It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 06:49 AM

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Chalk is vandalism. You can not vandalise public property.


chalk is vandalizing in what world exactly?

I guess I will expect you to be crying for the arrest of millions of minors plus the ban of chalk to anyone under 18.

And get to work on sand castles as well. Have you seen how much damage the vandals have done to our public beaches?
edit on 26-6-2013 by Shimri because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 06:55 AM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
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.

Why the $6000 dollars it cost them to hire someone to attach a water hose to a spigot, turn the knob, wet the ground, turn the knob the opposite direction, un-attach the hose and walk away.

Getting rid of sidewalk chalk is srs bsns, you know . . .

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 07:01 AM

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

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?

Actually, yes it can be.

Use some critical thinking

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 07:17 AM
Having read the posting, having lived in San Diego, in the state of California and read the posting, the following can be stated:

The facts of the case are as follows, that during the Occupy movement, this man decided to go out and write on the sidewalk infront of Bank of America branches, in chalk, encouraging people to go to take their business elsewhere, leaving Bank Of America the financial responsibility to clean it up. He got caught, and during the initial trial proceedings, the Judge stated, that the freedom of speech is not applicable argument for vandalism.

There are many different aspects to this case that the prosecution is going to argue, including civil litigations that this person is going to have to answer for in court. While the freedom of speech is a valid law in the United States, had this person chose to exercise such in a reasonable manor, or conditions were normal, then the fines and possible jail time would be pretty much excessive, and that argument could stand.

But this is California, and that is a place to start. California has some of the toughest standards when it comes to the enviroment. A person could be fined for letting their vehicle have an oil spill or anything other than water flow into the storm drain, as it would violate the states clean water acts. More over, as the side walk is public property, it is the public that had to foot the bill to clean up the message that this person put down in chalk, every time, for a city that just managed to get away from being bankrupt. San Diego is under drout conditions, so they can not just simply use water to clean up the mess, and if they did the water would have to be captured and prevented from going into the storm drain, as such would have been considered a pollutiant.

Then there is the civil argument that will be made, no business has the right to stand outside of its competitor and try to steal its customers. They can be across the street, but not right infront of it, that too is against the law.

The question is why did this person not just get poster board and simply write his message on it and then turn around and hold it up, across the street, or have his friends in the occupy movement, do such to try to discourage buisness with Bank of America? Was it necessary to write on the sidewalk infront of Bank of America?
If it was where he held a sign up across the street from Bank of America, not impeding traffic in and out of the building, I would agree, it would be a case of freedom of speech. But he did not do that, but did an act of vandalism that ultimately cost the tax payers money to clean up.

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 07:26 AM
13 years for a chalk protest?
Something is fishy with that ....
An investigation should be done. A nutty judge ... or payoffs .... or connections ...

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:44 AM

Originally posted by xDeadcowx
reply to post by StrangeTimez

Paying 6k to do what the rain does for free.


Either that or an extremely expensive hose, lol.

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:45 AM
Is this where justice in the United States is going? It is ironic that a bomb from the US Air Force finally put an end to Hitler's "blood judge" Roland Freisler.

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:13 AM
reply to post by Isittruee

Pedophiles and rapists get off easier than this. Poor dude...

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:34 AM
reply to post by sdcigarpig
I lived in San Diego for about two years and the only misuse of power I've seen there was when the police confiscated all of the homeless people's belongings when they went into the soup kitchen to get a hot meal.

The police were claiming the stuff abandoned after they literally witnessed the folks walk into the buildings. They had their pickup trucks right there waiting.... said it was blocking the sidewalks public use and they were cleaning it up. The police said they should have left space for other's to pass if they were parking belongings on the walk (cited bikes and bike racks as an example)

They stood behind the fact that it was the city's sidewalk and they had jurisdiction to remove it as a nuisance.

