Valor thieves and Stolen Honor Laws

[lindajdunn]

Actually we do. It's called fancy dress. We don't allow people to impersonate cops - (pretending to) take on their duties and what have you - that's a wholly different topic.

What we're really talking about here are Walter Mitty types. People who live in some sort of fantasyland - for various reasons. Legislation is not inappropriate for such people: it has no deterrent or rehabilitation benefit; legislation will not stop these people dressing up however they feel they want.

I'm sympathetic to the military types who feel the affront caused by this, but really that's all it is; affront. It's not a criminal activity.

I disagree. If they want to engage in fancy dress, let them dress up in stormtrooper or rebel forces gear. Star Trek. Napoleon outfits. Roman emperor outfits. Dr. Who. Let them go to comic book and science fiction conventions or go to Ren Fairs, etc. Those are fun events where everyone participating is aware this is nothing more than cosplay. Wearing the real thing and passing yourself off as a real hero diminishes the honor that rightfully belongs to those who served.

[Gav]

I disagree. If they want to engage in fancy dress, let them dress up in stormtrooper or rebel forces gear. Star Trek. Napoleon outfits. Roman emperor outfits. Dr. Who. Let them go to comic book and science fiction conventions or go to Ren Fairs, etc. Those are fun events where everyone participating is aware this is nothing more than cosplay. Wearing the real thing and passing yourself off as a real hero diminishes the honor that rightfully belongs to those who served.

I suspect that you and I are not going to agree. I am not saying that some lunatic/emotionally needy entity dressing as a veteran (with medals etc) is honourable. What I am saying is that the act of passing a law to criminalise people who live in a fantasy is not proportionate and will not work.

If you like; while you and I might be able to grasp where those boundaries (of good taste?) are, these people won't.


Note: When did cosplay get used to cover fancy dress? Cosplay is a quite specific oriental thing.

[Gav]

Unless they are brought in and given them, eg during natural disasters like Katrina or, at the extreme, under martial law.

I assumed that was a given. "Except in unusual situations..."

[I_luv_saber]

This might well be true in the US not so sure about the UK other than security guards not being allowed to have uniforms that resemble the current uniform. This is a common sense policy because you don't want civilians to confuse officers of the law with petty security guards.

However the job that the police do is completely different to that of the military - and I believe this to be true in both of our countries. So I don't hold that the comparison is actually all that valid.

I'm not sure what else to say. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. To me it just seems like a bad idea to allow the line to be blurred between military personnel and civilians. I don't have anything to back this up with, it's just my logic.

Let's not get into the thin end of the wedge fallacy here. Much more is being made of this than is probably warranted. Are there people - let's face it it's going to need to be groups - dressing and acting like your armed forces in any significant way? Well, there are armed militias in the US but I've never seen one that acted or looked like the US military. The guy in this example was not doing that. He was claiming to be a veteran - probably for the sense of inclusion and esteem that he would gain from the experience.

Well sure, and I'm sure he meant no harm by it, really. I just think the law of unintended consequences should be thought of here...

Just so as we are clear. It's one thing to act like you're in the military (by which I mean doing soldier work or other purposes) it's entirely another to live out a fantasy...

So it's back to the Mittys.

But could you not end up convincing people around you that you are military without actively attempting to deceive?

It seems that simply wearing a matching or close to matching uniform of military personnel is in and of itself an attempt to deceive others into thinking you are in the military.

Why?

Laws exist where people attempt, by deception, to gain a benefit from someone else. Use those laws. Don't dream up new ones to fix a tiny problem...

Well, as I pointed out, whether or not someone is attempting deception is not the point. That is to say, one who is not actively trying to deceive people can still end up awfully close to impersonation as it has tended to be interpreted here.

Policeman have a clear role within your civilian society, soldiers also have a clear role - but that role is not one with civilian powers or do you contend that you live in a military dictatorship?

Of course not, but why blend that line? That doesn't strike you in the least bit as a Bad Idea?

