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

Originally posted by Isittruee
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

One is washable by rain or hose water. Paint requires...Resurfacing, primer, paint, 2nd coat, and weather guard. Its a huge difference. If it was paint I could see a 6000 and up price tag. Chalk, I just don't see it there. Paint is meant to last. Chalk will fade out in a day even if no one touches it. Especially feet scraping against it on a busy sidewalk.

You know its going to piss someone off if your throw paint on their sidewalk. That's how I see it malicious. Chalk isn't the tool of someone meaning to cause damage.

edit on 29-6-2013 by Isittruee because: (no reason given)

I agree. Now what is the difference between painting once, and reapplying chaulk EVERY DAY so that it can NOT fade out? Paint is permanent, chaulk is not. When reapplied every or every other day, it becomes the same thing as paint as it will never fade because it is reapplied. That is where the fact he used chaulk starts to lose meaning.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Chalk won't stain even if written over and over again. I'll use this link because all chalk..is well chalk.

Crayola Sidewalk Chalk is a molded chalk made of Plaster of Paris and color pigments. Although it is designed to be used on sidewalks and driveways, the chalk contains colorants, which may stain clothing and other household surfaces. If the chalk is used on a newly poured sidewalk or driveway, there is a possibility that the open surface pores in the concrete could absorb the colors.

We suggest testing the Crayola Sidewalk Chalk in an inconspicuous area and then try washing it away with water. In most cases, the chalk markings wash away with the first rainfall if it is used on a paved or poured surface that is more than two years old.

www.crayola.com...

I highly doubt that sidewalk was recently poured.

reply to post by Isittruee


No, I agree it won't. But it would be the same as if he used a paint that lasted 6 months. He reapplied it to prevent it from fading. You cant use something and say it's ok but it will disappear in a few days, and then reapply it to prevent it from disappearing while still using the fact it doesnt last long as a defense.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

"Always on city sidewalks, washable chalk, never crude messages, never vulgar, clearly topical," he said.

www.cbs8.com...

He wasn't cynical about it. Just expressing his freedom of speech on a public walk way.

But the city attorney's office -- after receiving multiple emails from a high ranking bank security manager -- decided to charge Olson with 13 counts of misdemeanor vandalism.

www.cbs8.com...

Looks like the DA didn't even want to charge him. He had to receive multiple emails from a high ranking bank security manager. What was in those emails? We could only wonder.


I know what your saying, but I have to disagree. Freedom of speech on a public walkway,


Eta: After them getting bad press from when Occupy was happening to bad press from this BoA did more damage to themselves then his little scribbling could ever do.


Eta2: The chalk in I was talking about. People are gathering at the court house to write out the 1st amendment on its grounds in chalk. Think they should all be fined? Since you are against the jailing atleast.

reply to post by Isittruee


Vulgarity doesn't matter. He did not have a lawful right to write there. I am not surprised the DA did not want to file charges. I am sure the emails said the man was breaking the law, had been asked to stop, and they better charge him because that is their job, or there will be consequences. Fact is, what he did IS illegal, and he should have stopped when asked.

As to the chalk in, it depends on a lot of circumstances, just like this case. I think there reaches a point where they should be. Right now, we aren't there.

ETA: They are stupid to do it though. This case has nothing to do with 1st amendment rights.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


To you it has nothing to do with 1st amendment rights.

As for the DA. How can you threaten a DA with consequences? Sounds like blackmail or extortion to me so they can "stick it" to this guy. The DA was pressured into taking this case. DA obviously knew it wasn't worth it and now BoA will see that too.

Why didn't any police stop him in the act? Why didn't any concerned citizens report this horrendous act? Why did BoA have to beg the DA to bring this to court?

Those questions are your answer. It was freedom of speech, it was chalk, it caused no harm to property or person.

Just like the NRA t-shirt. That went into gag order then dropped. This will as well. Charging someone for writing in chalk is as stupid as charging someone for a t-shirt.

Originally posted by Isittruee
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

To you it has nothing to do with 1st amendment rights.

As for the DA. How can you threaten a DA with consequences? Sounds like blackmail or extortion to me so they can "stick it" to this guy. The DA was pressured into taking this case. DA obviously knew it wasn't worth it and now BoA will see that too.

