This is wrong - American flag flown upside down as a protest - American Police Beat Forums powered by OfficerResource

**Five-0** · #1 07-11-09, 12:02 AM

Dispute over flag protest erupts in Wisc. village - Yahoo! News
Dispute over flag protest erupts in Wisc. village

By ROBERT IMRIE, Associated Press Writer Robert Imrie, Associated Press Writer Fri Jul 10, 2:44 pm ET

WAUSAU, Wis. – An American flag flown upside down as a protest in a northern Wisconsin village was seized by police before a Fourth of July parade and the businessman who flew it — an Iraq war veteran — claims the officers trespassed and stole his property.
A day after the parade, police returned the flag and the man's protest — over a liquor license — continued.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin is considering legal action against the village of Crivitz for violating Vito Congine Jr.'s' First Amendment rights, Executive Director Chris Ahmuty said.
"It is not often that you see something this blatant," Ahmuty said.
In mid-June, Congine, 46, began flying the flag upside down — an accepted way to signal distress — outside the restaurant he wants to open in Crivitz, a village of about 1,000 people some 65 miles north of Green Bay.
He said his distress is likely bankruptcy because the village board refused to grant him a liquor license after he spent nearly $200,000 to buy and remodel a downtown building for an Italian supper club.
Congine's upside-down-flag represents distress to him; to others in town, it represents disrespect of the flag.
Hours before a Fourth of July parade, four police officers went to Congine's property and removed the flag under the advice of Marinette County District Attorney Allen Brey.
Neighbor Steven Klein watched in disbelief.
"I said, 'What are you doing?' Klein said. "They said, 'It is none of your business.'"
The next day, police returned the flag.
Brey declined comment Friday.
Marinette County Sheriff Jim Kanikula said it was not illegal to fly the flag upside down but people were upset and it was the Fourth of July.
"It is illegal to cause a disruption," he said.
The parade went on without any problems, Kanikula said.
Village President John Deschane, 60, an Army veteran who served in Vietnam, said many people in town believe it's disrespectful to fly the flag upside down.
"If he wants to protest, let him protest but find a different way to do it," Deschane said.
Congine, a Marine veteran who served in Iraq in 2004, said he intends to keep flying the flag upside down.
"It is pretty bad when I go and fight a tyrannical government somewhere else," Congine said, "and then I come home to find it right here at my front door."

213th · #2 07-11-09, 12:06 AM

Usually i'm against law suits, but I hope he sues the ever living crap outta them.

I don't necessarily agree with his way to protest, but in and of itself flying the flag upside down isn't disrespectful to it.

**MacLean** · #3 07-11-09, 12:12 AM

Illegal to cause a disruption?

I fail to see how that rose to a breech of peace - the issue has been clearly identified as a first amendment issue.

**Five-0** · #4 07-11-09, 12:22 AM

I would really like to hear the city's attorney tell of the legal justification for seizing a citizen's property without due process. This disturbance justification is crap. He was on his own property. I could see an in if he was standing in the middle of a public street protesting, but this is flat out wrong.

**121Traffic** · #5 07-11-09, 12:24 AM

I hope that DA is held accountable but I'm not ready to hang the individual cops out yet. I definitely think the village should pay out the nose.

**Five-0** · #6 07-11-09, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 121Traffic

I hope that DA is held accountable but I'm not ready to hang the individual cops out yet. I definitely think the village should pay out the nose.

My money is on an unlawful order by the egomaniac mayor. Reason number 356 why I will never work for a small municipal police department again.

Terminator · #7 07-11-09, 12:40 AM

An absolute overstep by local officials. And I'm not letting the cops off as easy in this case as others. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. If I was ordered to do that, I would have said no. And I'm being honest.

**MacLean** · #8 07-11-09, 01:10 AM

Agreed, reps.

TXCharlie · #9 07-11-09, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maclean

Illegal to cause a disruption?

I fail to see how that rose to a breech of peace - the issue has been clearly identified as a first amendment issue.

Yep, didn't the Supreme Court even uphold public flag burning?

