Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He's facing 13 years because he's facing 13 counts of vandalism which hypothetically could run consecutively. He will not get 13 years. He probably won't get 13 days.
The definition of vandalism posted earlier is useless and irrelevant as it's not from the California penal code. I posted a link to the California statute in the other thread.
The assertion of "free speech" as a defense is idiotic beyond comprehension, I don't know how anyone can sit here and make the argument that your right to free speech gives you the right to deface property, with chalk or not.
This guy went to the bank and did his chalk drawings multiple times per week for a period of 6 freaking months before they did anything about it.
This is, quite simply, much ado about nothing.
This is complete BS. Was his action politically motivated? Or was it some random act of vandalism?
A complete idiot could see the difference. The article stated that he was only prosecuted after much pressure was exerted from the management of BOA.
The legal system is simply doing the bidding of BOA and the people involved need to be fired.
Also I would hope this fiasco would result in the boycott of BOA by all Americans who value their freedom.
He's facing 13 years because he's facing 13 counts of vandalism which hypothetically could run consecutively. He will not get 13 years. He probably won't get 13 days.
The definition of vandalism posted earlier is useless and irrelevant as it's not from the California penal code. I posted a link to the California statute in the other thread.
The assertion of "free speech" as a defense is idiotic beyond comprehension, I don't know how anyone can sit here and make the argument that your right to free speech gives you the right to deface property, with chalk or not.
This guy went to the bank and did his chalk drawings multiple times per week for a period of 6 freaking months before they did anything about it.
This is, quite simply, much ado about nothing.
Oh NO!!! Another case of faux outrage. Must be a slow news day.
This is complete BS. Was his action politically motivated? Or was it some random act of vandalism?
A complete idiot could see the difference. The article stated that he was only prosecuted after much pressure was exerted from the management of BOA.
The legal system is simply doing the bidding of BOA and the people involved need to be fired.
Also I would hope this fiasco would result in the boycott of BOA by all Americans who value their freedom.
Sucks that we're a nation of laws doesn't it? What we need is a police force that weighs the moral compass as they see it and arrest people that they think deserves it instead of following anything that is codified.
And yes, most of this thread is about BOA because people don't like BOA. Well I don't like them either and their HQ is 8 miles down the street from me. But, if your neighbor calls the police because your dog shat in the yard and he's got it on film then prepare to pay the fine.
If BOA called the cops on him or asked the DA to press charges and they have the film then that's what you got to do.
UPDATE: 6/26 -- The San Diego City Attorney's office emails along a statement on the case of People v. Olson:
1. This is a graffiti case where the defendant is alleged to have engaged in the conduct on 13 different occasions. The trial judge has already held that, under California law, it is still graffiti even if the material can be removed with water. Most graffiti can be removed. Also, the judge and a different pre-trial judge held that the First Amendment is not a defense to vandalism/graffiti. 2. The defense is trying to make this case into a political statement, which it is not. This is just one of some 20,000 criminal cases that are referred to us annually by the police department. We have prosecutors who decide whether to issue cases. They are professionals. The City Attorney was not involved in deciding whether to issue this case as is typical practice in prosecution offices for most cases. He hadn't heard of this case until it was in the media. 3. The defense is whipping up hysteria about the prospect of 13 years in custody. This is not a 13 year custody case. It is a standard graffiti case compounded by the fact that the defendant is alleged to have done it on 13 separate occasions. Because there were 13 different occasions when the defendant allegedly engaged in the conduct, the law requires them to be set out separately in the complaint. This increases the maximum sentence, but it still is a graffiti case and nothing more. The courts routinely hear graffiti cases and handle them appropriately using judicial discretion. 4. It is not unusual for victims to contact police or prosecutors about a case. Our prosecutors are trained to focus only on their ethical standards in deciding whether to file a case. 5. We prosecute vandalism and theft cases regardless of who the perpetrator or victim might be. We don't decide, for example, based upon whether we like or dislike banks. That would be wrong under the law and such a practice by law enforcement would change our society in very damaging ways.
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.
This is purely a political issue. The banks were and still are guilty of felonies and misdemeanors against the people of the United States and instead of being prosecuted, the taxpayers were robbed and the money given to the banks. Then when someone publically show defiance against the banks he is made an example of to warn the peasants that the ruling class will not tolerate any opposition to their rule.
