And it's been answered. And more to the point, why not think critically about it for yourself?

Explain to me why it'd be okay for someone to impersonate a mayor, or a paramedic, or municipal building inspector? How about a fireman or university chancellor? Surely you must think it's okay that all those people can be impersonated at any time for any reason, and there's no harm in it.

11/12/2009 10:29:38 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."

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.

Quote :

"And it's been answered. And more to the point, why not think critically about it for yourself? Explain to me why it'd be okay for someone to impersonate a mayor, or a paramedic, or municipal building inspector? How about a fireman or university chancellor? Surely you must think it's okay that all those people can be impersonated at any time for any reason, and there's no harm in it."

There is NO harm in going to a party and saying I'm a fireman, a chancellor, or a paramedic.

There IS harm, and criminality, if I say I'm a fireman, chancellor, or paramedic and use that fake status to perform some action I would not otherwise be allowed to do.

Do you see the difference? Impersonation does not cause harm, by itself. It's what you use the impersonation for that should matter.

What you need to show is that impersonation itself, without any aggravating or additional factors, is harmful. You need to show that saying, "I'm a chancellor/fireman/paramedic/Marine" randomly, for no purpose other than my own appearance, is harmful.

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 10:35 PM. Reason : a]

11/12/2009 10:30:48 PM

no clue. I don't know as much about that part of the uniform. But, similar marks would be found on the officers hats, what with the fancy embroidery. I would assume that that, too, is not legal to wear, but I'm not sure.

^ so, what happens when I say I am a fireman, and a fire breaks out, and people delay a bit, expecting me to know what to do?

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 10:34 PM. Reason : ]

11/12/2009 10:33:38 PM

Quote :

"^ so, what happens when I say I am a fireman, and a fire breaks out, and people delay a bit, expecting me to know what to do?"

Well, in that case there is clear, actual harm, and so the people who delayed and were hurt can sue your pants off.

This is all missing the point - you all are making good cases for times when a civil penalty and damages may be appropriate. But what about it is criminal?

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 10:37 PM. Reason : a]

11/12/2009 10:36:18 PM

Then we'll have to bring up the issue someone on the previous page brought up:

Is speeding only a crime if it ends in a wreck?

11/12/2009 10:37:59 PM

but, even in that case, the person, himself, didn't try to use his impersonation to accomplish any tasks that such an official would be able to do. Why should the people be able to sue him? After all, he didn't break your previous qualification, did he?

11/12/2009 10:38:08 PM

Quote :

"^ so, what happens when I say I am a fireman, and a fire breaks out, and people delay a bit, expecting me to know what to do?"

This is what happens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u8KUgUqprw

11/12/2009 10:39:10 PM

Quote :

"but, even in that case, the person, himself, didn't try to use his impersonation to accomplish any tasks that such an official would be able to do. Why should the people be able to sue him? After all, he didn't break your previous qualification, did he?"

That previous qualification was for impersonation counting as criminal, in my opinion. If a person impersonates an official and uses that to do something he otherwise could not do, that would be criminal.

But, to be sued, all that would be necessary is for someone to prove he did them harm - whether by diluted reputation (in the case of a Marine organization here) or giving them a false sense of security when a fire started (in your case of a fireman).

Quote :

"Then we'll have to bring up the issue someone on the previous page brought up: Is speeding only a crime if it ends in a wreck?"

Speeding itself should never be a crime. If speeding ends with damage to some other car, that person should be held as criminally negligent toward safety as a driver, and face FAR more severe penalties than we currently have. If you recall in another thread - I do believe that criminal negligence (especially if willful negligence, as is the case with speeding) should carry the same penalty as an intentional act. So if you're drunk and kill somebody on the road - that ought to bear the same penalty as 1st degree murder. If you're driving recklessly and speeding without regard for others (definition decided by the court) and kill someone - same thing. I believe such a system is both more just and would encourage safe, reasonable driving far more than silly traffic tickets would.

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 10:49 PM. Reason : as]

11/12/2009 10:41:37 PM

I'm sorry, but "giving someone a false sense of security" does not do any harm. That's bullshit, and you know it.

