:39:29 PM

Quote :

"The uniform would mean nothing?"

Who is harmed by this person pretending? If he used it to try to gain access to a base or something similar, of course it would be criminal.

But if the uniform is not used to help him commit some other crime, again, who is hurt? Is he going to make our military men and women look bad? If he's seen being ruckus, drunk, obscene or just plain vulgar....well, if anyone is under the mistaken notion that Marines are different than that they need to be corrected anyway.

The vast majority of the time the imposter will be found out and disgraced. When he's not, no one is worse off. When the person's veteran status is genuinely important (like a job interview or something similar), everything will be checked anyway.

11/12/2009 7:44:22 PM

Quote :

"Who is harmed by this person pretending? If he used it to try to gain access to a base or something similar, of course it would be criminal."

You let this guy slide and people might just start trying to sneak on to a base or some shit. It's not that hard to understand. It's a law used to protect citizens and military. Enforce it.

11/12/2009 8:01:29 PM

They have these things called military ID's that are a lot tougher to fake than silly clothes and pins and ribbons.

You can wear any kind of uniform you want - you will not get on base without an ID, at least in my experience, even under a normal security status on the base (my dad left his ID one time and tried to get back on - they took his DL, checked him in a couple databases, checked the kids' military IDs and finally let him on).

It is NOT a law to protect people. It is a law to protect the image and "honor" of those who really wear them to work. It is designed to create (or more to keep) a mystique, and the public adoration, only on those who "deserve" it.

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 8:07 PM. Reason : a]

11/12/2009 8:04:52 PM

It's the intellectual property of the United States Marine Corps

Quote :

"You let this guy slide and people might just start trying to sneak on to a base or some shit."

Absolutely.

And what exactly is the countervailing right to be weighed against the threat to our security? His freedom of expression? What's this guy offering to the public discourse?

I've been reading a lot about my Grandpa's experience in the Marines (L/3/5 Marines 1st Marine Division; Guadalcanal, New Guinea, Peleliu). This guy need to choke on a cock in hell for impersonating a Marine.

11/12/2009 8:12:06 PM

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 8:14 PM. Reason : whateva]

11/12/2009 8:13:33 PM

Quote :

"It is NOT a law to protect people. It is a law to protect the image and "honor" of those who really wear them to work. It is designed to create (or more to keep) a mystique, and the public adoration, only on those who "deserve" it."

Yeah, it is.

And it's a worthwhile law, you nihilist.

Fuck you for putting "honor" and "deserve" in scare quotes. Seriously.

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 8:17 PM. Reason : ]

11/12/2009 8:16:07 PM

Great thread around Veteran's Day. You folks are arguing that it's no big deal for someone to wear a uniform w/ medals, when that person didn't earn 'em.

Let's just make sure you're clear about what you're arguing for.

I bet there'd be a few decorated vets out there that would love to tell you how and why they earned their purple hearts or navy crosses.

And you act like it's no big deal.

11/12/2009 8:21:11 PM

If civilians aren't allowed to wear military uniforms, they why should military personnel be allowed to wear their uniforms outside service, official events, and practical considerations like going home? After all, that would only take an internal rule, versus a hard-and-fast federal law like we're talking about here.

I suppose there are several concerning things to me:
- The thing that made this an issue was that he wore a high level metal, not that he unlawfully impersonated a protector of the peace. We probably shouldn't federally prosecute people on a pride issue.
- What is the true thing that 'identifies' an individual in the armed forces acting with distinction above civilians? Can I wear part of a uniform legally?
- What about Halloween?!

11/12/2009 8:23:29 PM

I don't think it's possible to miss the point any worse than mrfrog just did.

11/12/2009 8:27:06 PM

^^there are specific rules that spell out exactly what you're talking about.

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 8:27 PM. Reason : .]

11/12/2009 8:27:23 PM

Quote :

"The thing that made this an issue was that he wore a high level metal, not that he unlawfully impersonated a protector of the peace. We probably shouldn't federally prosecute people on a pride issue."

We should federally prosecute any real attempt at an impersonation of a protector of the peace.

We should revel in it when pride is at stake.