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.
This is purely a political issue. The banks were and still are guilty of felonies and misdemeanors against the people of the United States and instead of being prosecuted, the taxpayers were robbed and the money given to the banks. Then when someone publically show defiance against the banks he is made an example of to warn the peasants that the ruling class will not tolerate any opposition to their rule.
No one is guilty of anything until the jury renders a verdict. More proof that ideology rules over law on this thread.
You are saying that if the law was broke in regards to a bank then someone shouldn't be punished. Since many crimes are lower than what the banks are accused of why not just waive all of it until there is justice?
Your statement about what the banks are guilty of or not is irrelevant to this thread.
This is complete BS. Was his action politically motivated? Or was it some random act of vandalism?
A complete idiot could see the difference. The article stated that he was only prosecuted after much pressure was exerted from the management of BOA.
The legal system is simply doing the bidding of BOA and the people involved need to be fired.
Also I would hope this fiasco would result in the boycott of BOA by all Americans who value their freedom.
If I spray paint over your car/house/business something political, or not, it still would cause you damages and the need to repair them. I wouldn't get a pass on damaging private property just because of what I damaged it with.
You just want the guy to get a pass because you hate BOA, which is downright childish. Personally I hate BOA, but I don't think people should get passes on crimes committed on people or property associated with them. It's simply demonization and dehumanization to think that just because you don't like some one that it is okay to commit crimes against them.
Sucks that we're a nation of laws doesn't it? What we need is a police force that weighs the moral compass as they see it and arrest people that they think deserves it instead of following anything that is codified.
And yes, most of this thread is about BOA because people don't like BOA. Well I don't like them either and their HQ is 8 miles down the street from me. But, if your neighbor calls the police because your dog shat in the yard and he's got it on film then prepare to pay the fine.
If BOA called the cops on him or asked the DA to press charges and they have the film then that's what you got to do.
We have laws, but not everybody is prosecuted equally.
The bankers, corporate elite, and government doesn't get prosecuted. Poor people, minorities, and the common folk are prosecuted heavily.
You just want the guy to get a pass because you hate BOA, which is downright childish. Personally I hate BOA, but I don't think people should get passes on crimes committed on people or property associated with them. It's simply demonization and dehumanization to think that just because you don't like some one that it is okay to commit crimes against them.
I'd imagine the first person to say "I love BOA" would get pummeled on this thread.
What's surprising is this guy was involved with government but wasn't smart enough to know the laws he was about to violate. In my state, every Monday for the past couple of months there have been protesters at the capital on "Moral Mondays". Plenty got arrested but none of them were surprised.
Last year we hosted the DNC. I think 25 maybe got arrested because our cops are so nice. But the majority of those met with police to schedule their arrest and plan the steps with the cops so it would go smooth.
In these cases the protesters were deliberately breaking the law because it is the arrest they felt would help their cause.
Then comes along this numbskull who's in shock because he didn't know defacing public property was against the law. If he was a non-wuss he would have marked up the sidewalk and then called the cops and the media and dare them to arrest him on camera.
And now like the NRA gun tshirt kid, we've got a lawyer who should be pushing for a plea but instead is in shock that the 1st Amendment doesn't help when the law is content neutral.
So now the lawyer wants to push it to prove how right he is instead of advocating to get his client off with as little penalty as possible.
Plea, pay the fine, pay restitution and declare victory for sticking it to the bank. But for God's sake stop acting like a baby.
If I spray paint over your car/house/business something political, or not, it still would cause you damages and the need to repair them. I wouldn't get a pass on damaging private property just because of what I damaged it with.
You just want the guy to get a pass because you hate BOA, which is downright childish. Personally I hate BOA, but I don't think people should get passes on crimes committed on people or property associated with them. It's simply demonization and dehumanization to think that just because you don't like some one that it is okay to commit crimes against them.
Are you brain damaged or just not paying attention? The man wrote on a sidewalk with sidewalk chalk.
In case you are not aware what sidewalk chalk is, it is a product made for children specifically to write on sidewalks which can then be cleaned off with a simple water hose. THERE WERE NO DAMAGES!
The only damage here is to the reputation of bank of america and to the city attorney and judge who are firmly in the pockets of the bank.
People who do not stand for the right to free speech are traitors to the spirit of the Constitution and an insult to every person who has died and sacrificed for that right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
