Michael Crook, a South Jersey resident, spits on the grave of a solider in the Atlantic County Veteran's cememtery in this disturbing video. He claims that veterans are not heroes, and do not deserve to be buried at taxpayer expense in a special cemetary.
Free speech gives him the right to express this opinion on YouTube and on his website - but does it give him the right to spit on the grave of a veteran? He names the soldier by name, then spits right on his grave. I think that free speech does NOT include the right to spit out your bodily fluids onto someone's grave. He also also names the soldier by name - can you imagine being this man's family and finding this out on the internet? What an awful thing! My father was a Navy veteran of WWII and if someone spit on his grave, I would be horrified. As it is, I'm sickened and ashamed that a person like this lives in my area. Is there something that can be done about this? Please tell me this isn't legal!
What do you think- does free speech justfy spitting on a veteran's grave?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 153
nothing any different than some like Tony S like to say about vets, those presently serving, or just plain anyone who disagrees with him on this war.
free speech has nothing to do with it--only the level/nature of response an offended party can take.
that man in the grave died to give that creep that right to spit on his grave
FREEDOM DIDNT COME FREE
"This big dog will fight
When you rattle his cage
And you'll be sorry that you messed with
The U.S. of A
'Cause we'll put a boot in your ass
It's the American way"
This idiot would have found my boot in his a$$
Illegal? Probably not. Immoral? Yes. Hazardous to one's health? Very likely. Grounds for a civil lawsuit? Hmmm.
It makes me sick to see anyone spit in public.
I say ignore him.
I don't think he proved anything except that he is a jerk.
Oh and I would say this guy has a serious grudge. I did a little research and apparently he tired for years to get into the Army but they would not take him.
Here is some info about that.
http://maroonedinmarin.blogspot.com/2008/06/left-wing-scumbag-spits-on-graves-of.html
that solder gave his life for US all!!
they dont deserve to be spit on!!
Free speech also entails the right to freedom of expression and that includes flag burning and spitting.
Graveyards for veterans are public not private land for the most part.
So there fore this person is expressing himself and within his rights.
Now dont shoot the messenger on this.
Morally wrong? Yes
The irony is that the veteran, as many others, died defending that man's freedom to dos what he did.
And since these people are dead it isnt assault and spit is composed of 99% water so it isnt even considered a hazardous liquid.
That may be the exact the opposite reaction he was looking for-- or maybe not.
When we exercise our right to free speech, we must expect and accept the consequences.
In the meantime, I'll be spitting in a bucket, in case he passes on...
No, you don't. Spitting on someone is considered assault, and you can be prosecuted for it.
"It could be considered defacing a grave, which is a crime --isn't it?"
As I understand it, vandalizing a grave is a crime. But honestly, I think this is more of an emotional issue than a legal one.
Bradford Bishop, William Calley, George Hassell, Perry Smith, Daryl Holton, John List, Jeffrey Lundgren, Timothy McVeigh, Jay Wesley Neill, Terry Nicholls, and Eric Robert Rudolph all had two things in common -- they were all veterans, and convicted mass murderers.
How many people would put their boot in the ass of someone for spitting on the graves of any of these men? Particularly if that someone was a friend or family member of one of their 230 victims?
What makes you think that? Did you try to verify whether or not free speech includes spitting on the ground?
He also also names the soldier by name - can you imagine being this man's family and finding this out on the internet? What an awful thing! My father was a Navy veteran of WWII and if someone spit on his grave, I would be horrified.
Vet or not, nobody would be pleased to see something like this. My father was a vet, but I would not be horrified, probably because he taught me to ignore ignorant people and I know that spit isn't going to reach or change him in any way.
As it is, I'm sickened and ashamed that a person like this lives in my area.
Why should you be sickened and ashamed? You aren't responsible for him and he hasn't done anything to affect your life. Aren't there some criminals or warmongers in your area that deserve your energy more?
Is there something that can be done about this? Please tell me this isn't legal! Have you asked the police or an attorney? They probably could advise you better than the people on Gather.
"A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person's will by another person, or by an object or substance put in motion by that other person. Please note that an offensive touching can constitute a battery even if it does not cause injury, and could not reasonably be expected to cause injury. A defendant who emphatically pokes the plaintiff in the chest with his index finger to emphasize a point may be culpable for battery (although the damages award that results may well be nominal). A defendant who spits on a plaintiff, even though there is little chance that the spitting will cause any injury other than to the plaintiff's dignity, has committed a battery."
An assault involves:
"An intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force;
Under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril;
Where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented.
Note that an assault can be completed even if there is no actual contact with the plaintiff, and even if the defendant had no actual ability to carry out the apparent threat. For example, a defendant who points a realistic toy gun at the plaintiff may be liable for assault, even though the defendant was fifty feet away from the plaintiff and had no actual ability to inflict harm from that distance."
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/assault_battery.html
It is not battery it is not assault it is freedom of speech and expression.
And for all of the people who want to kick this guys butt...have you ever thought that is exactly what he wants you to do. He is very much aware that he is tettering on the edge of law and knows for sure that he is pissing people off. He is trying to add an extra second or two to his pathetic 15 minutes of ill gotten fame.
I wonder how he would feel if someone did that to one of his relatives??
He is spitting on someone's brother, sister , mother, father, uncle, aunt, grandmother, grandfather, friend's grave.
What a jerk. He's not only talking about today's soldiers, but soldiers from the past. He said they "feasted" off the government. Feasted? I'd like to see this guy survive in the military.
even sex?
It does NO good to put down soldiers who have literally give up their lives no matter what your beliefs about War are. That is just ignorant and silly of this man.
Second, it is doubly wrong to spit on the grave of a person who was willing to give up his own life in defense of the freedoms that this person is so willing to flaunt. Throughout our countries history most men in the armed forces had little choice in the matter; they followed their call to duty when they were drafted. Those who were lucky enough to volunteer are heroes so well beyond this jerk that it isn't funny.
Throught the world there are people with no rights whatsoever. People who are beaten near to death in order to get them to vote in sham elections for their "elected" dictator. People who are thrown in jail and tortured for just thinking against the established norm. Countries where you would get your brains blown out for doing an even lesser offense. Those people died so you can have those freedoms; people are free, but not so free as to harm others or the memories of others. FOR SHAME!
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that intentionally spitting on someone qualifies as simple assault, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 113(a)(5). Writing for the Ninth Circuit, Judge M. Margaret McKeown ruled that "non-injurious but intentional, offensive contact (even if relatively minor) satisfies the requirement for simple assault under the battery theory." In some cases, such as that of Anthony Bryan Weitherow, people have even been charged and convicted of aggravated assault for spitting on somebody.
In any case, spitting on a thing doesn't actually hurt anybody (although it may hurt somebody's feelings), and in my opinion shouldn't be a crime.
Why not?
"Those who were lucky enough to volunteer are heroes so well beyond this jerk that it isn't funny."
William Calley volunteered, and was convicted on 22 counts of premeditated murder after ordering his men to kill everybody (over 500 people -- including women, children, and babies) in the villages of My Lai, Binh Tay, and My Khe)
Timothy McVeigh volunteered, and was convicted on eight counts of first degree murder after bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people.
They're both vets and they volunteered to join the Army. Are they heroes?
I agree. It's ugly, but not a crime.
Though not really a conservative and not prone to violence, I believe that this is a case best handled in the private sector. I'm certain the individual will not continue his activities too long as eventually someone related to the person whose grave he's spitting on will witness it and make a calculated decision between their view of honor and the very minimal penalties for simple assault.