11/12/2009 10:44:36 PM

It doesn't always, but it can. If I had previously claimed to be a fireman, and assured people that what they smelled was no real problem, I would have done them real harm if they were then hurt by the fire. They would have run away, but my lies made them get hurt.

11/12/2009 10:49:05 PM

^^^ Laura Bush would have been given the chair 40 years ago under your system.

11/12/2009 10:51:34 PM

Yes, she would have. Or something similar.

And it would have been just.

Although I could see someone arguing that there is a fundamental difference between running a stop sign and drunk driving or speeding. When you drive drunk, you know it. When you speed recklessly, you know it. They might say those are willful acts of negligence, while running a stop sign is simple negligence, and should bear a lesser penalty. I'm not inclined to go that direction, but it's a valid position.

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

11/12/2009 11:07:26 PM

You know what kind of shit you have to do to earn a Navy Cross?

Fuck this guy.

If nothing else, he's clearly such a huge douche that he deserves--nay, needs the punishment, anyway

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 12:12 AM. Reason : ]

11/13/2009 12:00:18 AM

Quote :

"You know what kind of shit you have to do to earn a Navy Cross? Fuck this guy."

11/13/2009 12:11:10 AM

Quote :

"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."

You're the guy that thinks one American life is more valuable than a thousand Arab lives. You support keeping our troops in danger, indefinitely, for no reason at all, other than to save face. You actually said that we should do everything short of nuke Iran if they don't comply with our demands. And I'm "devoid of value as [a] human being." Please. I'm trying to reduce suffering. You're actively encouraging it, and you don't even know why.

Quote :

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

Who are the GOP hacks?

[Edited on November 13, 2009 at 12:58 AM. Reason : ]

11/13/2009 12:30:57 AM

This guy can't distinguish sarcasm and trolling from actual debate.

Devoid of human value.

11/13/2009 9:07:43 AM

This just in, any girls wearing slutty doctor/nurse costumes next Halloween to be charged with practicing unlicensed medicine!

11/13/2009 9:12:52 AM

^ The point. You missed it. GTFO.

11/13/2009 9:16:27 AM

Pretty sad how most Americans are totally clueless regarding their country's highest awards. The Navy Cross is not some shit you get for riding on a boat, or even sinking an enemy vessel. You need to go way beyond the call of duty to receive this honor. Often it is awared post-humously.

11/13/2009 9:46:39 AM

Quote :

"This guy can't distinguish sarcasm and trolling from actual debate. Devoid of human value."

Let's go through and actually determine what was sarcasm and trolling, and which part was actual debate, shall we?

Quote :

"1000 Arabs < 1 American."

I just have to assume that this is trolling because it's so ridiculous.

Quote :

"give them a time to comply that if not met, we commence the world's largest aerial bombardment. Everything short of nukes gets used. We make the entire country look like Dresden when it's over."

Was this trolling or sarcasm? Or do you actually support destroying an entire country for not complying with our demands? You even reiterated this point.

Finally, do you support staying in Iraq and Afghanistan for no reason? Or is that also trolling?

If you have been serious about any of the positions you claim to take, you have no respect for human life. You view our troops as simple pawns in a big game of Risk. You support sending Americans to die, year after year, and you support killing civilians en masse. At least I support ending the suffering of Americans and foreigners alike.

As for your meaningless accusation that I'm "devoid of human value," it'd be great if you could articulate what you mean by that. It sounds like you're just throwing that out because you disagree with me, and since you don't have a leg to stand on in this "debate," your natural reaction is to hate.

Quote :

"Pretty sad how most Americans are totally clueless regarding their country's highest awards. The Navy Cross is not some shit you get for riding on a boat, or even sinking an enemy vessel. You need to go way beyond the call of duty to receive this honor. Often it is awared post-humously."

It doesn't matter why it's awarded. The point is that the guy didn't harm anyone by displaying those medals or the uniform. No one's achievements were devalued. No one was harmed. It's like military achievements are somehow "sacred," making it blasphemous to wear medals when you didn't actually earn them. It's not based off of any kind of rational thought.

