# Fake Marine in full uniform at his High School reunion is found out by classmate & arrested With pic **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 12, 2009, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292 "2009-11-12T06:52:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/121 "2009-11-14T00:17:21Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Because vigilanteism is surely the most just method of meteing out punishment. I think he was working the “public shame” angle, not the “beat up by random strangers” angle. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/122 "2009-11-14T00:35:58Z")
I’d be okay with it if Buzz Aldrin punched him in the face. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/123 "2009-11-14T00:46:27Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I think he was working the “public shame” angle, not the “beat up by random strangers” angle. Oh, okay. I probably didn’t get it because I have no shame. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/124 "2009-11-14T01:07:26Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > See, there you go again, pretending that a moral and philosophical issue can always be reduced, in its entirety, to a legal one. I can recognize that your principled objection to abortion should not be dismissed out of hand simply because the issue has been determined by the Supreme Court. I appreciate that your moral objections to the practice transcend the question of whether the practice is legal. > > I recognize what the Stolen Valor law IS, that it was passed by Congress, and that it has been upheld by a federal court. > > But this does not preclude an argument that the law itself still violates the _principles_ of freedom of expression enunciated in the Constitution, and the general ideals of free speech that Americans usually claim to hold dear. I believe that it does, and while i recognize that Congress and the federal courts are the ones who determine the law, i am still at liberty (i assume, although with **robby** around, you never know) to disagree with their judgment on this issue, from a basic standpoint of what i believe constitutes an appropriate level of freedom of expression. Of course you’re free to do that. But in doing so, it seems disingenuous, or at least distracting, to claim that the Constitution protects this conduct. You may safely say, “the ideals of the Constitution should protect this conduct” and be on solid ground. But when you (or anyone) claims that the actual Constitution means X, then we move from a nebulous discussion about what _should be_ to a more defined and rigorous discussion of _what is_. Never once have I said, “The Constitution doesn’t protect a woman’s right to choose.” I’ve often said it shouldn’t, I’ve often said I disagree with the rulings that hold it does, I’ve even said that the TEXT of the Constitution has no support for the view, but I’ve never said that Constitution doesn’t mean that. Because it does, unless and until the statutory law or the caselaw changes. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/125 "2009-11-14T01:15:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But in doing so, it seems disingenuous, or at least distracting, to claim that the Constitution protects this conduct. Well, i can’t speak for anyone else, but i don’t think i’ve ever claimed that it does. Every single argument i’ve been making in this thread, as far as i can remember, has been a “should” argument. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/126 "2009-11-14T01:24:04Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Well, i can’t speak for anyone else, but i don’t think i’ve ever claimed that it does. > > Every single argument i’ve been making in this thread, as far as i can remember, has been a “should” argument. Agreed. I was thinking more of this: > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > “Let’s honor those who fought and died protecting the Constitution by wiping our asses with it!” > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > I have one of those shiny Constitutions with the First Amendment intact. ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/127 "2009-11-14T02:38:52Z")
He was probbly trying to impress a girl ---
**Author:** ![Cubsfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Cubsfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cubsfan)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/128 "2009-11-14T08:29:48Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > More than anything else that’s what gives these phonies away. There is no way they could have attained the rank that they have in the time period that they claim to have done so. The services all have time in service/time in grade requirements. These guys upsell their “service” and make themselves immediately transparent to people who are in the military. If they’d simply claim Sergeant or Lieutenant they’d almost certainly never get caught, but the same ego that makes them invent their careers out of nothing compels them to exaggerate everything about it. You do realize that a Commander in the Navy = Lt Col in the Marines right? And they were at their 20 yr HS reunion together? Making O5 before 20 is the standard. It is also VERY possible to make E-9 in under 20. Happens every year in the AF. Don’t see why it would be different in the Marines, where it is definitely easier to progress up the enlisted ladder (also easier to have stripes taken away). I’m kind surprised you didn’t know this. In my experience the majority of these guys who try to pull stunts like this are middle aged to upper middle aged men who couldn’t serve, regret not serving, or had boring lives and want spice. Idiots. FTR I think the wearing of any official US Military rank, ribbon, medal, occupational badge etc… should be illegal if you haven’t earned it. I don’t think the punishment should be harsh but it should make a statement. Just my 2 bits. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/129 "2009-11-14T08:36:26Z")
I just wanted to say that guy’s head looks like a penis. ---
