Man Accused Of Punching, Kicking War Protester Who Was Carrying a Defaced U.S. Flag

WISC-TV ^

[Ronaldus Magnus]

WAUSAU, Wis. -- A man upset that a war protester was parading around downtown Wausau with a defaced American flag is facing a disorderly conduct charge after attacking the demonstrator.

The incident happened Monday afternoon outside the Marathon County Courthouse. Mike Wallschlaeger of Mosine carried an upside down flag with "EMPIRE" written across it.

A fellow demonstrator says a man got out of his car, tried to grab the flag, then pushed Wallschlaeger to the ground, punched and kicked him.

Wausau Police Chief William Brandimore says the right to free speech is protected, but disorderly conduct is not.

[Stone Mountain]

Good of you to call and speak with his wife. So the report is not accurate.

That's a lot to assume from a conversation with an accused person's wife. I agree, however, that if what she is saying is true, then he should not be charged.

[Revenge Of Daffy-Duck]

btt

[null and void]

You've never lost a loved one defending that flag have you?

[cardinal4]

StoneMountain, I see where you are going with the legalities. But is it really wrong for us to believe that the hippie deserved to have his ass kicked? These America Haters do everything they can to undermine America and all she stands for, but when they are called on it, they run to the very protections they try to undermine. I couldnt in good conscience defend someone who hates themself so much that they will take it out on their own country. Thats just my opinion.

[Stone Mountain]

Well, I would claim that my First Amendment rights were being violated. If protestors are allowed to burn American flags in violation of existing laws regarding burning anything in a public place (even though the flag in this instance was being desecrated and not burned), then I think Americans have the right to kick and punch anti-American trash in violation of existing battery laws. Its a "free speech thing!"

It amazes me how many "defenders of freedom" here don't extend that freedom to those who disagree with them.

[wi jd]

Is there any other kind in WI?

In the smaller counties, yes.

[Chummy]

He may have or, such as is the case in our family, we're of the apparent similar ancestral origin and have been American citizens for now seven generations.

[Stone Mountain]

For starters, police responding to the scene said both parties would be charged with disorderly conduct. When the Police Chief learned of the incident, he rushed to the defense of the protestor, informing his force by memo that they are to protect the protestors.

Has this been sourced? Not doubting you - I just haven't seen this reported.

[RamingtonStall]

Hope he demands a JURY TRIAL.

I would love to be on the Jury! How do you say Jury Nullification?

RamS

[Stone Mountain]

You've never lost a loved one defending that flag have you?

My view is that they were defending the freedoms that the flag represented, not the actual cloth flag itself.

[Porterville]

I think this assault was the right thing; I hope more protesters who do this sort of thing get their butts kicked.

[Naspino]

Although this man was wrong to escalate the situation, the subtext of all public protest is an implied threat of violence.

Eh... I wouldn't say he's wrong. When I'm with a northerner and he cuts someone off down here I tell him he's insane and he'll eventually get rifled by someone if he keeps on doing that. It has a useful message and usually they tone down their agressive driving. This is sort of the same thing -- says Don't come to my home and protest my country or I'll kick your .....

[Chummy]

Stone Mountain: It's not possible to be disorderly all by oneself?

Sure. Go to a ballgame and watch what happens to the jerk that runs onto the field.

But in this instance, where there were two parties both involved in the incident, and given further the circumstances, it is inequitable to charge but one. This is particularly so AS THE RESPONDING OFFICERS CITED BOTH PARTIES. It wasn't until the intervention of the Police Chief in which charges were not pressed, or were dropped from one of the parties, the apparent instigator.

[Porterville]

Love it or leave it; want the right to desecrate the flag? Make it the french flag.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Given that the lesser provocation, a Confederate battle flag display, is seen as sufficient exculpitory grounds, a desecrated US flag should certainly be seen as a more egregious provocation."

---

Okay, DC Steve, I see what you mean; you're making what lawyers call an "a fortiori" argument (if X true for A, and B presents a stronger case than A, then X must be true for B). If some people see a Confederate battle flag as sufficient provocation for a violent outburst, then, a fortiori, the desecration of Old Glory is sufficient provocation for a violent outburst. So you're not really implying that displaying the Confederate battle flag is really an invitation to violence, you're pointing out the hypocrisy in those who believe that displaying the Rebel flag is tantamount to hate speech, but who inexplicably believe that burning or defacing the U.S. flag shouldn't insult or hurt anyone.

BTW, I agree with Wardaddy that those with Confederate flag decals on their vehicles are the least likely people around to desecrate Old Glory.

[xm177e2]

Attacking protesters who are not blocking traffic is wrong. The guy who did this should be arrested and serve time in jail.

[Chummy]

No, I understand, Stone Mountain. Here's a link to the Wausau Daily Herald.

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/wdhlocal/277329988682384.shtml

[xm177e2]

Freepers who just a day ago endorsed legislation that would define certain forms of political activity as "terrorism" (like blocking traffic or causing harm to others) should realize that under those laws, this "patriot" could be charged as a terrorist and given life imprisonment, because he attacked the protester for political reasons.

[Stone Mountain]

I couldnt in good conscience defend someone who hates themself so much that they will take it out on their own country. Thats just my opinion.

I understand you, but I take the opposite view. Unpopular, repugnant speech, even speech that I disagree with, is the speech that I belive most needs defending. Some here have brought up that this kind of speech wouldn't be allowed in many countries, and I say that is precisely why we are better than those countries. We don't stop our citizens from expressing their political views, and we protect them even when we disagree with those views. The way I see it, unpopular speech is the whole point of free speech. I may not agree with what that hippie was saying, but I sure am going to criticize anyone that would censor (or assault) him.

[cardinal4]

Good point. But freedom of speech doesnt mean Freedom of Speech....without repercussion. An example would be telling a USSS agent that I wanted to kill a President. Im allowed to say it, but not without consequence. That is the point that I think is lost here.