And of course, all this reverence for military stems from the false premise that they're doing a good thing, or that they're protecting our freedom. Of course, none of that is true. We're in two unjust wars right now. We've had just wars in the past, but the veterans of those wars are very old or deceased. Anyone that chose to go to Iraq or Afghanistan was misguided, and volunteered to fight in immoral wars. Why is that something that should be respected? Sure, if someone was heroic in some way, or saved a lot of lives, I respect that, and they did a good thing. But I don't respect their decision to join the war. I agree with TULIPlovr's general sentiment on this. A soldier's first concern should be doing what is right and moral. If a higher officer orders him to shoot a baby in the face, he should not follow that order, he should flatly refuse. He's not a slave.

[Edited on November 13, 2009 at 10:30 AM. Reason : ]

11/13/2009 10:29:35 AM

Quote :

"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. "

Yes we should...

and no we shouldn't. Can you please define criminal law to me? Is it supposed to be punitive? Make the distinction between what you find to be reprehensible and prosecutable offenses. The entire point of our liberties is that people are allowed to do what you find reprehensible.

Quote :

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

In as much as this is true, then I'm fine with it (take him to the judge). However, when I consider the action versus the lengths went to in order to 'investigate' it, common sense tells me otherwise. (see my final comment in this post)

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."

While this is a very good legal point, I find it morally irrelevant. The key action that should motivate people to care about this case is the impersonating a protector of the peace.

Quote :

"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."

Thank you, this is informative and it makes a lot of sense. No entity should have an appearance that is important enough to pass laws protecting without having rock solid identification markers in the first place.

It is first and foremost the duty of police officers to make it clear that they are operating within the line of duty, and likewise for military who are serving for protection of our nation. With those clear distinguishing signals established, then we should not tolerate impostors of those who have a duty to respond to special threats to our way of life.

---

Let me add on to all of this: what if the guy didn't have the slightest clue what the cross thing meant. I didn't! Is it still so offensive? The military defenders are missing something else as well. Is it not the slightest bit flattering? The guy wasn't insulting the military and pooping on American flags after all.

My disposition is targeted to armchair republicans who verbally defend our military men and women more than what our military men and women would ever do for themselves. Face it, it's likely that an individual who was awarded the Navy Cross reading the article wouldn't feel anything like the opinions expressed here. Putting legal stuff aside, should someone find this 'insulting'? I'm personally flattered when someone impersonates what I do for a living. Lying to classmates is a civil issue that can be handled completely separately.

After all, let's consider all the parties in violation of the law here:

Quote :

"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."

It sounds like the FBI is perfectly tolerant of a large contingent of E-bay sellers...

[Edited on November 13, 2009 at 10:38 AM. Reason : ]

11/13/2009 10:29:54 AM

Quote :

"It doesn't matter why it's awarded. The point is that the guy didn't harm anyone by displaying those medals or the uniform. No one's achievements were devalued. No one was harmed. It's like military achievements are somehow "sacred," making it blasphemous to wear medals when you didn't actually earn them. It's not based off of any kind of rational thought. "

He harms the memory of those who have earned that honor. The achievement itself is absolutely devalued. How do you not understand this?

11/13/2009 10:45:50 AM

Quote :

"He harms the memory of those who have earned that honor. The achievement itself is absolutely devalued. How do you not understand this?"

How the hell do you harm a memory? Memories can't appear in court. If I wear a shirt for a race that I didn't actually run, am I devaluing an actual runner's achievement? Did they not train for that race? Did they not run and complete the race? Can they not still be proud in knowing that they accomplished that?

This reminds me a lot of an argument that often occurs in WoW, concerning the value of epics. Basically, hardcore raiders whine that if people easily can get epics (rare equipment in the game), their own epics are worth less. Of course, that isn't true. They still have the same stats. They still worked hard to kill the boss on hard mode, or whatever. It's based on this general idea: "I have X to show for my accomplishment. People will think that I'm better if they see that I'm wearing X. If someone else also has X, then my X is worth less." I don't accept that.

11/13/2009 10:58:21 AM

^^^^

With that one post, you made my argument for me. You can't tell the difference between trolling and/or sarcasm.

Good luck in life, you're going to need it.

^ Now you're using World of Warcraft to support a statement. That's just awesome!

