People are disgusting

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I am so ticked off right now I do not know how to express myself within the guidlines of the forum...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/11/th ... ime-heist/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[shortysboy09]

That was pretty low of those theives to do that...

They will get what they deserve one way or another.

[LarryH]

Hanging's too good for them.

[Quahog]

We live in a country now where nothing is sacred. They're attacking our flag, our rights, our belief in God, our Constitution and now even our war memorials. As a veteran, I can truly understand the outrage. As an American, I can only take solace in my belief that there will be a judgment day when we each will have to stand before God and account.

[PJK]

I stand up and salute our country for being a free one! A country where people can express their beliefs openly and without risk of incarceration.

With that said, I also feel it is reprehensible that someone would deface a monument erected in honor of those that have DIED protecting our freedom of speech. These people should be found and made an extreme example of. Theft is a crime, defacing a monument is a crime and trespassing is a crime. I I agree, hanging is too good for them. I say we lock them in a glass cell that is right next to the restored monument they defaced. This way they can spend the next 50 years looking at it and everyone else can spend the next 50 years looking at them suffer.

I salute all those that have served our country, those that are still with us and those that are with God!

[A-R]

Putting a forum-relevant spin on this, if you were in TEXAS and you saw this happening could you and would you shoot the night time thieves?

Some relevant PCs ...

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

[seniorshooteress]

There is something VERY wrong going on in our country that some people/organization would even think of doing something like this much less actually doing it. IMO, unless some one comes foreward with information whoever did this deed will not be found much less punished. I can't help but think, what's next to come down? How long will it be before some group takes offense to the Statue of Liberty and we have to cover her with a box or tarp til the courts decide to keep it or tear it down? This stuff has got to end. I am not an overly religious person but GOD has been in our nation a lot longer than some of the radicals that have decided to seperate church and state. Why do our elected officals even waste their time debating these things? Just tell these folks to go suck and egg and leave our country and beliefs alone. If they find our culture so offensive, GO TO ANOTHER COUNTRY! Just leave our constitution and belief in GOD alone. I don't see anyone turning down our money that says, "In GOD we trust".

[cougartex]

We live in a country now where nothing is sacred. They're attacking our flag, our rights, our belief in God, our Constitution and now even our war memorials. As a veteran, I can truly understand the outrage. As an American, I can only take solace in my belief that there will be a judgment day when we each will have to stand before God and account.

[The Annoyed Man]

I say we lock them in a glass cell that is right next to the restored monument they defaced. This way they can spend the next 50 years looking at it and everyone else can spend the next 50 years looking at them suffer.

They wouldn't last more than a day or two without water. The Mojave is flat brutally hot.

[Oldgringo]

Did not the courts precipitate this outrage when they declared this religious symbol to be illegal on federal property?

Bill Clinton was right when he said, speaking about/to the Tea Party, that negative speech could beget negative actions by some. It's true what goes around, comes around. We have the federal courts to blame for this attack on the memories of the fallen heroes of yesteryear. Why are federal judges still apointed for life?

The above having been said, get the ropes!

[joe817]

Unbelievable and disgusting! Hard for me to understand why people would stoop so low to do such a thing.

[txmatt]

As someone in favor of the separation of church and state, I still can't understand the problem with a war memorial in the form of a cross that was erected in the 1930's. If it were going up today on federal land, I could see the problem, but this is absurd. And the court case was equally ridiculous. The ACLU wanted to force the VFW/fed gov't to take down the cross, give it officially to the VFW and then allow them to erect it in the exact same spot which is/would then be transferred into private ownership. And now this. I just don't understand how anyone could think tearing down a war memorial is OK, regardless of how one might feel about the form it took.

[TLE2]

The 75-year-old monument was the target of a longstanding legal challenge from the ACLU, which charged that the cross is a religious symbol that shouldn't be allowed on public land.

The ACLU needs to go to France and try this against the Normandy American Cemetery. They would not make it out of there alive. Why do we put up with this distortion of the original words:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;