Man facing 13 years in prison for writing "anti Bank" messages in chalk

I posted a link that explained it pretty well. Here is an excerpt.

 

Thanks. Dumb law. "Property rights of the government". Hmmm. Could start up on that one---but nah.

 

Everyone in socal should start chalking gov't property.

 

Well in California, its illegal to play Frisbee on the beach. So there are all sorts of laws on the books. If The Government feels hard up for cash because its broke, it will start enforcing these laws to raise revenue. Its not about protecting the interests of big banks, its about bringing in fine money.

 

It's about the banks, it always is! I'm from NY, and they arrested people for putting "Caution" tape across an ATM. Also, nearly all the police in NYC on Mayday we're sitting in Banks protecting them from 'riley protestors' instead of going out and fighting real crime!

I know it's hard to believe, but Multi-National Investment Banksters control our country, and most civilized countries all at once.

 

This isn't one of those times where he's being a political conspiracy theorist. This is outrageous.

A public anti-bank protest is absolutely political, as ludicrous felony charges for it. And for telling the guy and his lawyer he Can't Use The First Amendment as a defense!! Or talk to the media!

Here's the same story from liberal Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/jeff-olson-supporters_n_3528591.html

 

I'm waiting for Banksy to 'do' North Korea !

 

So? Unconstitutional laws are passed all the times. The supreme court decided a few days ago that someone couldn't use the 5th amendment as a defense against prosecution in Texas, because they didn't explicitly invoke the 5th amendment, and their silence was used against them in court. Because they didn't say the magic words.

He did it explicitly in a way that would be very visible and didn't cause any permanent damage. The first amendment doesn't exist to protect banks property, which he didn't harm.

Defacement means causing permanent damage in a literal context. If it does not in a legal context in California, the law is wrong. Because federal judges have withheld it doesn't change that fact.

 

That's what happens when whiney individuals mess with the Corporate Person. The Corporate Person Rules!!!

You don't like it?

You suck

 

So nothing. I agree with you .

I bet the guy knew he was gonna get arrested going in. It's a way to get publicity for his cause (banks) as well as shine light on unconstitutional laws.

It wasn't even the property of the bank.....it was the public sidewalk.

I think if it were on bank property then it would be a different story though.

 

*yawn* It's a minor misdemeanor without a criminal record. Can't do the time, don't do the crime. In this case the time is a fine at most. I got in trouble for the same thing, I paid for it like everyone else who does. Everyone knows graffiti'ing is against the law. I never said the law was right but that's what it is. This story is nothing special and it's not some tragic injustice like what the US government does with their drones for instance.

I had 8 counts and faced 8 years under Ohio law btw....

 

Yes but he committed no crime. He wrote on public sidewalk with washable chalk slogans such as "No Thanks, Big Banks" and "Shame on Bank of America."

Here's one for all you lovers of all things constitutional:

Is writing on a public sidewalk with washable chalk free speech? Is it a crime?

 

(Reuters) - A protester charged with criminal vandalism for scrawling anti-bank slogans with washable chalk on San Diego city sidewalks was acquitted by a jury on Monday of all 13 counts against him.

Jeff Olson, 40, had faced a possible maximum penalty of 13 years behind bars had he been convicted in a trial denounced by Mayor Bob Filner as a waste of taxpayer money and an abuse of prosecutorial power.

The San Diego jury of two men and 10 women deliberated for less than five hours before returning the not guilty verdict.

"The jury sent a strong message that freedom of speech is alive in San Diego," Olson told reporters outside the courtroom following the verdict.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/01/us-usa-graffiti-chalk-idUSBRE96014T20130701

 

It's good to hear that ordinary citizens do have some sense. But the more troubling issue is the Judge and to the larger extent, the Supreme Court's position on this issue.

 

Whaat? I thought the Illuminati and the big banks controlled all the juries!?

 

outthere2


On what? Vandalism? I don't really know what the Judges position is.

 

odonII:

I agree with Olson, that "this case is not the issue of vandalism, but an infringement on the right to free speech."

The Judge issue the gag-order because he did not want the "free-speech" issue brought up in court or to the media. But that is the very intention of The Act Olson committed.

 

outthere2

Oh, I read that. I thought you were talking about the judges position on scrawling words on the sidewalk. This isn't a land-mark case or a time to set a precedent - I suspect his reasoning was. The facts of the case are that a person scrawled on the side-walk. I agree with the earlier post - in essence: there are thousands of cases of graffiti put through the courts - this being one of them.

 

I'd put it in the category of excercising constitutionally protected free speech. No crime committed. No harm done either- it was washable chalk, not paint.

If speech is so broadly interpreted by the supreme court as to mean "unlimited campaign contributions" (which it is) surely what Olson did was a form of speech.

 

outthere2

It's definitely a grey area, but the fact it shouldn't be about 'free speech' or 'constitutional rights'.

California Code - Section 594
Every person who maliciously commits any of the following acts with respect to any real or personal property not his or her own, in cases other than those specified by state law, is guilty of vandalism:

(1)Defaces with graffiti or other inscribed material.

(2)Damages.

(3)Destroys.

maliciously:
Law. vicious, wanton, or mischievous in motivation or purpose.

He misheviously defaced the side walk - property that was not his own.

But then you have:

California Penal Code Section 594.2
(1) "Felt tip marker" means any broad-tipped marker pen with a tip
exceeding three-eighths of one inch in width, or any similar
implement containing an ink that is not water soluble.
(2) "Marking substance" means any substance or implement, other
than aerosol paint containers and felt tip markers, that could be
used to draw, spray, paint, etch, or mark.

So, it's the way the law is applied.

I accept it might have been 'political' on both sides, but it really should not have been at all.