**Author:** ![Cubsfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Cubsfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cubsfan)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/130 "2009-11-14T08:38:01Z")
> [@robby](#): > > I can’t speak to the law, but as a military veteran, I do not think that it at all appropriate to wear someone else’s decorations, even those of a relative. > > There is no problem with putting them on display, ideally with an annotation indicating the name of the honoree, but actually wearing the awards/decorations can only be interpreted as implying that the wearer was awarded said awards/decorations. I know I’m late to this discussion but I want to say, as a vet in Afgh right now, I agree with this 100%. I would NEVER wear my gramps Korea or Vietnam medals, even in civvies and even if I was trying to honor him. I didn’t earn them. I’ll never wear them. I’ll just look proudly upon them hanging in his shadow box on my office wall. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/131 "2009-11-14T08:39:41Z")
I want to make it illegal for men to dress up as women too. Those fuckers fooled me too many times. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/132 "2009-11-14T12:31:40Z")
> [@Isamu](#): > > I want to make it illegal for men to dress up as women too. Those fuckers fooled me too many times. 😛 Many times? Have you considered changing the bar you hang out in? ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/133 "2009-11-14T16:25:00Z")
> [@Scotty Mo](#): > > He was probbly trying to impress a girl It’s been noted upthread that the offender in the OP has a male partner. Make what you will of homosexuals impersonating Marines, but I do recall from my time in the Amphibious Navy many Marines impersonating homosexuals. Very convinging impersonations, too. 😃 _“Every man thinks less of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been to sea.”_ Samuel Johnson American men who didn’t serve in its armed forces, or didn’t go to college, see a big, big line between themselves and those who did either of those things. I guess it’s because we make our males subject to rites of passsage, instead of just letting everyone acknowledge his own odometer. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/134 "2009-11-14T22:10:23Z")
> [@TokyoPlayer](#): > > What I would really like to see is a law the makes all the people who claim they are ex-Seals to go though the training program. I think this is brilliant. I used to have a customer who was a seal…I knew it because one of his relatives told me–he didn’t go around bragging about it. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/135 "2009-11-14T23:13:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But you’re not the one who gets to decide what those rights are. > > As it happens, we have a system to do that. You can CLAIM the Constitution protects the right to impersonate a member of the armed forces or wear military medals you didn’t earn, but Congress doesn’t agree with you, and neither did the federal court that has considered the issue. > > So what’s your basis for asserting that this law violates the Constitution? Unless the Predsident has appointed you to a federal bench somewhere, I don’t see why we would take your interpretation as the right one, and the actual Congress of the United States and an actual federal district judge’s as the wrong ones. It’s because you write things like this, **Bricker** , that I am prepared to call you the most overrated attorney on these boards. This is a pretty fatuous functionalism, even for you. When the Court in _Lawrence_ can write such things as “_Bowers_ was wrong the day it was decided [by the Supreme Court of the United States],” then surely someone as august as yourself can admit that the Constitution has meaning separate from the pronouncements of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government. It is this fact that gives rise to our most important lawsuits: where there the law speaks with more than one voice. I won’t pass on the quality of the poster’s argument that you are addressing, but I will share that I am a little surprised by your embarrassingly facile argument above. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2009, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/136 "2009-11-15T01:22:28Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > It’s because you write things like this, **Bricker** , that I am prepared to call you the most overrated attorney on these boards. And Mom said I’d never amount to anything. > [@](#): > > This is a pretty fatuous functionalism, even for you. When the Court in _Lawrence_ can write such things as “_Bowers_ was wrong the day it was decided [by the Supreme Court of the United States],” then surely someone as august as yourself can admit that the Constitution has meaning separate from the pronouncements of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government. It is this fact that gives rise to our most important lawsuits: where there the law speaks with more than one voice. > > I won’t pass on the quality of the poster’s