[Edited on November 13, 2009 at 10:59 AM. Reason : *]

11/13/2009 10:58:25 AM

No, I didn't make your argument for you. That's a cop out. You don't have an argument. I can defend every statement I've made in this thread. When you can't defend a statement, you just say "uhh...i was just joking lol!" Well, okay. That's a pretty good reason to not take you seriously...ever.

11/13/2009 11:02:13 AM

The fact that I've trolled you in this very thread proves you can't tell the difference.

What's hard to understand?

11/13/2009 11:04:33 AM

He is impersonating a station, a title. This is fraud. He has not earned the award, thus it is cheapened by association.

Recognition can be considered form of payment that we bestow upon our fighting forces. In return for their service, our government preserves their honor and memory. To allow someone to claim that honor without having sacrificed for it would indeed cheapen the title. It would harm the dignity those who have earned it.

It's true that freedom isnt free. Not being allowed to impersonate a decorated freedom-defender is one of the inconsequential infringements upon our rights that we give up to recognize the value in defending freedom.

11/13/2009 11:48:09 AM

Not a single person allow him to claim that honor without having sacrificed for it. He did 'claim' the honor, but other attendees only allowed it due to ignorance. The most appropriate rectifying action by your logic would be to email all attendees that he, in fact, had no military honors or standing.

No one looks at military accomplishments less because of this event and no one will. How is this cheapening anything?

11/13/2009 12:22:06 PM

The same way you cheapen my degree from NC State.

11/13/2009 12:23:36 PM

11/13/2009 12:32:42 PM

dddddddaaaayum

11/13/2009 12:38:52 PM

Quote :

"This is all true - the bias is toward treating all government employees, or government-licensed service providers as a separate class."

Of course there is. The whole purpose of licensing (ostensibly anyway) is to provide a level of official certification of a persons skills, qualifications or authority. In order to preserve the value of that certification, an organization has 3 options:

1) Make the certification extremely expensive to acquire (see higher education), making it rare by default

2) Make the certification even more difficult to acquire, possibly extending it beyond its original intent (see degree inflation)

3) Make it a punishable offense for impersonating a certified person.

Since 1 and 2 go against the states goals of government certification, 3 is the only and best option. If you don't do one of these, the certification becomes worthless (see A+ certification).

Quote :

"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. "

Why should anything be a criminal act then? Madoff shouldn't have gone to jail, he should have just paid restitution. Muggers, thieves, murderers, just make them pay damages and be done with it. If you have an issue with the differences between civil and criminal law, that's a completely different topic my friend.

11/13/2009 1:20:30 PM

Grave robbing doesn't harm anyone, right?

11/13/2009 2:35:48 PM

Madoff should have been given an award.

11/13/2009 2:37:19 PM

Quote :

"Why should anything be a criminal act then? Madoff shouldn't have gone to jail, he should have just paid restitution. Muggers, thieves, murderers, just make them pay damages and be done with it. If you have an issue with the differences between civil and criminal law, that's a completely different topic my friend."

Your post does not recognize a distinction I made earlier.

Simple "impersonation" only involves claiming to be something or someone you are not. This is what the guy in the OP did. If the action is limited to this, then that is when only a civil suit ought to be possible.

However, if you impersonate someone and then use that impersonation to perform some action you are not authorized to do, that is where it could/should be criminal.

There is a fundamental difference between saying, "I am a doctor" at a high school reunion, and saying "I am a doctor, now let me sell you this product/service of mine."

The former is completely inconsequential and insignificant bullshit from stupid people. The latter is the act of a criminal - do you recognize that they are different?

11/13/2009 2:41:49 PM

Quote :

"If I had previously claimed to be a fireman, and assured people that what they smelled was no real problem, I would have done them real harm if they were then hurt by the fire."

Yes, but in that case, the person used his impersonation to act as an authority. in my example, he did not. Point being, that in my case, simply donning the uniform is effectively acting as if you are that authority, with no further action by the impersonator.

11/13/2009 3:11:07 PM

Military personnel don't have any authority. A marine can't arrest me, or give me a ticket, or do anything that a private citizen can't do. Last time I checked, we're not under martial law.

11/13/2009 3:27:57 PM

No, but he can kick your WoW playing ass and I hope he does.