Seriously. This is one of the few times when morality, pride, and the law perfectly sync. I can't see why this is at all controversial. The cost of this entire prosecution will be less than the cost of two bombs dropped over in Iraq. That's controversial.

11/12/2009 8:28:34 PM

Do you support the troops that are fighting for your freedoms? How about supporting them by having a little respect for them when they get home, too.

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 8:31 PM. Reason : ^ ty]

11/12/2009 8:30:51 PM

Quote :

"Great thread around Veteran's Day. You folks are arguing that it's no big deal for someone to wear a uniform w/ medals, when that person didn't earn 'em."

I never said it was no big deal. I said it shouldn't be prosecuted, and it should not be illegal. There are a lot of things that are "big deals" that should be legal to do - and included in that would be lying/impersonation without any real harm to others.

Quote :

"Let's just make sure you're clear about what you're arguing for. I bet there'd be a few decorated vets out there that would love to tell you how and why they earned their purple hearts or navy crosses. And you act like it's no big deal."

There are many. No doubt, there. And if they've fought in any conflict after WWII, then they received their wounds in unjust, immoral, and illegal conflicts that I do not respect them for fighting.

Physical courage and perseverance in hard times does not, in any way, deserve respect when those fine personal traits are offered in the service of unjust causes. They had a moral and legal obligation to refuse their orders, based on their own oaths. They did not. And for that I owe them no gratitude nor sympathy when it comes to the consequences of their decision to fight.

But that is not the purpose of this thread. I am glad, though, that it has been admitted that these laws are NOT to protect anyone from any real harm.

11/12/2009 8:31:06 PM

^ That's a load of bullshit and you know it. A soldier's job is to follow his chain of command, even if he disagrees with that order. If he takes a bullet in the service of a war he or you morally oppose, he deserves the same respect as any other veteran. You don't get to decide how to treat them based on the war they fight.

11/12/2009 8:33:56 PM

Quote :

"I don't think it's possible to miss the point any worse than mrfrog just did."

Check that

Just read tuliplover's last post

11/12/2009 8:35:39 PM

Quote :

"There are a lot of things that are "big deals" that should be legal to do - and included in that would be lying/impersonation without any real harm to others."

So I can pretend to have an engineering degree at a job interview?

Quote :

"Physical courage and perseverance in hard times does not, in any way, deserve respect when those fine personal traits are offered in the service of unjust causes. They had a moral and legal obligation to refuse their orders, based on their own oaths. They did not. And for that I owe them no gratitude nor sympathy when it comes to the consequences of their decision to fight."

This is what Ayn Rand does, people.

11/12/2009 8:37:40 PM

Quote :

"^ That's a load of bullshit and you know it. A soldier's job is to follow his chain of command, even if he disagrees with that order. If he takes a bullet in the service of a war he or you morally oppose, he deserves the same respect as any other veteran. You don't get to decide how to treat them based on the war they fight."

It is the most asinine rejection of logic to suppose that one can be consistent and reject a war but support those who fight it. What kind of nonsense is that? "I hate the killing. But I support the ones doing the killing. I don't think we should be bombing them. But I support those who are bombing them. Why? Because they were ordered to do it. It's not their fault." That's bullshit, and you know it.

The first rule of firearms is that you are personally responsible for every single round that comes out of your weapon. Evidently, you don't believe that applies to soldiers. Anywhere they are told to shoot, the burden is not on them.

Each soldier has a moral and legal obligation to evaluate the moral and legal validity of the orders he receives. If he does not question them, and instead decides to go kill people when his conscience or his understanding of the law are in conflict with that, then he is a coward.

Quote :

"This is what Ayn Rand does, people."

I deplore Ayn Rand.

Quote :

"So I can pretend to have an engineering degree at a job interview? "

No. You can't do that, and it should be illegal, because you would be doing real harm. You would be deceiving and cheating the firm that hired you, and taking an opportunity from someone who wasn't a liar. The most direct victim, though, is the employer. There is no victim in a retard wearing a soldier's uniform to a high school reunion.

