When a presenter "spins" the facts they can be made to appear anything the presenter desires to present. "Law" is a term, like many in the English language, which is susceptible to a variety of definitions. The rule you cited could be called a "law" under the general definition "a rule of conduct established and enforced by the authority, legislation, or custom of a given community, state, or nation." There are many laws which do not carry criminal sanctions. (Say like the laws of nature?) Again, what you cited is not a criminal law, it is a suggested rule of etiquette for flag handling. There are no criminal penalties attached, indeed, there are no penalties of any type attached. Just as there are no penalties attached for the horrible violation of fashion rules I observed in court this morning, nor for the discomfort endured by others when one talks with his/her mouth full, in blatant disregard of the customarily accepted laws of etiquette. These are really bad things, but they aren't crimes. (kinda sad, as it was a really unfortunate suit I observed this morning
it needed punishing!)
Yes, as a criminal defense attorney, I have to say 6 months of informal probation, an anger management class and community service is entirely fair for someone who trespassed, took property which did not belong to him, destroyed it, and admitted that he got "carried away" in engaging in this conduct. This gentleman is certainly old enough and should be mature enough to handle a situation he does not like in a manner which does not destroy property that does not belong to him. Military service does not give one the license to destroy other people's property, even if those other people have made you angry.
Mr. Lynch's offer to make restitution was entirely appropriate. However it came after the crime had been reported. It couldn't be "unreported." Again, the organization DID NOT file the complaint. They complained about a crime. Big difference. The prosecutor filed the complaint, the formal charging document. The prosecutor chose to go forward with the case and the student organization could not have stopped that even if they wanted to. Can you point me to something which says the student organization requested that hate crimes be charged? Even if that is an accurate statement, those charges were not brought. The DA did not charge them, generally that means the DA did not think there was merit to the charges.
I have observed the US flag flying in a number of other countries. I have also observed the flags of other countries flown at US government buildings in appropriate circumstances. For example, when I lived in Fresno, it was not unusual for the Fresno City Hall to do so. Fresno has a large Mexican population. They come from a rich cultural heritage worthy of celebration. How does doing that in any way diminish American culture or heritage? What is it that is threatening about recognizing the good in others and celebrating their accomplishments along with them?
"La Raza" is not an official organization, group of organizations, or movement. It is a term, used in a variety of ways, both good and bad, much like the word "Aryan" which also has both good and bad connotations. Thank you for your link. I am very familiar with both the concepts conveyed by the term and with the ways in which the term has been abused. My familiarity comes from involvement in legal actions involving assorted Mexican-American groups, and from marrying into a Mexican family. (As an aside, MEChA, the group focused on in the link you provide, is a very disturbing organization - people often mistakenly refer to them as La Raza.) In any event, the student organization involved in the incident at hand was not a part of that organization.
Here are a couple of links which might provide a bit less biased information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Raza http://www.nclr.org/content/viewpoints/detail/42500/I suspect your inability to see the difference between La Raza and El Centro La Raza has less to do with your language abilities than it does with the fact that people generally see what they want to see. The second link above is particularly helpful in explaining some of your confusion. You approached this issue with a bias. At times, we all do that. But that bias often determines how we present an issue. Here, whether intentional or not, you omitted context and misstated facts, both of which would have provided a more accurate picture of who was involved and what actually happened.
Spin as you will!
AmbergrisCaye.com 