**MacLean** · #10 07-11-09, 03:01 AM

SCOTUS case out of your state Chuck, thought you would recall it.

Texas v. Johnson

**mack** · #11 07-11-09, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terminator

If I was ordered to do that, I would have said no. And I'm being honest.

In their defense Term, I know we were told that you follow the order first and if you have a problem with it then you take it up the chain of command but you follow the order first. I got a written repremanded for questioning an order even though I followed the order, I questioned it first. So, even if the officers disagreed with the order to remove the flag they may have had to do it then questioned it after.

**ChesCopPodz** · #12 07-11-09, 10:16 AM

The town is gonna be hurting after the lawsuit.

While it may be protected free speech, I believe that anyone offended should have the right to go kick him in the junk.

Terminator · #13 07-11-09, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mack

In their defense Term, I know we were told that you follow the order first and if you have a problem with it then you take it up the chain of command but you follow the order first. I got a written repremanded for questioning an order even though I followed the order, I questioned it first. So, even if the officers disagreed with the order to remove the flag they may have had to do it then questioned it after.

I'm simply not that officer who's going to do something illegal or immoral because it was an order from a superior at work. In fact, since when are you bound to follow illegal or immoral orders? That's the exception to following orders.

They could take any kind of action against me that they wanted afterwords, and then I'd sue, win, and buy a new car with a licence plate that said 'TxVOC.'

**Twan007** · #14 07-11-09, 12:17 PM

I have to agree with Term - there is no way in the world that you can make me follow an illegal order... and committing a theft from someone's private property is just that, an illegal order

The dept could write me up, suspend me, whatever they think is necessary - and I would take that butt to court and win any day of the week...

TXCharlie · #15 07-11-09, 12:37 PM

I usually don't like unions, but in that case it would be convenient to belong to a police union that will fight on your behalf in court against bullshit charges and administrative wrongs.

I joined CLEAT (Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas) specifically for that reason. They also lobby heavily in the state Legislature to kill bad bills and talk up good bills. I'm sure most states have similar organizations.

Their mission statement: "To ensure that our members' rights and interests are protected by providing exceptional legal representation, legislative and political power, assistance in labor negotiations, and leadership / association development."

CLEAT

**JSO85360** · #16 07-11-09, 04:12 PM

I defend his right to express his feelings, but I find it very dis-tasteful, and coming from a fellow Marine, a little upsetting. He could have found another way to protest. He was was not in "distress". If he feels like that's the way to protest, my way to protest his method would be to never eat or drink in his establishment whether he gets his liquor license or not, and whether his is the only eatery in the town. He'd never see a penny of my money, except in the lawsuit he wins and my taxes he takes to the bank after winning it.

**MacLean** · #17 07-12-09, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSO85360

I defend his right to express his feelings, but I find it very dis-tasteful, and coming from a fellow Marine, a little upsetting. He could have found another way to protest. He was was not in "distress". If he feels like that's the way to protest, my way to protest his method would be to never eat or drink in his establishment whether he gets his liquor license or not, and whether his is the only eatery in the town. He'd never see a penny of my money, except in the lawsuit he wins and my taxes he takes to the bank after winning it.

Some Marines, and for that matter Airmen, Sailors, and Soldiers - are becoming distressed at the fact that politicians are wiping their ass with the Constitution.

Protest is sometimes distasteful.

**armsmaster270** · #18 07-12-09, 08:39 PM

I hope the city pays the 200,000 he has spent and then some.

**JSO85360** · #19 07-18-09, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maclean

Some Marines, and for that matter Airmen, Sailors, and Soldiers - are becoming distressed at the fact that politicians are wiping their ass with the Constitution.

Protest is sometimes distasteful.

Agreed, but we get a chance every election to get rid of them. Our country isn't perfect, and never will be, but I'd rather be here than anywhere else. Just from the replies here defending him and his right to protest, his method of protest, is reason enough to realize this is the best country to be in. Some places would just send their royal guards over to kill him and burn his building down, and possibly kill all his relatives. I like the land of the free, even if it isn't "free".