Mark Herbster poses as US Marine Combat Veteran?

[captain_solo]

Quote:Ah! I get it... he's an actor!
That's how he gets away with wearing the uniform... Well, duh!
Ok, Mr Herpderp carry on.

well, that is true. Hypocritical, pompous, self-promoting assholes are commonly found in Hollywood as well as fundyland.

I think the original title of the thread has a better implication as to his nature. "Poser" would describe it even more accurately.

[crystalvca]

The information and the photo of this douch made me throw up a little in my mouth.

[Dude]

(07-16-2012 02:28 PM)Tinas Marine Wrote:  

(07-15-2012 09:29 AM)Bill Wrote:  The Stolen Valor Act was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on the first amendment right to be a douchebag.

What I found out from another friend and MC Vet, who is extremely more knowledgeable and up to date on this stuff, is that a person can lie about being in the military. That's free speech but it's still against the law to dress in a uniform that you didn't earn, especially if you've never been in the military.

For example, a person could wear a tuxedo someplace and have all the medals he wanted penned to his jacket claiming that he's military. Morally wrong but by law that's ok because that's free speech. He can say what he wants.

That same person puts on a uniform and wears the same medals, he violated the Stolen Valor Act even if he never says a thing.

I'm also told that in the movies the actors' uniforms have obvious mistakes, such as a medal is placed upside down and/or they'll use a weapon and/or vehicle that is not of that time period. Example would be in Vietnam movies the actors would carry an M16-A2 but it's not historically accurate because they only had the M16 or some other weapon available at the time. This is done on purpose to not violate the Stolen Valor Act.

To expand on this, it's not the Stolen Valor Act (SVA) that Herbster would be violating, as the SVA is a pretty recent law. It's been illegal to impersonate a marine (or soldier, etc.) for a long time. The government has a legal interest in protecting the certainty of the public of whether they are dealing with an actual member of the military.

On the other hand, SVA dealt with claims of whether a person was a veteran and had received a certain reward. The government has no great interest in protecting veteran and award status since people do not show up at natural disaster scenes and proclaim they are in charge because they earned a Souhtwest Asia Expeditionary Force Medal.

Active duty soldiers do actually show up at disaster scenes and take charge, so protecting the uniform is important and impersonation is a crime.

[exOBCstudent]

I'd assume it would hold the same or similar penalties as impersonating a LEO. Is that correct?

[Bill]

Cite the statute you reference, please.

(07-16-2012 08:53 PM)Dude Wrote:  

(07-16-2012 02:28 PM)Tinas Marine Wrote:  What I found out from another friend and MC Vet, who is extremely more knowledgeable and up to date on this stuff, is that a person can lie about being in the military. That's free speech but it's still against the law to dress in a uniform that you didn't earn, especially if you've never been in the military.

For example, a person could wear a tuxedo someplace and have all the medals he wanted penned to his jacket claiming that he's military. Morally wrong but by law that's ok because that's free speech. He can say what he wants.

That same person puts on a uniform and wears the same medals, he violated the Stolen Valor Act even if he never says a thing.

I'm also told that in the movies the actors' uniforms have obvious mistakes, such as a medal is placed upside down and/or they'll use a weapon and/or vehicle that is not of that time period. Example would be in Vietnam movies the actors would carry an M16-A2 but it's not historically accurate because they only had the M16 or some other weapon available at the time. This is done on purpose to not violate the Stolen Valor Act.

To expand on this, it's not the Stolen Valor Act (SVA) that Herbster would be violating, as the SVA is a pretty recent law. It's been illegal to impersonate a marine (or soldier, etc.) for a long time. The government has a legal interest in protecting the certainty of the public of whether they are dealing with an actual member of the military.

On the other hand, SVA dealt with claims of whether a person was a veteran and had received a certain reward. The government has no great interest in protecting veteran and award status since people do not show up at natural disaster scenes and proclaim they are in charge because they earned a Souhtwest Asia Expeditionary Force Medal.

Active duty soldiers do actually show up at disaster scenes and take charge, so protecting the uniform is important and impersonation is a crime.

[Bill]

(07-17-2012 06:58 AM)exOBCstudent Wrote:  I'd assume it would hold the same or similar penalties as impersonating a LEO. Is that correct?

Horse--->Cart. The alleged statute should be cited. Then it can be compared. Impersonating a LEO is a whole separate issue because of their statutory authority. I don't believe there is a law equating the wear of a military uniform in the same context.

[exOBCstudent]

(07-17-2012 11:00 AM)Bill Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 06:58 AM)exOBCstudent Wrote:  I'd assume it would hold the same or similar penalties as impersonating a LEO. Is that correct?

Horse--->Cart. The alleged statute should be cited. Then it can be compared. Impersonating a LEO is a whole separate issue because of their statutory authority. I don't believe there is a law equating the wear of a military uniform in the same context.

I was speaking in the context of a situation where local military is performing duties/on orders in the area (think natural disaster, chaos, etc..) and a person wears the uniform to take advantage or gain access/privileges during that time. That would be the most advantageous situation that I could think of for a person to take advantage of that loophole.

That's the same reason that I'd assume folks would wear a police uniform as well although I understand the "jurisdictional" authority difference there.

[Bill]

There are specific statutes state by state governing actions during a declared state of emergency. That makes sense, if included regarding National Guard. The idea of he wear of a USMC uniform by a non-Marine being illegal doesn't mesh with that.

[Mommy2Kids]

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C45.txt

10 USC CHAPTER 45 - THE UNIFORM
Sec. 771. Unauthorized wearing prohibited

-STATUTE-
Except as otherwise provided by law, no person except a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the case may be, may wear -
(1) the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform, of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or
(2) a uniform any part of which is similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps.

There is more on the site, but this is the part to which people are referring.

[Chuck Travels]

Here's Marky wearing a Navy Uniform. Incorrectly too.


This is a case of inbred stupidity.