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 8:42 PM. Reason : a]

11/12/2009 8:40:13 PM

If I do 300 mph down an empty highway at 4am and don't wreck my car, no one is harmed. Speeding shouldn't be a crime.

11/12/2009 8:44:45 PM

Quote :

"The thing that made this an issue was that he wore a high level metal, not that he unlawfully impersonated a protector of the peace. We probably shouldn't federally prosecute people on a pride issue."

No, the rare medal is what got people's attention. What made it an issue was that he was a fake.

Quote :

"They had a moral and legal obligation to refuse their orders, based on their own oaths. They did not. And for that I owe them no gratitude nor sympathy when it comes to the consequences of their decision to fight."

The only orders one is legally obligated to refuse are illegal orders. As to the morality of a conflict, one might stop to consider their version of moral is not always another persons.

11/12/2009 8:44:45 PM

^^^ A soldier on a battlefield does not have the luxury to say, "no, i'm not going to kill that person that's firing at me." If he chose not to do so, he'd likely end up dead. And if not him, than one of his fellow soldiers.

And you know why you should support them, even if they are in some sort of internal conflict? Because their job is hard enough without assholes like you telling them that they're terrible people for doing their jobs.

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 8:45 PM. Reason : carets]

11/12/2009 8:45:12 PM

Quote :

"No. You can't do that, and it should be illegal, because you would be doing real harm. You would be deceiving and cheating the firm that hired you, and taking an opportunity from someone who wasn't a liar. The most direct victim, though, is the employer. There is no victim in a retard wearing a soldier's uniform to a high school reunion."

What if he is otherwise completely qualified and exactly the same as a candidate with the papers? Say he audited all his classes. What harm did he do? Who was the victim of him pretending to have a piece of paper?

11/12/2009 8:46:57 PM

Quote :

"^ A soldier on a battlefield does not have the luxury to say, "no, i'm not going to kill that person that's firing at me." If he chose not to do so, he'd likely end up dead. And if not him, than one of his fellow soldiers."

The main choice for the soldier is whether or not to go to the war at all. If the soldier decides to go, he is not in any real position to pick and choose which orders to follow - the main question is about the war itself. If you go, there is no moral standing to say "I'll help you take that hill....but not that other one."

And, besides, why would someone be a soldier, and on the front, if they are not willing to return fire?

Given that, this would do no damage to cohesiveness or discipline on the front lines - all orders there would be followed, unless openly horrific like lining up defenseless people for target practice.

Quote :

"And you know why you should support them, even if they are in some sort of internal conflict? Because their job is hard enough without assholes like you telling them that they're terrible people for doing their jobs."

The difficulty of someone's job should help me decide whether I support them? I hope you support the insurgents in Iraq, then. Their jobs are infinitely more difficult than the jobs of our troops.

Quote :

"What if he is otherwise completely qualified and exactly the same as a candidate with the papers? Say he audited all his classes. What harm did he do? Who was the victim of him pretending to have a piece of paper?"

It's still wrong - 1) because it's lying....just like I said the guy pretending to be a marine was wrong, but 2) The employer is still a victim. The employer did not get what was promised - in your example, someone who audited is not "certified" to the same level as someone with a legit degree. The employer might now have a dishonest advertisement that all their people in X position have degrees, which opens up the employer to liability. There's a whole host of ways the employer can be harmed by even a seemingly insignificant lie, even if the person has all the skills for the degree.

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 8:53 PM. Reason : a]

11/12/2009 8:50:10 PM

I don't know how to begin to respond to that torrent of illogical thought. I'm speechless. I don't know what point you're trying to make anymore, but you're sure trying hard to make it.

11/12/2009 8:52:31 PM

^That's because you're stupid.

11/12/2009 8:53:43 PM

Okay, well so's your mother. Way to be mature.

11/12/2009 8:55:36 PM

It really is a very simple principle: don't kill people when it's not justified (legally or morally) in your own mind, even when you are a soldier.

If you believe the war is unjustified, you have no business killing in its name regardless of your orders.

Likewise, if I believe the killing was unjustified, I can't salute and honor the killer just because he was ordered to kill.

11/12/2009 9:00:28 PM

Quote :

"The employer is still a victim."