Maybe it is just me... I'll give some more thought as to why my natural first reaction is that it's so ridiculous a notion to allow it.

[Gav]

I'm not sure what else to say. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. To me it just seems like a bad idea to allow the line to be blurred between military personnel and civilians. I don't have anything to back this up with, it's just my logic.

Fair enough. I don't understand what you worried about. But there we go.

And let me reiterate again; I totally get why some soldiers, and bystanders, may feel that sense of affront. I get it. I really do. And I know that being offended doesn't feel good.

Well sure, and I'm sure he meant no harm by it, really. I just think the law of unintended consequences should be thought of here...

But could you not end up convincing people around you that you are military without actively attempting to deceive?

It seems that simply wearing a matching or close to matching uniform of military personnel is in and of itself an attempt to deceive others into thinking you are in the military.

Yeah? And?

Of course not, but why blend that line? That doesn't strike you in the least bit as a Bad Idea?

Maybe it is just me... I'll give some more thought as to why my natural first reaction is that it's so ridiculous a notion to allow it.

To what end? So one random bloke, dressed up as a member of military, walks down the street what power does he have over you? In civvy street he's a civvy.

In my last post to you there was an element of reducing the argument to the absurd. That's because this discussion is entirely absurd (in my opinion).

Just in case anyone misses it (again) let me retiterate what I've already written:

"If you like; while you and I might be able to grasp where those boundaries (of good taste?) are, these people won't."

Does that make them criminally bad? What is the point in criminalising fantasists? Will it make you feel better about the whole situation? Will it make you safer, less exposed to ... I don't know... crime? I really don't think that this situation merits the amount of time I've just expended on it - let alone passing an act through your government.

I find it interesting to note that one of the first people to comment on this - and dismiss it - is (I believe) an active soldier.

[PretAllez]

Perhaps we should just pass a law to ensure that anyone who wears the uniform either has served, or will serve, in that capacity.

As a former Army officer, my first reaction would be to expose him by loudly proclaiming ....

"Great to see you ready for duty! Seeing that you are qualified (point to medals) I believe we have an immediate position for you as a sniper in Afghanistan. I have taken the liberty of discussing this with the Staff (point to other officers) and they agree that given your experience, the paperwork can wait. You will report to HQ at 0530 hrs tomorrow, etc. ....

During the imitator's red-faced bluster ...

"What?? You're not REALLY qualified?? You didn't REALLY serve??? You're just a FAKE?? Well you should have thought of that before you donned the uniform; you've just been drafted. Report to Basic Training immediately" (MUCH worse than a prison sentence, especially given how he got there)

[Gav]

Perhaps we should just pass a law to ensure that anyone who wears the uniform either has served, or will serve, in that capacity.

As a former Army officer, my first reaction would be to expose him by loudly proclaiming ....

"Great to see you ready for duty! Seeing that you are qualified (point to medals) I believe we have an immediate position for you as a sniper in Afghanistan. I have taken the liberty of discussing this with the Staff (point to other officers) and they agree that given your experience, the paperwork can wait. You will report to HQ at 0530 hrs tomorrow, etc. ....

During the imitator's red-faced bluster ...

"What?? You're not REALLY qualified?? You didn't REALLY serve??? You're just a FAKE?? Well you should have thought of that before you donned the uniform; you've just been drafted. Report to Basic Training immediately" (MUCH worse than a prison sentence, especially given how he got there)

Ha ha. You should know I have a lot of sympathy for this point of view! *chuckle*

[dcmdale]

I don't particularly have an opinion, but noticed that someone was sentenced on this law yesterday...

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...nclick_check=1

[erik_blank]

I don't particularly have an opinion, but noticed that someone was sentenced on this law yesterday...

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...nclick_check=1

Carefull on this link for a while, looks like the Mercury News has a driveby download for Malware on it rigt now. When I clicked on the link, I got a popup 'informing' me of a computer update taht is nneeded on my computer to protect against 'malware' using 'Antivirus 7'... This kind of popup over here usually ends with me getting a computer to re-image because the stuff drills down into the registry and boot sector too deep to be cost effective to clean it.