argument that you are addressing, but I will share that I am a little surprised by your embarrassingly facile argument above. Utter crap. And I’m not just saying that because of your little love note. I’m saying it because it’s utter crap. The Supreme Court can indeed say that the Supreme Court was wrong, because they have the ability to overturn their prior decisions; to impose a new meaning of the Constitution on the country as a whole. The Fifth Circuit can say what it likes about Fifth Circuit opinions, as long as there’s no Supreme Court precedent to the contrary. Those are functional statements, in which the meaning of the Constitution is actually changed or clarified. But when we discuss what the Constitution means here, we have some choices. We can proclaim, as though pronouncing some deep religious conviction, that the Constitution means X, despite the utter absence of any supporting caselaw, and indeed despite the presence of contravening caselaw. That’s fine. I’ll even allow it can be in GD, which is, after all, the place for witnessing. But witnessing is all it is. It’s more correct, precise, and meaningful to argue that the Constitution SHOULD mean X; you at once acknowledge that the weight of precedent is against you and make clear that you are arguing for a change, not stating an extant rule. When you declare self-righteously that the Constitution means X without such disclaimers, you’re being either obtuse or disingenuous, your little foray into different voices notwithstanding. You are simply witnessing: offering your unsupported personal views as fact, and inviting others to join your beliefs based on those facts. If that’s the system, then states may criminalize abortion, because there’s nothing in the Constitution that says they can’t. Period. Roe? Casey? Shut up, I’m not listening, they’re all wrong, and what I say is right. End of discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2009, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/137 "2009-11-15T03:09:10Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > It’s because you write things like this, **Bricker** , that I am prepared to call you the most overrated attorney on these boards. This is a pretty fatuous functionalism, even for you. When the Court in _Lawrence_ can write such things as “_Bowers_ was wrong the day it was decided [by the Supreme Court of the United States],” then surely someone as august as yourself can admit that the Constitution has meaning separate from the pronouncements of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government. It is this fact that gives rise to our most important lawsuits: where there the law speaks with more than one voice. > > I won’t pass on the quality of the poster’s argument that you are addressing, but I will share that I am a little surprised by your embarrassingly facile argument above. I hope to address **Bricker** ’s post in more depth later (I do have a life outside this message board!) However, before anyone calls me out on it, yes, I should have described **Bricker** ’s position as _formalist_, not _functionalist_. ---
**Author:** ![kidneyfailure](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9f8e36/32.png) [@kidneyfailure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidneyfailure)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2009, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/138 "2009-11-15T03:36:34Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I think he was working the “public shame” angle, not the “beat up by random strangers” angle. All too often the official “public shame w/ pic” penalty, when used, turns out to include an un-official “beat up by random strangers” penalty, also. At the very least he’d get harrassed. “Name and shame” doesn’t really work in the West unless the person involved is, like, 8 years old. ---
**Author:** ![Cubsfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Cubsfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cubsfan)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2009, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/139 "2009-11-15T04:37:02Z")
> [@TokyoPlayer](#): > > What I would really like to see is a law the makes all the people who claim they are ex-Seals to go though the training program. The one that grates on me even more than this is the apparently MASSIVE number of special forces and snipers employed during Vietnam. If I had a dime for every (presumed) Vietnam vet that I met that was “special forces” or a "sniper"during their 2 years of service I would be a a millionaire. In fact, I would guesstimate that 4 out of every 5 VVs I’ve met in my life happened to be SF or snipers, and I’ve met A LOT. They gravitate to me if I’m in public in uniform. I’m sure some subset of these individuals were SF but there’s no chance even a quarter of them were. I’ve never understood why these men feel the need to lie about what they did when they were in. It’s pointless. My gramp was a mess sergeant and never made any bones about it. Doesn’t make him any less of a tough guy to me. ---
**Author:** ![Skylark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Skylark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skylark)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2009, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/140 "2009-11-15T06:30:08Z")
> [@Cubsfan](#): > > My **gramp was a mess sergeant** and never made any bones about it. Doesn’t make him any less of a tough guy to me. He’s a true sadist! /wakka wakka wakka [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292.md?page=8)