California man faces 13 years in jail for scribbling anti-bank messages in chalk

[Rob377]

Why is that any different? How about dumping a giant pile of dog poop, you know, as expressive speech indicating that the speaker thinks the the sidewalk owner is a doodie head? Rain will eventually wash the poop away, right?

Do people have the right to throw poop and garbage in front of your house because of the first amendment? Or does that only apply to viewpoints you like, and property you're not responsible for maintaining?

 

[CathyInBlue]

Does sidewalk chalk (which, I hasten now to add is the actually name of the product in question) carry with it an opportunity for offensive odors or communicable diseases/parasites?

No?

Then hardly comparable, are they?

 

[Rob377]

Does sidewalk chalk (which, I hasten now to add is the actually name of the product in question) carry with it an opportunity for offensive odors or communicable diseases/parasites?

No?

Then hardly comparable, are they?

Offensive to the nose or offensive to the mind, what's the difference? You've got to clean it up wither way. Cleanup costs would be about the same.

What about a big bag of litter? Or maybe a giant paper mache Obama? Or perhaps a paper mache phallus? No odors or disease there. Or does the First amendment right to deface property and impose cleanup costs on the owner only apply to people/companies we don't like?

 

[rambone]

I'm not sure what kind of childhood all you guys had, but when I was a kid, we drew on the sidewalk with chalk. It was hardly a big deal. It was also extremely common when I attended university. Chalk messages were written on the sidewalks all over campus. Times have changed, of course. The petty dictators and hall monitors took over.

If the law is so important to you, there shouldn't be exemptions for children, should there? Please explain how you would deal with those little vandals. Juvenile detention? Arrest their parents?

You can't logically condemn a guy for writing "No thanks big banks" and simultaneously give a pass to the serial-offenders playing hop-scotch.

 

[Rob377]

Sure ya can.

As a property owner, you can choose to allow the kids to play hopscotch. Or not.

Now if some kid/adult decides he's going to write "Obama is awesome" and put up a big paper mache Barry, I'm not going to allow that on my property. If I have to expend any time, money or effort removing it, hell yes, I'd seek restitution.

The nice thing about property rights is that you can choose to allow it or not.

Liberty minded people take property rights seriously. This case is actually a great way to highlight the difference between libertarians and liberaltarians. The latter think property rights should be thrown out when it's convenient, and when the victim happens to be someone they don't like. They're just as petty. "we don't like banks, so F them"

 

[rambone]

Sure ya can.

As a property owner, you can choose to allow the kids to play hopscotch. Or not.

Now if some kid/adult decides he's going to write "Obama is awesome" and put up a big paper mache Barry, I'm not going to allow that on my property. If I have to expend any time, money or effort removing it, hell yes, I'd seek restitution.

The nice thing about property rights is that you can choose to allow it or not.

If the bank owned the 13 sidewalks, then this would be relevant.

 

[Rob377]

If the bank owned the 13 sidewalks, then this would be relevant.

They most likely do. Easement does not equal ownership.

 

[lashicoN]

They most likely do. Easement does not equal ownership.

That's a two way street (or sidewalk). If they own the sidewalks and can have people arrested and fined for using sidewalk chalk on their sidewalk, then the bank should be held accountable when someone gets splashed by a puddle, steps on gum, twists an ankle, gets stung by a wasp, mugged, attacked, etc., while walking on the banks property.

If the bank is inviting the general public to use their property, then the bank owes the general public duty of care whilst on their property.

An expensive shoe DEFACED by a piece of gum on an untidy sidewalk should fetch a six figure civil settlement if one can spend 13 years of life in jail for DEFACING said sidewalk with chalk, a.k.a., a WMD.

 

[Rob377]

Sigh. no one was ever going to spend 13 years in jail. That was a theoretical max that had no chance in hell of being imposed. Let's hear it for sensationalized, over-hyped journalism.


As for liability, they can and do get sued when someone slips and falls on it, if they were reasonably aware of the condition and failed to correct it. Why do you think shopkeepers shovel and salt the sidewalks in front of their stores? There's an easement, but they're still responsible for it as it's their property.

There is no duty of care owed to people to keep them from being clumsy and stepping on gum. There is also no duty of care to prevent criminal acts of third parties. So, fail.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Sigh. no one was ever going to spend 13 years in jail. That was a theoretical max that had no chance in hell of being imposed. Let's hear it for sensationalized, over-hyped journalism.

Do you not see a problem with the fact that the only thing separating a man from that 13 year sentence is the grace, mercy, and good nature of the court?

 

[CathyInBlue]

Do you not see a problem with the fact that the only thing separating a man from that 13 year sentence is the grace, mercy, and good nature of the court?

Not to mention the intelligence and good judgement of his jury.

 

[smokingman]

Common sense prevails.

Not guilty.
Jury Finds Bank Of America Protester Not Guilty Of Vandalism For Chalk Drawings Outside BofA Branches

The prosecutor is well...insane.
Last week, a San Diego man made headlines when he went on trial to face 13 counts of vandalism related to chalk drawings he’d made on sidewalks outside of Bank of America branches in the area. On Monday afternoon, the jury returned after only a few hours of deliberation with “Not Guilty” verdicts on each count. After the verdicts were read, the San Diego City Attorney’s office criticized the defendant, saying it had offered him options that would have allowed everyone to avoid a trial.
One such offer required the defendant to perform 32 hours of community service, attend an 8-hour seminar by the “Corrective Behavior Institute,” pay Bank of America $6,299, and surrender his driver’s license for three year period.”
Shortly before the trial began, City Attorney Jan Goldsmith tried to sweeten the deal, allowing him to plead guilty to one vandalism charge, serve three years probation, pay an undetermined amount of restitution, spend 24 hours cleaning up graffiti, and surrender his driver’s license for two years.


Glad this turned out the way it did.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Common sense prevails.

Not guilty.
Jury Finds Bank Of America Protester Not Guilty Of Vandalism For Chalk Drawings Outside BofA Branches

The prosecutor is well...insane.
Last week, a San Diego man made headlines when he went on trial to face 13 counts of vandalism related to chalk drawings he’d made on sidewalks outside of Bank of America branches in the area. On Monday afternoon, the jury returned after only a few hours of deliberation with “Not Guilty” verdicts on each count. After the verdicts were read, the San Diego City Attorney’s office criticized the defendant, saying it had offered him options that would have allowed everyone to avoid a trial.
One such offer required the defendant to perform 32 hours of community service, attend an 8-hour seminar by the “Corrective Behavior Institute,” pay Bank of America $6,299, and surrender his driver’s license for three year period.”
Shortly before the trial began, City Attorney Jan Goldsmith tried to sweeten the deal, allowing him to plead guilty to one vandalism charge, serve three years probation, pay an undetermined amount of restitution, spend 24 hours cleaning up graffiti, and surrender his driver’s license for two years.


Glad this turned out the way it did.

Really, those were the options to avoid trial?

 

[Rob377]

Do you not see a problem with the fact that the only thing separating a man from that 13 year sentence is the grace, mercy, and good nature of the court?

No, not really. The misdemeanor vandalism statute has to cover everything from petty little stuff like this, to the repeat offender hoodlum that slashes every tire for 3 city blocks (for the umpteenth time) and everything in between.

There's also a big book of sentencing guidelines that judges have to adhere to, so it's a bit more than simple grace and mercy and whatnot.

Just about all criminal statutes have sentencing latitude to account for the fact that every case is different.

Would you see a problem with the repeat offender that slashed all those tires (for the umpteenth time) getting the same sentence as the first time offender that tagged an overpass and immediately showed remorse?