And when a lame-o bank teller claims he's a Marine with a Navy Cross, he's diluting the prestige of actual heroes; thus harming them.

There is actual damage being inflicted, and there should be legal consequences.

What if I were to start selling home-made PC's, and call them "Dells?" No harm done, right?

11/12/2009 9:26:50 PM

Why do you people argue with complete asshats like HUR, TULIPlovr and d357r0y3r? They've proven themselves to be devoid of value as human beings in the first place.

11/12/2009 9:33:10 PM

Sometimes it's fun to watch them take these opinions to their crazy conclusion.

11/12/2009 9:35:06 PM

Quote :

"And when a lame-o bank teller claims he's a Marine with a Navy Cross, he's diluting the prestige of actual heroes; thus harming them. There is actual damage being inflicted, and there should be legal consequences."

When I wrote earlier about making lies that were harmful illegal, I was imprecise. I meant that the liar should be held legally responsible for the damages his lie caused if the victim filed suit. That is wholly different than criminal prosecution, which I do not advocate.

As it stands, impersonating some person or organization can already be cause for a lawsuit. Yet, individuals who happen to work for the military get treated as a separate class, for no good reason - impersonating them is a criminal offense.

If some Marine organization or individual Marine feels he is a victim of this guy's retardedness, I say let a judge and jury decide what, if any, harm was done and what compensation would be just. If I were on the jury, I would write off the damage as trivial.

Quote :

"What if I were to start selling home-made PC's, and call them "Dells?" No harm done, right?"

Then some quantifiable damage done to both your buyer and to Dell would be cause for civil suit.

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 9:42 PM. Reason : f]

11/12/2009 9:41:37 PM

Quote :

"You let this guy slide and people might just start trying to sneak on to a base or some shit."

I take it you've never been anywhere near a military base, have you?

11/12/2009 9:45:14 PM

This thread is all bizarro world n shit...

You have TWW liberals "defending the honor" of the military and the wolfweb GOP hacks defending imposters.

I'd have assumed it'd be the other way around.

11/12/2009 9:45:23 PM

Quote :

"TULIPlovr: Yet, individuals who happen to work for the military get treated as a separate class, for no good reason"

I just want to put this in quotes in order to increase the likelihood that people will read your self-evidently wrong opinion, and harass you for it.

11/12/2009 9:46:19 PM

^^ that's a helpful observation.

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 9:47 PM. Reason : ]

11/12/2009 9:46:38 PM

Quote :

"I just want to put this in quotes in order to increase the likelihood that people will read your self-evidently wrong opinion, and harass you for it."

Then what is the good reason?

Quote :

"You have TWW liberals "defending the honor" of the military and the wolfweb GOP hacks defending imposters."

No one has defended him. The argument is (partly) over whether he should be prosecuted as a criminal, or if he should be held liable for damages in a civil suit, at the discretion of judge/jury.

11/12/2009 9:49:48 PM

Quote :

"The argument is (partly) over whether he should be prosecuted as a criminal, or if he should be held liable for damages in a civil suit, at the discretion of judge/jury."

Bullshit.

Quote :

"TULIPlovr: Could you spell out the consequences of non-enforcement? I'm not seeing any."

Quote :

"TULIPlovr: Who is harmed by this person pretending?"

It's become an argument over civil/criminal only after you realized how awful your initial, anti-soldier argument was.

11/12/2009 10:09:25 PM

Quote :

"It's become an argument over civil/criminal only after you realized how awful your initial, anti-soldier argument was."

I stand by that argument, because it is sound. Soldiers should not kill against their own conscience and understanding of the law. And I should not support people who kill when I think that killing is wrong. That's as straightforward and easily defensible as it gets.

But that's not what this thread is supposed to be about, so I'm at least giving a nod at getting it back on topic.

My first response in the thread, that you even quoted, indicated that my opinion is that he should not be prosecuted as a criminal. I'm not falling back to that position. And certainly no one is questioning whether the retard was wrong for doing what he did.

