It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
57
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Apparently you, BoA and the city of San Diego are a bit confused . . .


spray paint != chalk

private property != public sidewalk

edit on 26-6-2013 by Shimri because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by StrangeTimez

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



The law says it is since the chalk was used with malicious intent.

i can go out right now and call my neighbor the worst names imaginable with as much malicious intent i can muster through the english language and it would be protected under free speech so long as i did not threaten his person, property, or freedom.




God forbid you write it in chalk though lmao

Actually you can't say whatever you want with malicious intent. That is called slander. There are limits to what you can say. And you certainly can not write it on their property. You are free to write on YOUR property. As was this man, and then it would be free speech.


Slander is when you say something untrue about someone to someone else. So you are wrong on several levels.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:34 AM
link   
According to the link given

"The State's Vandalism Statute does not mention First Amendment rights," ruled Judge Shore on Tuesday.


Are you kidding me?

All laws have to be inline with the Bill of Rights. Period.

Just because the 1st Amendment is not mentioned does not mean that it is not applicable.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



Seriously, think before you post. It's a vandalism trial. Free speech is not a valid defense for vandalism. You can not argue it's not vandalism due to free speech. He must argue it's not vandalism for reason X. The judge has ruled he is being tried for vandalism and not being tried for free speech.

it is a trial to determine whether or not he actually committed a crime, not a sentencing.

Not sure what your point is. Of course it's a trial to determine guilt.


you're right, free speech isn't a valid defense for vandalism, luckily he didn't vandalize property.

Hello pot, meet kettle. Now you are saying he did not before the trial even starts. Isn't that what the trial is for? Good thing we have you to tell us though.


you cannot be tried for free speech, it is a right that everyone has. the prosecution claims vandalism (though it isn't even their property), and the defense claims it is not vandalism because it is not damaging, it isn't the bank's property, and that this man has the right to freedom of spee-- *judge* "GUILTY! you cannot use free speech as a defense, what country do you think this is, america?!"


Go back, read my post, maybe it will click the second time. Probably not. But I have hope.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



The 2nd amendment can NEVER be used as a murder defense. The 1st amendment can NEVER be used for a vandalism defense.

let us say that you walk your dog in front of my house, and it takes a huge dump in the road. i then determine the most expensive way to get it removed, pay for it, then take you to trial and say that you made me pay all that money.

you still don't understand...the defense is claiming it isn't vandalism. he isn't guilty yet, how do you not understand this? he has been charged with a crime, and is disputing that in court. he isn't guilty of anything.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shimri
According to the link given

"The State's Vandalism Statute does not mention First Amendment rights," ruled Judge Shore on Tuesday.


Are you kidding me?

All laws have to be inline with the Bill of Rights. Period.

Just because the 1st Amendment is not mentioned does not mean that it is not applicable.


This day in age they just make the crimes they commit legal and the justice taken against them illegal.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by StrangeTimez

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by StrangeTimez
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 





$93 is what you pay to get a cleaning crew to show up. If it required real effort to clean from permanent markers it would have cost substantially more.


Get a cleaning crew...... for chalk...... Right. You were rational once. You can become rational again.


So because it will disappear in a week they should suffer the insults until then? Wrong. They should immediately clean it up. If I wrote your wife and daughter were whores and put their number in chalk to call for a good time would you immediately clean it up or wait for rain?


Your right, they should clean it up. You get some water. Pour it on the chalk. Go back to work fleecing the American people. And he didnt write anything nearly as offensive as that. I can see your losing battle is fraying your nerves. You make less and less sense each post that goes by.


It's not their job to send a bank teller out to clean his mess. He should have thought of the consequences. If I was a judge and someone hired a cleaning crew for $93 to clean writing I would award it in a heartbeat. You have no right to write that.


Your argument for why they cannot pour water on chalk is nonsense. Your argument for why he has to pay such a high amount is nonsense. Of course you would reward it. You enjoy nonsense.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Next thing you know building sand castles will be an act of vandalism (defacing public property, you know)

And you will have morons that defend the actions, making analogies like

"If I went into your vegetable garden in your backyard and flattened your furrows, it would be okay, right?"



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



Now you are saying he did not before the trial even starts. Isn't that what the trial is for? Good thing we have you to tell us though.

there is a big difference between the prosecution or defense claiming something, and the judge mandating it.

the prosecution and defense are there to make claims to be heard by a judge, however this judge has ruled that the defense isn't allowed to dispute whether or not he committed vandalism (the crime he is charged with committing).

the judge has ruled that freedom of speech isn't an excuse for vandalism, and that's well and good...except that the defense is disputing the original charge.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shimri
reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Apparently you, BoA and the city of San Diego are a bit confused . . .


spray paint != chalk

private property != public sidewalk

edit on 26-6-2013 by Shimri because: (no reason given)


Chalk is vandalism. You can not vandalise public property.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeTimezSlander is when you say something untrue about someone to someone else. So you are wrong on several levels.