[migopod]

Carefull on this link for a while, looks like the Mercury News has a driveby download for Malware on it rigt now. When I clicked on the link, I got a popup 'informing' me of a computer update taht is nneeded on my computer to protect against 'malware' using 'Antivirus 7'... This kind of popup over here usually ends with me getting a computer to re-image because the stuff drills down into the registry and boot sector too deep to be cost effective to clean it.

NOScript and ABP FireFox plugins. Get them. Use them. Love them.

[Purple Fencer]

So you're going to start arresting people who live in a fantasy... gosh.

Check your own laws about someone wearing a Victoria Cross they did not earn.

It's not about fantasizing....it's about misrepresenting yourself in the real world.

I have no problem with someone wearing a fake Medal of Honor while he's playing an online war game....I DO, as someone who DID serve, have an issue with that same person wearing it in public, presenting himself as a real warrior.

[migopod]

If I go around in a lab coat with a stethoscope claiming to be a doctor, it's not illegal as far as I know unless I attempt to practice medicine. If I walk around in a nice suit claiming to be a lawyer, it's not a problem until I try to practice law or give legal advice. Similarly, impersonating an airline pilot isn't a problem unless I try to gain access to secure areas of airports or fly planes.

I get and totally understand that someone claiming military honours they didn't earn might well tick off people who actually did earn such honours, but unless someone claiming to be a decorated veteran tries to claim VA benefits or GI bill grants or something, all they're doing is getting respect that they didn't earn.

Maybe people who are upset about this should consider that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. If these people didn't have such admiration for decorated veterans they probably wouldn't think to dress up as one.

[Philistine]

I'm not sure how I feel about the law as applied to those who falsely represent they've been awarded a medal. I can see both sides, though I probably lean to the ability to ban it as being unprotected as false speech.

I am somewhat more troubled by the fact that just wearing any medal (and by another statute, a civilian wearing a uniform or a distinctive part) is illegal.

I didn't see any exception for movie/tv/etc. or costume parties (though I didn't do an exhaustive look through the regulations). Also, presumably wearing your parent's uniform or award would also be forbidden.

Personally, I think for the mere wearing of them to be criminalized, an intent to pass oneself off as a current or former soldier would be constitutionally required.

--Philistine

[erooMynohtnA]

Don't even begin to equate someone lying about how much they swing in the breeze with someone who volunteered to put their life on the line, either in peacetime or wartime.

Why not? They are essentially the same thing. If you're lying about your service or length (or girth), you're most likely doing it to impress someone and it's easy to verify or disprove.

I don't feel like quoting everyone's posts. I think a lot of good points have been raised, but I agree mostly with Gav. Also, all the examples given of people fraudulently claiming service are, for me, either not a crime, or are already illegal under simple fraud.

What I don't like about this is that it turns someone's moral judgment into law. Oh, what's wrong with that, you say? Allow me to break it down Sharia style.

There are five basic categories you can group actions into:
Forbidden: Killing another Muslim, eating during Ramadan (daytime)
Undesirable: Partying too hard, not brushing your teeth at all
Neutral: Eating soup
Desirable: Brushing your teeth with a twig, praying too hard
Required: Prayer, God, Muhammad is His prophet

In order to be a Muslim, you must do what is required and can not do what is forbidden. If not, it's excommunication time. However, you can do whatever undesirable stuff you want and ignore all the desirable stuff. Although you'll still get a hard time about it.

Notice that killing another Muslim is forbidden. Muslims are always killing Muslims, but the one doing the killing doesn't see it that way. There are some sects called Takfiri groups that for whatever reason decided they're the only ones who have it right, so they're the only ones who are really Muslims. One of the most common tactics they use is mandating all desirable things required and all undesirable things forbidden. Once they do that, it's easy to wage war on other Muslims.

I don't think anyone in this thread is saying claiming fake medals are desirable. So essentially you have Bush switching something undesirable to something forbidden. I say no to that. America is not some Takfiri organization, and I certainly do not want moral mandates from that dickhead. Get your laws off my body!

