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

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.

Care to back that fact up? Didn't think so.
Now take that jail time x13 since he was charged with 13 counts of vandalism.

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.

So 1 offense vs. 13 and somehow you think you have a point? Don't think so.

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.

Wrong. It wasn't the message. It was the intent. Praise the troops has no malicious intent, so why would you compare the two?

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.

Two things
- would you think 13 yrs is justified if a neighbor scrawled something on your sidewalk?
- the sidewalk is public property.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Are lot of your arguments are.. well stupid. It has already been said THEY WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANING THE SIDEWALK as you keep arguing they had to maintain it. Another you keep saying can you come write one someone's house or car. He didn't write on the damn building, but the sidewalk. You can come write on my sidewalk all day in CHALK. Not paint. Sidewalk isn't mine. Couldn't sue you or have you arrested for trespassing or defacing my property. THE SIDEWALK IS THE STATE'S. Come with a decent argument or don't come at all.

It would be one thing for the state to take this up with the man, but not BoA. As in it isn't their property.
Embrace ignorance though. Hug it real tight.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

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.

What the holly heck are you talking about?

You are basically admitting it was all about the content, which defines the intent, and then tell people never go to law school?

Wow the irony here is staggering.

$6000 for cleanup fees is incredibly outrageous. 13 years for chalking up a sidewalk, regardless of the 13 counts of "vandalism" is even more outrageous.

You basically admitted kids playing hopscotch get a free ride and someone who writes down antibank slogans is a criminal. Basically freedom of speech near banks is not tolerated, neither is freedom of speech tolerated in a bought out courtroom..

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by AmmonSeth
Only in america :')

Or any other country that says vandalism is illegal.

As far as I am aware,
Water soluble chalk is not illegal to use anywhere else that I have come across..

This is just typical american idiocy of "you did something I don't like, so I am pressing charges!"

Where is the justice and freedom of speak? Is this a communist regime? I thought this kind of thing only happenning in China but I mistook.

Originally posted by Amagnon

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.

Two things
- would you think 13 yrs is justified if a neighbor scrawled something on your sidewalk?
- the sidewalk is public property.

How much jail time should someone get for stealing from a store? 13 years seems excessive. Now how about they steal from a store every day for 6 months. You think they should get the same jail time for stealing one time asa multiple times? I am glad to see you realize you have no point. Goodbye.

Originally posted by Isittruee
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Are lot of your arguments are.. well stupid. It has already been said THEY WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANING THE SIDEWALK as you keep arguing they had to maintain it. Another you keep saying can you come write one someone's house or car. He didn't write on the damn building, but the sidewalk. You can come write on my sidewalk all day in CHALK. Not paint. Sidewalk isn't mine. Couldn't sue you or have you arrested for trespassing or defacing my property. THE SIDEWALK IS THE STATE'S. Come with a decent argument or don't come at all.

It would be one thing for the state to take this up with the man, but not BoA. As in it isn't their property.
Embrace ignorance though. Hug it real tight.

edit on 28-6-2013 by Isittruee because: (no reason given)

So chalk on your house is bad, it's only ok on the sidewalk? I am glad to see you agree that just because it is chalk does not make it ok.

Now to your next stupid statement. First, I have not seen anyone PROVE they are not responsible for the sidewalk. I have worked at jobs where the business was responsible for maintaining the sidewalk. In most states homeowners are responsible for repairing and maintaining sidewalks. If your PUBLIC water pipe bursts you are responsible for replacing it. Public does not mean the city or state has responsibility for it. Now, with that said, if someone writes malicious statements on your sidewalk and the city says we won't clean it, should you be forced to suffer with the malicious writings in front of your house for 6 months? You want someone writing in front of your house "come ring my doorbell my daughter is a #ing slut and will blow you". Maybe all the neighbors wont notice as they walk their dogs. Maybe your daughter wont get teased as she waits for the bus. You are a serious piece of work if you think that would be ok. If it was me, I would clean it, immediately, and send them the bill. But hey, for you, it's only chalk, so leave it and let everyone see, it's cool.

Now, what is the difference between chalk and paint genius?

Click here for more information.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Common sense will tell you they aren't responsible as its the states sidewalk. IF they were responsible, your going to tell me they didn't have one maintenance man with access to a hose? Since his job is to well...maintain their equipment and...property. Thats irrelevant though as its state property.

So if you sidewalk outside your house starts to age and break your going to bust it up and pour you a new one. Since its your responsibility right? You lost this argument on your first post in this thread and all your doing now is downgrading other members and repeating yourself. Get over it.

reply to post by StrangeTimez


This story reminds me of this.


You tell me.

Originally posted by Isittruee
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Common sense will tell you they aren't responsible as its the states sidewalk. IF they were responsible, your going to tell me they didn't have one maintenance man with access to a hose? Since his job is to well...maintain their equipment and...property. Thats irrelevant though as its state property.

So if you sidewalk outside your house starts to age and break your going to bust it up and pour you a new one. Since its your responsibility right? You lost this argument on your first post in this thread and all your doing now is downgrading other members and repeating yourself. Get over it.

Wow you are so ignorant.

Despite the large scale of repairs, this amounts to less than 1% of the City’s total sidewalk area each year. DOT relies on property owners to maintain the rest of the sidewalks.