11/12/2009 10:14:00 PM

Quote :

"As it stands, impersonating some person or organization can already be cause for a lawsuit. Yet, individuals who happen to work for the military get treated as a separate class, for no good reason - impersonating them is a criminal offense. "

Impersonating any number of people is a criminal offense. For example, here in our own state of NC, it is a criminal offense to impersonate a soil scientist (89F-22), or a geologist (89E-22), or an engineer or surveyor (89C-23), or a plumber, HVAC or similar contractor (87-25, 87-61), or an employee of the NCDACS (81A-29), or law enforcement (20-137.2), or fire and EMS (14-276.1), or student (14-118.2), or a pharmacist or pharmacy tech (90-108), or a voter (163-275) just to name a few. In fact, a good rule of thumb is it is a criminal act to impersonate anyone with a public office or the public trust. Hardly us treating the military as its own class.

Quote :

"If some Marine organization or individual Marine feels he is a victim of this guy's retardedness, I say let a judge and jury decide what, if any, harm was done and what compensation would be just. If I were on the jury, I would write off the damage as trivial."

I would say the federal government in general, and the executive branch in particular (encompassing both the FBI and the DOD) would qualify as a Marine organization wouldn't you? Not to mention the Navy officer who filed the complaint in the first place.

11/12/2009 10:15:00 PM

Quote :

"Impersonating any number of people is a criminal offense. For example, here in our own state of NC, it is a criminal offense to impersonate a soil scientist (89F-22), or a geologist (89E-22), or an engineer or surveyor (89C-23), or a plumber, HVAC or similar contractor (87-25, 87-61), or an employee of the NCDACS (81A-29), or law enforcement (20-137.2), or fire and EMS (14-276.1), or student (14-118.2), or a pharmacist or pharmacy tech (90-108), or a voter (163-275) just to name a few. In fact, a good rule of thumb is it is a criminal act to impersonate anyone with a public office or the public trust. Hardly us treating the military as its own class."

This is all true - the bias is toward treating all government employees, or government-licensed service providers as a separate class. But there is a special bias toward the military, especially when it comes to severity of enforcement and public sentiment.

Quote :

"I would say the federal government in general, and the executive branch in particular (encompassing both the FBI and the DOD) would qualify as a Marine organization wouldn't you? Not to mention the Navy officer who filed the complaint in the first place."

Yes, but why is that relevant to what I said? I said any offended party who believes they were harmed has a right to file a civil suit for damages, and then has the burden to prove such damage. These people (may) have a right to be upset - but that should be up to a judge/jury in a civil case.

That they were possibly harmed, and reported it as such, does not imply the act should be criminal.

11/12/2009 10:19:51 PM

Quote :

"This is all true - the bias is toward treating all government employees, or government-licensed service providers as a separate class. But there is a special bias toward the military, especially when it comes to severity of enforcement and public sentiment."

And do you know why that is? Because there is demonstrable harm that can come from these impersonations. There is no good reason to do so.

11/12/2009 10:21:46 PM

What is the demonstrable harm, assuming you are referring to the military? I've asked that question 10 times now.

11/12/2009 10:24:45 PM

Quote :

"Can I wear part of a uniform legally?"

you can actually wear all of the clothing of the uniform, as long as no part has any military insignias, unit patches, medals/decorations, ranks, or rates on it.

Quote :

"I wonder, given that this was a Marine uniform, if the blood stripe (if present) would be enough for it to be illegal, if there were no other marks on it. It's the only aspect I know of in any service that indicates something about rank that is inherently part of the clothing."

There are actually two widths of blood stripes...one for NCOs, and one for commissioned officers. USMC officers also have a completely different dress blue jacket, and the cover for both the dress and service uniforms has a quatrefoil embroidered on the top (and field grade officers--such as the Lieutenant Colonel he was impersonating--have the gold "scrambled eggs" on the bill of the cover. Generals have even more "scrambled eggs".) If he had a sword rigged, officers have a completely different sword. In short, there are all sorts of things that are inherently part of the clothing besides the insignia itself that indicate rank, at least on a Marine officer's uniform.

(side note: it appears that he had both a GySgt and a LtCol uniform)

[Edited on November 13, 2009 at 12:11 AM. Reason : ]

11/12/2009 10:27:12 PM