Okay where am I going with this? Well, if the chalk was on the city's sidewalk, which is Public Property, wouldn't that then be akin to putting up a poster on a city street post? (Notice: I did not specify a utility pole that is the property of PG& E and strictly enforces "no posting" rules) . Folks have put up plenty of messages from yard sales to political to just funny sayings and I do not think any of them have been sentenced for it.
So, why this person? Since when does BofA own the sidewalk? They could have called the city office and complained about some "graffiti" and the town would have taken care of the sidewalk if it was deemed a problem.

I believe sidewalks can be considered a public forum. My wife and I lived in Berkeley, CA for a while when she attended law school there and I can tell you the amount of stuff written on the walk ways in chalk there were certainly done on a much larger scale and they were pretty much a daily occurrence back in 1999 when some nasty propositions were being pushed. The city police and the campus police pretty much watched it happen all the time and never had issues.

Since when is chalk considered hazardous to our storm drains, especially in the quantity suggested? Only if it was that stuff from China that had the lead base Lead Chalk could I see that argument. Of course the man would have had to go to a children's store for the good stuff.

If the man wrote on the walls/exterior of the bank, even then I would have a hard time believing that his intent was to ruin the surface holding the dust.

I hope that some of those banker's kids are arrested for playing hop-scotch with their chalk, or better yet the bankers themselves as parents of chalk bearing vandals someday. Perhaps then they will see what the rest of the world knows about chalk.

edit on 26-6-2013 by evc1shop because: spelling

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:44 AM
reply to post by evc1shop

I was pondering what kind of chalk it was, too. According to this in the San Diego Reader, he bought a sidewalk chalk manufactured by Creatology, which is manufactured for children's usage.

Chalk in question:

Note that it says washable. As a mother, I can attest that the chalk in question (actually have a tub in the garage for when the little "vandals" living on my street decide to shake their fist at the Man with big pictures of flowers, smiley suns and rainbows) is washable by simply running a hose on it for a few seconds. If it's washable/non-permanent, I don't think that qualifies as destruction of property. There is a huge difference between tagging or graffiti in spray paint which can take several coats of paint to cover and may leave permanent ridge lines where the the mark was made and being able to hose something off with no trace of it left.

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:49 AM
reply to post by StrangeTimez

This is why the US WILL fail and fall and it will because there is NO recourse to take against a judge who can arbitrarily take away the freedom of speech, the 1st amendment to the constitution, nullified by a judge through decree. We are all injured by this judges action.

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:54 AM
What is going on in your country lately is nothing less than insanity.

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:56 AM
reply to post by WhiteAlice
As a dad of an adventurous 4yr old, I can attest that washable chalk and just about every other marker /crayon made that states washable does, indeed, clean up as stated. Smooth interior surfaces, damp rag blotted or rubbed gently. For outdoor sidewalks (the intended use of sidewalk chalk) garden hose with spray. This works with washable crayons, too. I have not used the power washer for his drawings yet.

This lawsuit should be tossed, no damage to the surfaces was realized.

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:15 AM
reply to post by evc1shop

While I do not know the enviromental impact that chalk would have on the environment, however, the question is was there a study done on such? Can we be certain that it is biodegradeble?

After all after living in San Diego for 8 years, and having seen law suits of people who were charged with polluting the environment, combined with people getting tickets for watering their laws, kind of makes you think, especially when there is a drout going on.

But more to the point, lets just say you and I run different bakeries in town. It is against the law for either of us to stand infront of the others business to try to take away business from each other. That violates several laws, some of which are federal, dealing with free trade. It is however, not against the law to stand across the street and try to get the others business, as there is a reasonable distance.

There has been shown some environmental impact of the use of chalk on the natural world. States like Colorado and Utah, ban the use of white chalk used by rock climbers as it has been shown to damage the stone over time. And if the surface that white chalk is used on is porous, the chalk over time would be worked into the pours of the stone and cause white blemishes. If you ran a business, would you want to see a deragatory statement infront of your business with no way to clean it off, or where, say rain comes very sparingly, where it is there for the majority of the year?