Under Section 19-152 of New York's Administrative Code, property owners are responsible for installing, repairing and maintaining sidewalks adjoining their properties. DOT staff inspect sidewalks and notify the property owner of needed repairs. In the event timely repairs are not made by the property owner, the City may hire private construction firms to make the repairs. When this happens, the City bills the property owner for the costs of the repairs. Property owners must also keep their sidewalks clean and are responsible for snow removal.

www.nyc.gov...

Notice the bold part? You lose. Over and over you lose.

Originally posted by Isittruee
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

I lose? No.

They don't have any maintenance men working there? That 10/hr person that they hire just to maintain things. Where was he? Would any business pay 6000$ dollar to have something cleaned or use their worker that is there to do that. It is blatantly obvious that they did this intentionally to try to harm this man. That is more harassment them him writing in chalk.

Once again..I lose? Lol are you a child? Do you see this as a game? Lets see, you insulting people, telling others they stupid and need to go back to school, you repeating yourself constantly, and you taking this thread as some kind of game. I'd say your under 18 or a very lonely man.

Every time I prove you wrong you shift to something else. As far as calling people stupid ...

Seriously, I dont believe you are possibly this stupid, you must simply lack reading comprehension

I never said any such thing. I said you lacked reading comprehension, not intelligence. You prove it by posting I called anyone stupid. I wouldn't have to say the same thing over and over if people weren't so invested in emotions over facts. So you have said numerous times the State takes care of sidewalks. What about my linking you to a government website that says otherwise? Am I still wrong?

Now as far as I know no bank has a sidewalk cleaning crew in the back sipping on coke. They hire them as needed. That is what they did. If you read the post you would see cleaning did not cost $6000 for a one time job. It cost them $93. Now unless you claim the bank has a super secret magic ouija board that told them this man would do this over 60 times how could they possibly do it to harm him? Are they psychic? Did they know the man would come back for 6 straight months?

As always you have nothing, just more shifting of your goalposts to another untenuous position you will just move later as you have already done every time I prove you wrong. Just stop and admit this man made a mistake and he needs to pay for it, and we can both agree 13 years would be ridiculous, and really no jail time is warranted by his crime, just fines and fees.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


No he doesn't deserve to pay that much or do any time.
With the Chalk-In being held for him at the court house. The petitions being held for him. The judge making himself look worse by ordering a gag order. He'll go scotch free. I wish I could see your face when he 4 squares out the courtroom.

Btw. NY law isn't SD law. Its almost the same thing(They have some 50/50 cost in theirs), but atleast give me the right source next time.

Vandalism by chalk isn't mentioned so who knows.

There are over 5,000 miles of sidewalk in the City of San Diego. The City is responsible for the maintenance of sidewalk damage caused by vehicle accidents, water main breaks, grade subsidence and trees within the Right-of-Way. Normal sidewalk wear and tear or age damage is the responsibility of the homeowner who can take advantage of the City's 50/50 Cost Sharing Program to help offset the cost of repairs.

www.sandiego.gov...


Then again. Most people wouldn't call chalk damage. Or the five minutes it took their guy to put a water hose to it for about 5 seconds maintenance.

Originally posted by Isittruee
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

No he doesn't deserve to pay that much or do any time.
With the Chalk-In being held for him at the court house. The petitions being held for him. The judge making himself look worse by ordering a gag order. He'll go scotch free. I wish I could see your face when he 4 squares out the courtroom.

Btw. NY law isn't SD law. Its almost the same thing(They have some 50/50 cost in theirs), but atleast give me the right source next time.

Vandalism by chalk isn't mentioned so who knows.

There are over 5,000 miles of sidewalk in the City of San Diego. The City is responsible for the maintenance of sidewalk damage caused by vehicle accidents, water main breaks, grade subsidence and trees within the Right-of-Way. Normal sidewalk wear and tear or age damage is the responsibility of the homeowner who can take advantage of the City's 50/50 Cost Sharing Program to help offset the cost of repairs.

www.sandiego.gov...

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

I simply grabbed an easy source to prove that just because something is public does not mean the homeowner or business is not responsible for maintaining it. Your link still shows I am right. This is the norm not the exception, it's the same in basically every city in the country, with some minor variances.

I am going to backtrack for a minute to go back to my last post. I want to make it clear that he is still under trial, and has snot been found guilty. If it turns out what he did is not vandalism then great. If it turns out it is vandalism, he should not serve jail time, but should be fined. My stating he should pay up was contingent on the fact he is indeed found guilty of a crime, which at this point he has not.

I don't see him going scott-free (my spelling is not some sort of hidden jab at your spelling as both are correct), but we will see.

The point is that the case rests on what he did and whether it is vandalism, and freedom of speech does not enter into it.

If found innocent and is sued by the bank for damages, then freedom of speech would be a defense.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


I'd be all on your side if it was paint. That would show malicious intent, but he used chalk. Washable chalk.

SD by the way will even give you free paint if someone has tagged your property.

Contact the city's Paint and Materials Exchange Bank for assistance or questions pertaining to graffiti removal supplies and safety. The City of San Diego operates a Paint and Materials Exchange Bank in the Chollas View area where citizens can obtain free recycled paint in limited colors for graffiti removal. Call the paint bank at (619) 527-5419 to make an appointment for pick up of paint and supplies or submit the on-line Release of City of San Diego Materials Form.

www.sandiego.gov...

No one can wash off a sidewalk though or wait for it to rain?
We shall see though.

Lol at your scotch free jab

reply to post by Isittruee


Well what is the difference between paint and chaulk?

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.