Man faces 13 years in prison for writing in chalk outside bank!

I'm seeing a lot of people making the argument that he had no right to "Deface public property" (even though most taggers who use spray paint, which is much harder to clean because it requires you to paint over it entirely, face only misdemeanor charges) are convinced that, because its public property and is cared for by the city, they are justified in prosecuting him.

Maybe they would be justified, if the punishment was reasonable.

But its not.

Its ridiculous.

He would have gotten a shorter sentence if he had ROBBED the bank. Fact.

Given it would have been a first offense, robbing the bank would have gotten him five to ten.

Scary evil chalk writing gets him thirteen years.

And some of you are actually advocating this?

I am willing to bet ANY amount of money that, if this man was doing the exact same thing, only drawing "Support the Troops" messages everywhere, he would be on the news getting praises and honorable mentions, rather than facing a preposterous trial.

It wasn't the action that tipped the scale.

It was the message.

To suggest otherwise is frankly ignorant and outrageously stupid.

Originally posted by XxNightAngelusxX
I'm seeing a lot of people making the argument that he had no right to "Deface public property" (even though most taggers who use spray paint, which is much harder to clean because it requires you to paint over it entirely, face only misdemeanor charges) are convinced that, because its public property and is cared for by the city, they are justified in prosecuting him.

Maybe they would be justified, if the punishment was reasonable.

But its not.

Its ridiculous.

He would have gotten a shorter sentence if he had ROBBED the bank. Fact.

Given it would have been a first offense, robbing the bank would have gotten him five to ten.

Scary evil chalk writing gets him thirteen years.

And some of you are actually advocating this?

I am willing to bet ANY amount of money that, if this man was doing the exact same thing, only drawing "Support the Troops" messages everywhere, he would be on the news getting praises and honorable mentions, rather than facing a preposterous trial.

It wasn't the action that tipped the scale.

It was the message.

To suggest otherwise is frankly ignorant and outrageously stupid.

Personally, I think that everyone here realizes that the potential punishment doesn't fit the crime but in the eyes of the law what he did was a violation. We can only hope that when he is found guilty (and I think he will be) that the judge just throws it out or gives him some community service.

There's an old Star Trek: TNG episode where that little brat Wesley Crusher is playing football and falls into a marked off area that's growing a shrub or something. According to their rules, he must be punished by execution. Of course, Picard gets him out of it while pissing off the alien culture but the point here is that laws are basically boundaries of what a person can or cannot do and without it society cannot exist. Mr. Sidewalk Serial Chalk-er has to be accountable for breaking the law.

.

reply to post by StrangeTimez


the government just really hates free speech don't they ( and they love banks)

Another example of why America is being flushed down the sewer. The tax payers are punished right along side him. Now we will have to pay $400,000 to house him for the next 13 years in prison. All of this over a maybe $100 dollars worth of damage. Supposedly it was $6,000 dollars worth of damage. Hell even if you bought a brand new pressure washer for $500-$1000 for a really really nice one. Cleaner solution maybe $20, labor $100, gasoline $5. That judge and bankers are smoking crack.

And the moral of this story kids.
For any proper dictatorship to work (and this is a dictatorship in the usa) you need as the name suggest a proper DICK to make it work. Long live el presedente..

Wow you just cant go around desecrating these holy temples to mammon.

I guess i need to stop saying bad things about usa. How far can those killer drone things with the misiles fly? Haha

reply to post by Stealthwatch


Don't need to fly far. US bases are all over

Only in america :')

This article brings up an extremely valid point. If a judge will do this to a citizen because of a bank. Wouldn't that tell you who the people are controlling everything at this point.

Why are we always yelling about the Gov. When we all know the banks control the money. Control the money control the people.

Why are we as citizens not going after banks. Isn't this the foundation of most of our problems.

Imagine if the banks called in all of their loans (which they all can do) all at once. Foreclosed on your houses, closed down businesses, farms and Yes big businesses. How many businesses are self sustaining? Not many. You know what would happen. The Great Depression. That's what caused the first one.

If banks decided they were going to shut down and keep your money. What would you do? yep. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. What would you do sue them... What do you do now when they charge you an overdraft fee that's unfair. You do nothing.. They take your money and you except it. Even if the error was theirs.

You ever wonder why your online banking doesn't have the same information as the banks network does? I find it sneaky and suspicious. They have records of your money that you don't have access to.



Do you find it funny that it's harder and harder to get a check from the Gov or from a job. Hell most employers will require you to have direct deposit. Most Gov agencies now require you to either A: Except only direct deposit or get a payment by way of a debit card (for a fee of course). Social security checks and child support payments included. To control your money. Yes the banks and the Gov can seize a bank account for any reason. What will you do about it. Nothing.

I don't know how many times I have heard the expression. Follow the money find the truth. This is no exception.

MandT bank last year made 32 Billion. That's right Billion with a "B". Can you guess how they made it? Over draft fee's. That's just overdraft fee's. That's 842105263 people with a fee of the 38.00 a piece.

SEE HERE

If you think for one second you control your money. You may want to rethink the situation.

It was put to me recently by a bank. That we are not a not for profit business. We make money any way we can!

I should start a thread on this one!