And while small amounts may not have a large impact, however, what if everyone used chalk in an area, the environmental impact on the local water would be increased, and could cause problems for the local wildlife and population as well.

As BOA does not own the sidewalk, but like any business, there is a reasonable expectation on the part of the business to keep the area clean and tidy, and if not they could be fined. And as this is a case of vandalism, where one substence, namely chalk, was applied to a surface, the sidewalk, it now is no longer the problem of BOA, but the city.

And if you consider the following, it gets to be a headache. The federal government, EPA, puts out regulations, then the State of California, followed by the County, and then the City all have individual regulations that have to be followed. And if there is any violation of said regulations, then a business can be fined, big time after the second violation, that could result in thousands of dollars.

If the man had held up a sign infront of the bank, then it would be a clear cut case of violation of the First Admendment, but he did not, he wrote on a sidewalk, which is graffiti.

On a side note, you are talking about a city, where they have the world premier institute for Ocean studies, which gets challenged in court every year, for siding with Sea World over their fireworks displays.

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:18 AM
reply to post by StrangeTimez

I hate to be the simple one of the group....but if the little Hitler running the courtroom figures the attorney can be muzzled like a dog for even suggesting the idea that free speech may have had a role here? His client sure as hell isn't. If I were the client, I'd be saying it at least once a day. Make a greeting of it for the jury'

"Morning Jurors....It's a wonderful day for Free Speech, isn't it?'. See how the Robed dope likes THAT one. He can sanction and jail he attorney but what of the defendant? Can he sentence him to 13 frigging years TWICE or something?? lol...

Odds are he'd force it to mistrial by the Judge's own orders before long anyway and flush one power tripping little tyrant on the Bench in the process. There's a solution to everything.

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 12:08 PM

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.

Maybe if all vandalism happened
in Chalk?
The bank says it cost $6000 to clean up?
Wow next time someone tell that bank I'll bring a hose
and do it for $5999.99.
edit on 26-6-2013 by sealing because: more

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 12:16 PM
You'd have to look at the definition of "vandalism" in the city or state laws. I'd wager this would NOT fit the definition, therefore he'd walk. Even if he didn't, he should only be liable for the amount of the cleanup. The law exists to make one "whole", and that would do it.

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 12:20 PM

Originally posted by xDeadcowx
reply to post by StrangeTimez

Paying 6k to do what the rain does for free.

I would like to know on what grounds a judge is able to dictate what defense a person is allowed to have.

Are they able to decide that someone is not able to mention "self defense" if they were attacked?

Screams of kick backs to me.


They always exaggerate the costs. Like the "The Cuckoo's Egg" by Clifford Stoll. Some kid breaks into the computers of Bell or AT&T and downloads a technical manual of the exchange system and network protocols. The lawyers are called in, it goes to court, and they estimate the cost and damages to be $1.5 million due to the commercial and technical nature of the document, the time taken by system administrators to check to server. Then it turned out the document could be ordered by post for $25 from the technical publications department.

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Common Good
According to Olson, who spoke with local broadcaster KGTV, one Bank of America branch claimed it had cost $6,000 to clean up the chalk writing.

I don't know why they are crying - they can always "invent" some more $.

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 01:07 PM
reply to post by sdcigarpig

The specific brand of sidewalk chalk used is labelled as non-toxic--implying that it does not contain lead. Chalk is derived from a naturally occurring and very common mineral called calcite. Although it's definitely not a great idea to introduce even a naturally occurring mineral into a natural environment, a city is not a natural environment in the slightest. If you want to talk actual environmental issues within a city, then there are infinitely more significant environmental impacts from a city's existence than sidewalk chalk such as run off from roadways containing chemicals deposited by vehicles, the fact that cities themselves create their own microclimate and "heat sink" and much, much more. In a mountain setting--sure, it would apply. In a city that is largely comprised of man-made materials and stuffed with chemicals? Not really.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in