So if you see a cop not doing his job and you say do your job or ill tell the news you let that person go, is that blackmail? There is a legitimate charge. The DA brought it. And no vandalism case can EVER be about 1st amendment rights, just like no murder charge can EVER be about 2nd amendment rights. Having the right of free speech does not entitle someone to vandalise. Having the right to bare arms does not entitle someone to commit murder. It is 100% impossible for them to be entwined by their very nature.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


We'll just have to agree to disagree.
I see no vandalism under grounds that is wasn't malicious and it was water washable chalk.
No property or person was hurt. It was on public property. No threats were made.

You see it differently and I'll respect that. I bet you all my ATS points he'll come out scotch free. And you know everything you could do with ATS points!

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

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?

I don't know, can you? You can do anything you like. What's at issue here is should this man be facing more prison time for writing a message to the public on public property, than he would for picking up a gun and robbing the bank.

I know for a fact that you can rent a power washer and hire a guy at current labor rates to do the job for a whole lot less than the $500 needed to make this case a felony. The bank chose to go the most expensive route possible. Who should pay for that vindictive decision? I say, the bank. Give the guy a misdemeanor vandalism ticket, cause that's all he committed.

Our man seems to be getting backing from the mayor of San Diego.

Mayor Bob Filner on Friday told reporters that the city attorney's prosecution of a protester for chalking anti-bank slogans on city sidewalks outside Bank of America branches is "a stupid case" and a waste of city money.

As the chalk case approached trial, Filner sent a memo to Goldsmith calling it "an abuse of power that infringes on (the) 1st Amendment."

As the dispute flared between the Democratic mayor and Republican city attorney, Shore imposed a gag order on all parties. The mayor, however, will not be gagged.
"This is a nonsense prosecution and I will continue to say that," Filner said Friday.

www.latimes.com...

Things seem to be looking up for our guy

Originally posted by Isittruee
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

One is washable by rain or hose water. Paint requires...Resurfacing, primer, paint, 2nd coat, and weather guard. Its a huge difference. If it was paint I could see a 6000 and up price tag. Chalk, I just don't see it there. Paint is meant to last. Chalk will fade out in a day even if no one touches it. Especially feet scraping against it on a busy sidewalk.

You know its going to piss someone off if your throw paint on their sidewalk. That's how I see it malicious. Chalk isn't the tool of someone meaning to cause damage.

edit on 29-6-2013 by Isittruee because: (no reason given)

I don't think you need to resurface, primer, 2 coats of paint, weather guard someone spray painting graffiti from the sidewalk. Just paint over the graffiti in the original color one or two coats. $6000 is completly absurd!

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


The only problem is this: when two little blonde girls aged 5 years old scribble shamrocks on the sidewalk, nobody is bringing up charges against them. So why are these "necessary" laws regarding public property (which is clearly not for public use by those whose taxes pay for such things) not being enforced evenly?

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.

If I was responsible for robbing people and then being bailed out by my neighbors because of my bad betting practices which prevented me from making mortgage payments! then I deserve being vandalized!

I guess it's up to the jury whether they think he defaced with malice the banks sidewalk! Though because he is unable to speak about his right to expression it may be hard to do that!

Originally posted by nosacrificenofreedom

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.

If I was responsible for robbing people and then being bailed out by my neighbors because of my bad betting practices which prevented me from making mortgage payments! then I deserve being vandalized!

I guess it's up to the jury whether they think he defaced with malice the banks sidewalk! Though because he is unable to speak about his right to expression it may be hard to do that!

Since he cannot say he was just trying to get a message out he will undoubtedly be convicted of acting with malice!

UPDATE: Man Found NOT GUILTY of Vandalism Charges

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

Here we have an 'example' so that this bank (or any other) is never again burdened with any American who thinks that they can use washable chalk to speak freely on company cement.

It is likely that this story is being squashed in the area where it occurred and police are ready to gun down (don't ya hate guns?) anyone who dares to try and repeat the offense in defense of the person doing the 13 years...

(Wait a minute. Only 13 years? My gawd man, this guy should be tossed under the jail!)

Originally posted by wills120
UPDATE: Man Found NOT GUILTY of Vandalism Charges

This should never have happened, including the banking bail outs! When we are subjected to the whims of the banking industry we are no longer free to pursue life and all that speak out against the wealth of the oligarch
are tossed into a corrupt system and persecuted for their denial of it!