Maybe we all need to start writing on the sidewalks in front of banks.

reply to post by Isittruee


Children's sidewalk chalk, and he faces thirteen YEARS???? Plus, the "judge" tosses out the Constitution? So much for a real legal system, or any real freedom!

Originally posted by alfa1

Does "freedom of speech" normally extend to acts of vandalism?

I mean if, for example, somebody you didnt like (eg. stupid neighbor) was to vandalise your own house in a similar way, then would you also be arguing that he has a right to do this because of "free speech"?

Because the law is supposed to work the same way, whether you agree with the person's ideals or not.

Sidewalks are public property.
2nd.

The charges were not brought against him because he made marks on the sidewalk with water soluble chalk. The charges were brought because of the message conveyed by those marks, because of the content of his "speech".

Does anyone think they'd bring these criminal charges against someone who marked the sidewalk with chalk for a game of hop scotch? If what he did is vandalism then these cops need to similarly charge every kid who marks the sidewalk with chalk for hop scotch. That analogy shows how ludicrous this prosecutor and judge are in their decisions regarding the case.

Originally posted by dubiousone
The charges were not brought against him because he made marks on the sidewalk with water soluble chalk. The charges were brought because of the message conveyed by those marks, because of the content of his "speech".

Does anyone think they'd bring these criminal charges against someone who marked the sidewalk with chalk for a game of hop scotch? If what he did is vandalism then these cops need to similarly charge every kid who marks the sidewalk with chalk for hop scotch. That analogy shows how ludicrous this prosecutor and judge are in their decisions regarding the case.

Never go to law school. You will fail. It had nothing to do because of the content, it was the intent. Kids who innocently mark for a game of hopscotch are fine. People who mark with malicious intent are not fine.

Intent. Not Content.

Originally posted by seamus

Originally posted by alfa1

Does "freedom of speech" normally extend to acts of vandalism?

I mean if, for example, somebody you didnt like (eg. stupid neighbor) was to vandalise your own house in a similar way, then would you also be arguing that he has a right to do this because of "free speech"?

Because the law is supposed to work the same way, whether you agree with the person's ideals or not.

Sidewalks are public property.
2nd.

Many times the property owners are responsible for maintaining the sidewalk. Regardless, it's still vandalism. A courthouse is public property, can I go spray paint messages on it?

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by Isittruee

 

Children's sidewalk chalk, and he faces thirteen YEARS???? Plus, the "judge" tosses out the Constitution? So much for a real legal system, or any real freedom!

So much for you having a working brain to understand what is going on, or at least read where it has been explained by myself and others over and over in the thread.

Originally posted by AmmonSeth
Only in america :')

Or any other country that says vandalism is illegal.

Originally posted by sean
Another example of why America is being flushed down the sewer. The tax payers are punished right along side him. Now we will have to pay $400,000 to house him for the next 13 years in prison. All of this over a maybe $100 dollars worth of damage. Supposedly it was $6,000 dollars worth of damage. Hell even if you bought a brand new pressure washer for $500-$1000 for a really really nice one. Cleaner solution maybe $20, labor $100, gasoline $5. That judge and bankers are smoking crack.

Where did it say he was going to jail for 13 years? Where did it say he was going to jail at all? Please show me where they list the jail sentence they are asking for. Thanks.

Originally posted by truthontheloose
reply to post by StrangeTimez

 

the government just really hates free speech don't they ( and they love banks)

Yes. Damn commies wont let you scream " I HAVE A BOMB AND I AM BLOWING YOU ALL UP IN 10 SECONDS"! in a crowded theatre. I want free speech damn you!

Originally posted by wills120

Originally posted by XxNightAngelusxX
I'm seeing a lot of people making the argument that he had no right to "Deface public property" (even though most taggers who use spray paint, which is much harder to clean because it requires you to paint over it entirely, face only misdemeanor charges) are convinced that, because its public property and is cared for by the city, they are justified in prosecuting him.

Maybe they would be justified, if the punishment was reasonable.

But its not.

Its ridiculous.

He would have gotten a shorter sentence if he had ROBBED the bank. Fact.

Given it would have been a first offense, robbing the bank would have gotten him five to ten.

Scary evil chalk writing gets him thirteen years.

And some of you are actually advocating this?

I am willing to bet ANY amount of money that, if this man was doing the exact same thing, only drawing "Support the Troops" messages everywhere, he would be on the news getting praises and honorable mentions, rather than facing a preposterous trial.

It wasn't the action that tipped the scale.

It was the message.

To suggest otherwise is frankly ignorant and outrageously stupid.

Personally, I think that everyone here realizes that the potential punishment doesn't fit the crime but in the eyes of the law what he did was a violation. We can only hope that when he is found guilty (and I think he will be) that the judge just throws it out or gives him some community service.

There's an old Star Trek: TNG episode where that little brat Wesley Crusher is playing football and falls into a marked off area that's growing a shrub or something. According to their rules, he must be punished by execution. Of course, Picard gets him out of it while pissing off the alien culture but the point here is that laws are basically boundaries of what a person can or cannot do and without it society cannot exist. Mr. Sidewalk Serial Chalk-er has to be accountable for breaking the law.

.

Wow. I applaud this post. One of the only rational ones in the thread.