I know exactly what it is. Fact is you can not say whatever you want whenever you want to whoever you want. There are limits to free speech, which was exactly my point. Just because you say it and don't write it in chalk does not make everything said legal.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shimri
reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Apparently you, BoA and the city of San Diego are a bit confused . . .


spray paint != chalk

private property != public sidewalk

edit on 26-6-2013 by Shimri because: (no reason given)

thank you!

i can see it now *occams razor, prosecuting lawyer extraordinaire* "but judge, think: what if he used spray paint on your car, that would be vandalism"

*judge* "uhhh.........but he didn't"

*occams razor* "but think about it! the defense cannot use free speech to justify using spray paint on another's property"

*judge* ".........aren't we a little off topic, the defense didn't use spray paint, didn't do anything harmful, and certainly didn't effect the bank's property in any way."

*occams razor* "i move to declare that the defense be barred from using fundamental, inalienable rights, as a defense, and that the defense is inherently guilty of vandalism, therefore the defense cannot use free speech as an excuse" *slips the judge some laundered drug money*

*judge* "makes sense to me, motion passed!"

i think this is what really happened.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by StrangeTimez
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 





$93 is what you pay to get a cleaning crew to show up. If it required real effort to clean from permanent markers it would have cost substantially more.


Get a cleaning crew...... for chalk...... Right. You were rational once. You can become rational again.


So because it will disappear in a week they should suffer the insults until then? Wrong. They should immediately clean it up. If I wrote your wife and daughter were whores and put their number in chalk to call for a good time would you immediately clean it up or wait for rain?


ha, im sure the banksters were so emotionally distraught over the insults written in chalk on a public sidewalk. They sure suffered. lol.

Your reaching friend and it is starting to show.

How do you compare a bank to a wife and daughter?

You compare loved ones to a financial institution? Do you love your bank?

Chalk is not permanent so it is not vandalism, the chalk did no damage, If it was permanent I can see your argument. If he chipped it into the sidewalk I could see your argument, but he arranged colored dust into words on the the ground, that is not vandalism from a common sense standpoint.

Another hindsight common sense act would be to send the janitor out with a 2.00 dollar box of colored chalk and to arrange more dust over the previously arranged dust and then take a pitcher of water which is free and pour over said dust. That 2 dollar box of chalk would of saved the banks 92 dollars of our tax money that was used to bail out the banks in the first place.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by DocHolidaze
 





but he arranged colored dust into words on the the ground


When you put it in those words its hard not to laugh



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shimri
According to the link given

"The State's Vandalism Statute does not mention First Amendment rights," ruled Judge Shore on Tuesday.


Are you kidding me?

All laws have to be inline with the Bill of Rights. Period.

Just because the 1st Amendment is not mentioned does not mean that it is not applicable.


Is the 2nd amendment applicable in a murder trial? I am not guilty of murder because I have the right to bare arms?



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 06:03 AM
link   
ok. let's settle this once and for all.

the legal definition of vandalism (black's law dictionary, 5th ed.)

"willful or ignorant destruction of property, especially artistic or literary treasures. hostility to or contempt for what is beautiful or venerable. generally the destruction of property."

please tell me what property of the bank has incurred damage. i'll be waiting.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



Is the 2nd amendment applicable in a murder trial? I am not guilty of murder because I have the right to bare arms?

following your logic, it isn't a murder trial, because no one was killed, so the second amendment doesn't even enter into it. no rights violations.

it isn't vandalism because no property was damaged, no rights violations.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Most of the banks need to be illuminated from the inside with cement.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 06:26 AM
link   
He should have made a sandwich board with the offending scrawls on them and walked up and down the sidewalk all day.
Oh, they would have found something else to arrest him for anyway, I suppose.

Just a side note... According to the DOJ statistics, the average time spent in prison for homicide is 71 months. Just under 6 years... for killing someone.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by StrangeTimezSlander is when you say something untrue about someone to someone else. So you are wrong on several levels.


I know exactly what it is. Fact is you can not say whatever you want whenever you want to whoever you want. There are limits to free speech, which was exactly my point. Just because you say it and don't write it in chalk does not make everything said legal.


Well what this gentleman did was not Slander. Nothing he said was illegal.

Look brother, you made good points in your initial post. I appreciate it because I dont enjoy being ignorant about even the smallest part of the story. But after you jabbed a few people you got out of control a bit. I dig it. Its the internet. But at some point your refusal to quit is almost like cutting your nose off to spite your face. Yea, you keep going, but the arguments are no longer substantial. This went from a constructive debate which you greatly contributed to, to a message board melee. Fun I must admit lol. But still, think it may have gone overboard. Just putting that out there.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join