deleted excessively snarky reply. I’m tired and grouchy.
Here is the federal law in question: 10 USC, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 45, Section 771.
The following section, 10 USC, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 45, Section 772 lists some exceptions, including those for movie and theatrical actors.
It’s fraud if the other criteria for fraud are present. I don’t know what those are, but I know they exist.
I’m active duty right now, and one of the less tangible perks is that people seem extra nice to me when they find out I’m military. Sometimes, this results in small monetary gains. I’ve had meals paid for by strangers when dining in restaurants in uniform with friends, for instance.
Just putting on the uniform and strutting around seems douchey but harmless. However, as soon as the douche attempts to benefit monetarily from the uniform, it should fall under existing fraud laws.
Therefore, I’m voting “not illegal,” because I think it’s covered well enough under existing laws.
I agree with those who say it depends upon the intent. People who wear a medal or a bomber jacket or whatever as a tribute to veterans are doing nothing wrong.
Though I might question whether someone wearing their father’s Medal of Honor every day, even if they don’t try to pass it off as their own, is doing something acceptable.
When I asked, I didn’t mean everyday. I was speaking more along the lines at say, a ceremony honoring him, or something like that. (Or perhaps wearing it pinned under your coat, perhaps.)
Quite frankly, if I owned a family member’s medals*, I wouldn’t wear them, but put them on display, but I was simply asking what protocol is.
*My mother has my grandfather’s dogtags, for example. That’s the closest thing I can think of.
I voted that it shouldn’t be legal. To be clear, I mean cases where someone is actually trying to pass themself off as a veteran, not someone honoring a relative, playing a part in a play, etc.
Vet(if you wanna call it that) here. I could care less. Its just a job. Of course its illegal in cases to defraud people, so saying you are military to gain advantage like VA benefits you are not allowed, or if a job gives extra weight to military service, should of course be illegal, as with all fraud of that nature.
But some guy dressing up as a marine and wearing a bunch of medals to maybe improve his chances of getting laid at a high school reunion, or get some unearned respect and free drinks at the local VFW? Dumb, but certainly not something worthy of being illegal, and absolutely no different than pretending to be a doctor to get laid.
Seriously… It’s just a job. If you want to ridicule people that do this, by all means, go for it. I would join in, most likely. But every single vet is an adult, and adults shouldn’t need their delicate sensibilities protected by a law against morons, and vets shouldn’t be treated as some more special class of citizen that needs to be protected more than the average person.
That. Mind you, I’m from a country where off-duty soldiers and law enforcement officers are specifically forbidden from wearing the uniform.
The people of this country **want **more laws.
The people of this country need more laws.
Congress needs to pass more laws to show it is doing something.
We need to employ more police, more prison guards, more judges, more court recorders, and most of all, we need more lawyers.
Make it illegal.
So let it be written, so let it be done.
I didn’t vote as wearing just a uniform as a costume or whatever should not be illegal.
However, falsely claiming awards is illegal now, and should remain so. As an active duty soldier I can only wear what has been authorized for me to wear as determined by the appropriate authority for each medal. The more prestigious the medal, the higher it has to go up before it can be approved. For me to wear anything I’m not authorized to wear would be violating military regulation which lands me UCMJ(legal action). So in my opinion, to make it illegal for civilians to wear unauthorized rank and medals/ribbons is protecting the military’s right to punish the service members who do so.
Just a different perspective.
I agree with Snite. I voted before I read some of the other interpretations- I can wear my grandfathers WW 1 medals at a ceremony with no problem (worn on a different breast) but if I wore a uniform and donned those medals in order to create a false impression then I think that would be wrong.
It’s fraud.
I voted “non-military background / definitely should be illegal” but my more nuanced position is that it should only be illegal with clear evidence of fraudulent intent–that is, Halloween costumes, actors, and even dudes doing fanboy Airsoft stuff with replica uniforms should be fine. On the other hand, appearing in public in a regulation uniform/with regulation medals to me is prima fascie fraudulent.
–Zeriel, who’s a fanboy Airsoft player unlikely to get prosecuted for his 95%-regulation Spetznaz uniform.
I didn’t vote because none came close to what I would wish. Wear a full uniform to deceive with medals, when you never served, and no punishment is out of the question as far as I’m concerned. Flog, hang, quarter, or whatever.
Where pieces of a uniform or a medal more as a decoration, I got no problem with it. Even if you do it in terms of protest and without respect for what it represents.
Acting, theater, other things ------ about the same as pieces.
Legal. The cries of fraud baffle me.
None of the above. I would say only when it would be equally fraudulent to lie about some other previous occupation.
Verily. Here’s is the Montana Supreme Court’s account of the elements of fraud, which is typical (if perhaps parsed out more finely than most):
Now I’ll give you elements (1), (2), (4), and even (5) and (6)for good measure, that still leaves four other elements left unproven. (I also prefer “falsehood” to “falsity,” but that was the quote.)
(3) is self evident. If the medals don’t mean anything, why wear them in the first place? In the example in the OP, (7) is also self-evident, though obviously that may vary between cases. (9) is iffy.
For what it’s worth, the incident that gave rise to the original thread happened in California. The elements of fraud in California are: “(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity; (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.”
Quoting Lazar v. Superior Court 12 Cal.4th 631, 638 (1996).
I don’t see any showing of damages, but I thought I’d toss in the definition from the state involved. (And I’m not licensed in California; I welcome correction on this cite.)
The damages need not be financial in nature, correct? The observer is damaged by forming an impression of the speaker that is unwarranted. Now, the observer would have to act on that impression - buy you a beer, pick up your tab in a restaurant, or whatever - but I don’t see that being particularly unlikely.