11/13/2009 3:46:15 PM

^^ the point still stands.

11/13/2009 3:51:32 PM

Quote :

"the person used his impersonation to act as an authority"

Quote :

"simply donning the uniform is effectively acting as if you are that authority"

No, your point doesn't stand. Your point is that, because the person is impersonating an authority figure, they should be punished. Well, they're not impersonating an authority. They're impersonating a member of the military that has no authority or enforcement power here.

11/13/2009 3:59:29 PM

the military certainly has some kind of authority, whether you want to believe so or not.

11/13/2009 4:08:10 PM

Quote :

"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."

this might be the douchiest comment I've ever read on tww

11/13/2009 5:23:55 PM

Quote :

"what if the guy didn't have the slightest clue what the cross thing meant. I didn't! Is it still so offensive?"

I guarantee you that anyone going to the trouble that this guy did to create a false identity knew exactly what the hell a Navy Cross is. On top of that, he has the Navy Cross placed in the correct position as the highest award he had "received" (above several other fairly high-order awards). He knew exactly what it was.

11/13/2009 6:26:00 PM

^ That's the other part of this. We're not talking about some guy who dressed up for halloween. This guy built himself a fake identity over many months, had two separate uniforms (an NCO and an officer) for these identities, set up a site to blog about his "combat experience" and was writing letters to papers as a member of the military. He went through a lot of trouble to convince people he was the real deal.

11/13/2009 7:13:16 PM

Quote :

"However, if you impersonate someone and then use that impersonation to perform some action you are not authorized to do, that is where it could/should be criminal. There is a fundamental difference between saying, "I am a doctor" at a high school reunion, and saying "I am a doctor, now let me sell you this product/service of mine." The former is completely inconsequential and insignificant bullshit from stupid people. The latter is the act of a criminal - do you recognize that they are different?"

I agree with this perspective. I guess there's still the matter of people lying about their identity, but again, I think that's just boldface lying and should be handled in whatever kind of process is appropriate for that. That doesn't need to be a 'military pride' issue.

However, I also see the point from ^. An extremely involved and detailed impersonating job like that could be punished if he was posing as a worker at Google for that matter. So fine, if he crossed a line then he'll get what's coming to him.

But again, I return to the issue of people selling military metals on Ebay in violation of the law and it being tolerated. Our military shouldn't go around bullying people to get our respect. No, they earn respect through their actions and not by flabbing their mouths. If someone still won't respect them, then... well that's an old story and there's nothing we can really do about it. It doesn't make any sense to vehemently fight people who trash or disrespect your organization - epically using dubious laws to do it. That's the police force's job.

11/14/2009 11:53:00 AM

I don't know that you can say these sellers are being tolerated. I'm sure when complaints are filed against these people, they are investigated and punished just like this guy was. It's not like the FBI was trolling Facebook looking for people playing dress up. But as anyone who's ever been screwed over by a bad seller or bidder on ebay could probably tell you, sometimes it isn't easy to track these people down either. And a search online for medal replicas shows that a good number of these vendors are out of the country, and therefore much more difficult to prosecute.

11/14/2009 12:03:55 PM

Quote :

"Our military shouldn't go around bullying people to get our respect."

What did the military do to this poor, pitiful jackass?

11/15/2009 1:28:42 AM

He's being prosecuted for wearing the medals, not owning them.

[Edited on November 15, 2009 at 2:04 AM. Reason : .]

11/15/2009 2:04:20 AM

I'm actually fully in support of this action.

People end up in the military for many reasons: family history (and obligation), a genuine (and in my opinion, bizarre) sense of duty, needs for scholarships, a job, money, etc...

But after joining, they often face harrowing circumstances that most of us regular citizens can't even begin to understand. I dunno, the experience is so commonly depicted that we kinda forget what it really means.

I reserve my right to call out fat, ignorant military moms and their drunk husbands, but for God's sake, can we at least protect the meaningless symbols we adorn them with after they (typically) die?

[Edited on November 15, 2009 at 2:27 AM. Reason : We can at least pretend we respect them.]

11/15/2009 2:22:41 AM

set em up

11/15/2009 2:54:26 AM