I can certainly see how a lot of mischief can be made from impersonating a solder, doctor, police officer, IRS agent, and so forth. However, the mischief in a fake award is the fake award itself. Who cares?

Oh, I forgot, veterans get sand in their vaginas about it. Well, holocaust survivors get sand in their vaginas about Nazi uniforms, illegal. Vegetarians don't like meat, illegal. Hog farmers don't like PETA, illegal. I don't like the color yellow, illegal. What we should outlaw are sandy vaginas.

Besides, as I asked before, what constitutes a military decoration? Medal of Honor? Bronze Star? Joint Service Achievement medal? Ranger tab? Qualification badge? Driver's badge? Combat patch? Unit insignia? DoD Distinguished Public Service Award? A US Army name tape? A Marine anchor?

I find it interesting to note that one of the first people to comment on this - and dismiss it - is (I believe) an active soldier.

Ad hominem!

[Fiat Slug]

I think most of us agree that wearing a medal that was not earned is dishonest. However, I'm not sure if as many people agree if there should be a law against lying (in general). Certainly we have laws against lying to a court of law but should the type of lying represented in the original post be illegal? Do we really want our government to legislate honesty? For me, I'm content to know that this scumbag has been exposed.

.

[Gav]

Check your own laws about someone wearing a Victoria Cross they did not earn.

It's not about fantasizing....it's about misrepresenting yourself in the real world.

I have no problem with someone wearing a fake Medal of Honor while he's playing an online war game....I DO, as someone who DID serve, have an issue with that same person wearing it in public, presenting himself as a real warrior.

Which bit of fanstasy do you not understand?

[phillipmj]

Oh, I forgot, veterans get sand in their vaginas about it. Well, holocaust survivors get sand in their vaginas about Nazi uniforms, illegal. Vegetarians don't like meat, illegal. Hog farmers don't like PETA, illegal. I don't like the color yellow, illegal. What we should outlaw are sandy vaginas.

One reference to sandy vaginas was more than enough, but thanks anyway.

[Purple Fencer]

Which bit of fanstasy do you not understand?

I understand fantasy plenty...I met my wife through a Star Trek writing club....but pretending to be a character out of Trek or LoTR in public is one thing (even outside the confines of a convention)...pretending to be an actual warrior with a chest full of awards is QUITE another, especially if you use that fantasy as a means to scam people out of money.

[Inquartata]

I am somewhat more troubled by the fact that just wearing any medal...a civilian wearing a uniform or a distinctive part) is illegal.

Especially considering that most of them can be bought quite easily and legally. So to can any item of military clothing, again readily and legally.

But then, you can buy actual police badges, too. There are people who collect and trade them. All legal. But wear one, and that's often trouble.

Personally, I think for the mere wearing of them to be criminalized, an intent to pass oneself off as a current or former soldier would be constitutionally required.

Well, there is this:

18 USC § 912. Officer or employee of the United States

Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

A soldier is, I presume, an "officer or employee of the United States", and meets the criteria set out...

Note also that it says "or in such pretended character demands or obtains" some benefit---not "and". It looks as though the simple impersonation is enough...

( In Arizona there's an "and" in the relevant statutes. Even for impersonating a police officer one needs to do something to make someone else act somehow on the belief that the impersonator is what he claims to be. )

Which bit of fanstasy do you not understand?

Out of curiosity, though---ARE there laws against wearing an unearned VC in Britain?

[Gav]

Out of curiosity, though---ARE there laws against wearing an unearned VC in Britain?

Eh, it actually occurred to me that I wasn't sure. I think you were leading towards this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8454715.stm

There was a bit of a fuss about it recently but the Army Act 1955 appears to have been repealed and replaced with the Armed Forces Act 2006:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/c...re/8530189.stm

That's the end point as far as I am aware.

I can't find an offence for wearing unearned medals in the new act but really I am not spending all day reading it. If you are curious here's linky.