Stolen Valour: Another Scumbag

[Phu_Cat]

G.I.'s everywhere have a lingo all their own, so it’s very easy as a 'Nam vet for me or any other Nam vet to spot a ‘poser’ right off. To communicate with Mamasan and Papasan we learned just enough of their language to help us get whatever we needed. But some guys from back in the states never exposed to the Vietnamese isn’t going to know these words and phrases. So if this guy that’s a poser is telling a story, a real vet might say in Vietnamese: “That’s dinky dau”. Meaning “That’s crazy”. But the story teller is gonna have no idea what it means unless he was actually an ‘in-country’ vet because that phrase was so common you couldn’t have NOT learned it if you were in-country for more than two days.

That’s just one of the things a true vet can use to trip up a poser. The second thing the vet should do is remove the ribbons and medals from the poser blouse (shirt to civilians)and then remind him what “stolen valor” means.

Phu Cat

[Northern_Piper]

@Phu_Cat

The second thing the vet should do is remove the ribbons and medals from the poser blouse (shirt to civilians)and then remind him what “stolen valor” means.[/SIZE]

So you’re saying vets should assault non-vets, thereby committing a criminal offence?

[Penfeather]

I think he should have an imaginary court-martial and then be put in front of a pretend firing squad. Then he’ll go to Stolen Valhalla.

[The_Second_Stone]

Sounds to me like the guy has some serious mental/emotional issues and needs treatment.

[Monty]

@Phu_Cat

G.I.'s everywhere have a lingo all their own, so it’s very easy as a 'Nam vet for me or any other Nam vet to spot a ‘poser’ right off. To communicate with Mamasan and Papasan we learned just enough of their language to help us get whatever we needed. But some guys from back in the states never exposed to the Vietnamese isn’t going to know these words and phrases. So if this guy that’s a poser is telling a story, a real vet might say in Vietnamese: “That’s dinky dau”. Meaning “That’s crazy”. But the story teller is gonna have no idea what it means unless he was actually an ‘in-country’ vet because that phrase was so common you couldn’t have NOT learned it if you were in-country for more than two days.

That’s just one of the things a true vet can use to trip up a poser. The second thing the vet should do is remove the ribbons and medals from the poser blouse (shirt to civilians)and then remind him what “stolen valor” means.

Phu Cat

It’s almost funny how wrong you are.

1. Anyone can learn jargon that’s been documented. The example you provided was shown clearly and in context in Casualties of War. Just because someone knows the “lingo” does not mean that person is actually a member of the in-group.

2. Assault is illegal for a reason. Just because your pride is wounded by someone else pretending to belong to your in-group does not exempt you from your obligation to behave in a law-abiding, not to mention rational, manner.

3. There is no such thing as “stolen valor”.

[Monty]

@The_Second_Stone

Sounds to me like the guy has some serious mental/emotional issues and needs treatment.

Which wannabe, the Canadian or the wannabe assailant?

[Nava]

@Morgenstern

I’m not condoning what he did, but in America freedom of speech goes a long way in protecting wackos from being prosecuted for being wackos. Too bad Canada doesn’t enjoy that Constitutional protection.

Yeah, isn’t it amazing how out of almost 200 countries in the world, only one of them is the USA?

[Zakalwe]

@Monty

Which wannabe, the Canadian or the wannabe assailant?

Do we have to choose?

[Monty]

@Zakalwe

Do we have to choose?

[elbows]

What assailant?

[Rune]

@Bozuit

You know what’s worse than all the soldier worship we see nowadays? The reactions of people who were accidentally nice to someone who turns out not to be a soldier.

“Stolen valour” - Jesus Christ. No one would get worked up if someone pretended to be a nurse, or something else useful.

There was a guy on this board once who pretended to be a 9/11 survivor or something. Got people pretty riled up. Holocaust pretenders also tend to get people going. Nothing in the world get nerds upset as much as a hot chick putting on a pair of glasses and pretending to be a nerd.

[Monty]

@elbows

What assailant?

Not assailant, but wannabe assailant. That would be Phu Cat, the poster, not the air base.

[Chimera]

@Nava

Yeah, isn’t it amazing how out of almost 200 countries in the world, only one of them is the USA?

That’s unpossible!

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@RickJay

Inicnetally, I feel obliged to provide a real example to show why the fakers always look like fakers.

Here’s a picture of Bill Fletcher, an old friend of mine. We were in basic training together - our bunks were literally ten feet apart.

Lt.-Col. Bill Fletcher: The Taliban ‘weren’t cutting and running’…

Perhaps it’s just a trick of perspective, but one or the other of his lapel badges appears crooked. So you can’t always tell who are the fakers.

@Rune

…Nothing in the world get nerds upset as much as a hot chick putting on a pair of glasses and pretending to be a nerd.

That never gets me upset, unless she refuses to take her clothes off.

[Sparky812]

@Bozuit

What could be more moronic than finding it ludicrous to get this angry over a guy playing dress up?.

Touché …wait… did you just call yourself a moron?

@Bozuit

I’m beginning to wonder if some people on this board are unaware that it’s not actually currently WWII and that this subject has nothing to do with it.

You’re either completely ignorant history and the facts in this case or a troll? So which is it?

[dba_Fred]

@KarlGauss

He is being charged under Section 419 (as listed upthread).

ETA: I think the guy has suffered enough - lost his job, criminal charges laid, and god knows what’s happening in his domestic life. He needs counselling not a vendetta.

And in a few months he’ll be faking post-traumatic stress disorder.

[Northern_Piper]

Right, but he’ll probably get the symptoms wrong and end up being diagnosed with Seasonal Affective Disorder.

[Acsenray]

@Bryan_Ekers

Ha, I found the footage. His beret looks awful.

The modern military beret looks awful when worn “correctly” too.

The extra material of the beret that falls off to the right should be left open and relaxed, not flattened and tightened against the cap.

[Loach]

@Northern_Piper

However, there is a different offence, which I linked to up thread: 18 USC 702, which makes it an offence to wear the uniform of the armed forces of the United States, “without authority”. That provision does not seem to me to require proof that the accused was consciously trying to impersonate, nor any attempt to benefit.

18 U.S. Code § 702 - Uniform of armed forces and Public Health Service | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

That’s the provision which Justice Black, speaking for the Court, said was constitutional on its face.

It seems to me, not speaking in any way as a US lawyer, that that provision of the USC is very similar to the provision of the Criminal Code of Canada under which Gervais is being charged. Neither one requires any attempt at financial benefit from wearing the uniform, but simply prohibits people from using the uniform of the armed forces without authority.

However, like you, I’m certainly open to correction by someone more knowledgeable in the area.

No, you are correct. 18 USC legal squiggly 702 does read very similar to the Canadian law. I didn’t read through the entire Canadian law so I don’t know if it has a theatrical exception like the US law. The persistent rumor that Hollywood has to get something wrong on the uniform to comply with the law is bogus. However, I have been told that 702 is basically toothless. I don’t know when the last time someone was prosecuted for that. It’s a federal law so good luck getting a fed to investigate whether someone is walking around wearing a uniform and basically not doing anything else illegal.

[Northern_Piper]

Thanks, Loach. I’ve taken a quick skim of s. 412 in my annotated Criminal Code, and there are no reported cases for it, which suggests that it’s very rarely used as well.

So, to summarise:

1. Both Canada and the United States provide constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech/expression;

2. Both Canada and the United States have made it a federal criminal offence to wear the uniform of the national armed forces without lawful authority;

3. The Supreme Court of the United States has unanimously stated that the offence of wearing a uniform of the American military without authority is “a valid statute on its face.”