If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(10 News)   Writing on the sidewalks with chalk? Oh yeah, that's good for 13 yrs in PMITA prison   (10news.com) divider line 158
    More: Asinine, Jeff Olson, convicts, sidewalks, Hillcrest  
•       •       •

11046 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jun 2013 at 7:48 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



158 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-26 08:32:31 AM
Watch where you walk cause there's sidewalk chalk and you cant keep a secret from the ground beneath you.
 
2013-06-26 08:34:54 AM

Cataholic: (1) Defaces with graffiti or other inscribed material.


The sidewalk wasn't defaced, also the law specifies malice, there's nothing malicious about what the man did.
 
2013-06-26 08:36:17 AM

Cataholic: redmid17: Cataholic: WhyteRaven74: cman: 1. Guy was retarded by vandalizing public property

except given that chalk is not permanent nor damages the property it's not really vandalism.

California Penal Code Sec 594


(a) 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.

Chalk doesn't damage or destroy concrete. You also notice that nowhere in the penal code is 'deface' defined in the CA penal code.

Then you go with the plain dictionary meaning.  If it mars the appearance of something, it defaces it.


Yeah but marring the appearance of something implies some type of permanence. Am I defacing a whiteboard if I draw a dick on it (and I have many a times)? Not in my view since it is easily removed.
 
2013-06-26 08:38:09 AM
Chalk on sidewalk - 13 years
Writing 'wash me' on a car - Life sentence
Peeing in the snow - Damnatio memoriae
 
2013-06-26 08:39:24 AM
I think OWS was a bunch of retards, but charging this guy with even a fraction of the possible sentence is even more retarded.   And the only thing that might be more retarded than that is paying $6000 to clean up sidewalk chalk drawings....
 
2013-06-26 08:39:53 AM

redmid17: Cataholic: redmid17: Cataholic: WhyteRaven74: cman: 1. Guy was retarded by vandalizing public property

except given that chalk is not permanent nor damages the property it's not really vandalism.

California Penal Code Sec 594


(a) 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.

Chalk doesn't damage or destroy concrete. You also notice that nowhere in the penal code is 'deface' defined in the CA penal code.

Then you go with the plain dictionary meaning.  If it mars the appearance of something, it defaces it.

Yeah but marring the appearance of something implies some type of permanence. Am I defacing a whiteboard if I draw a dick on it (and I have many a times)? Not in my view since it is easily removed.


Drawing a dick on a whiteboard is not "defacing". Everyone knows it's not a dick, it's scissors.
 
2013-06-26 08:41:44 AM
It's all the gubmint regulations that make it cost $6000, you have to get a water dumping license, file impact assessment with the EPA, pay a contract janitor, because the union ones can't work on the sidewalk, etc.  These things add up.
 
2013-06-26 08:42:19 AM
Thisbymaster

If people didn't have enough reason to hate BoA out of control government, here you go.




It's CA's liberal government pressing these charges, not BoA.


/ plenty of reasons to Hate BoA, this isn't one of them.
 
2013-06-26 08:43:02 AM

Phil Moskowitz: You people are a goddamn mess. I wouldn't set foot in the US on a dare.


I love the good people in my country, but this business is out of hand. For every year more that I live abroad I see the situation get nuttier and nuttier.

 
2013-06-26 08:44:14 AM
I'm clearly in the wrong line of work.  I should be starting up a sidewalk chalk cleaning business.
 
2013-06-26 08:44:39 AM

OnlyM3: Thisbymaster

If people didn't have enough reason to hate BoA out of control government, here you go.

It's CA's liberal government pressing these charges, not BoA.


/ plenty of reasons to Hate BoA, this isn't one of them.


Claiming it cost $6000 to clean up sidewalk chalk was kind of shiatty of BOA.
 
2013-06-26 08:45:09 AM

HotWingConspiracy: According to Olson, one of the banks -- Bank of America -- said it cost them $6,000 to clean up the chalk writing.

Uh-huh. I would press them to prove that in court. I think they'd back off instead of perjuring themselves.


Who would rule they would perjure? They already got the First Amendment thrown out.
 
2013-06-26 08:45:13 AM
time to light up BOA facebook page
 
2013-06-26 08:45:39 AM

Wolf892: This stinks of a payoff to the right people by the BoA to make an example of this serf. Everyone knows it's a stupid charge, it's stupid that they say they paid $6000.00 but no one will stop this from going to trial and having a sentence handed down to this poor guy just so that the rest of us have the fear of Hades put into us so that we don't speak out against our corporate lords.


Pretty much this.


Meanwhile people who defaced the entire world get away scott free:


"Lord help our farking scam... this has to be the stupidest place I have worked at," writes one Standard & Poor's executive... "Let's hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of card[s] falters," ruminates one more.
...
Thanks to these documents, we now know how that happened. And showing as they do the back-and-forth between the country's top ratings agencies and one of America's biggest investment banks (Morgan Stanley) in advance of two major subprime deals, they also lay out in detail the evolution of the industrywide fraud that led to implosion of the world economy - how banks, hedge funds, mortgage lenders and ratings agencies, working at an extraordinary level of cooperation, teamed up to disguise and then sell near-worthless loans as AAA securities.
 
2013-06-26 08:47:16 AM

redmid17: Cataholic: redmid17: Cataholic: WhyteRaven74: cman: 1. Guy was retarded by vandalizing public property

except given that chalk is not permanent nor damages the property it's not really vandalism.

California Penal Code Sec 594


(a) 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.

Chalk doesn't damage or destroy concrete. You also notice that nowhere in the penal code is 'deface' defined in the CA penal code.

Then you go with the plain dictionary meaning.  If it mars the appearance of something, it defaces it.

Yeah but marring the appearance of something implies some type of permanence. Am I defacing a whiteboard if I draw a dick on it (and I have many a times)? Not in my view since it is easily removed.


I'm not saying the law is  good here, but you're also wrong.  To mar something doesn't imply permanence; it's simply (per Meriam-Webster) to impair the appearance of the thing.  In fairness, it also  includes permanent impairments, but I don't see anything in any dictionary definition (nor my own experience of the word) to require permanence.

The statute appears to have been specifically written to include non-permanent marring, perhaps in response to situations such as this where the 'vandal' seeks to defend themselves by saying "It's not permanent".  Among other things, what is the definition of 'permanent' there?  If you can repair damage, is it really "permanent" in any sense?  How much effort must the 'repair' require before something transitions from non-permanent to permanent?

If you cut your hair, it's permanent in the sense that you'll never glue your hair back together; it's non-permanent in the sense that, obviously, your hair will grow out on it's own.  If you require permanence in the definition of vandalism, you're constantly going to have to define and redefine permanence.

By having their definition simply leave that out, it appears California is avoiding that little Gordian knot.
 
2013-06-26 08:48:20 AM
Now might be a good time to remind the good people of California about the concept of jury nullification.
 
2013-06-26 08:49:37 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: Phil Moskowitz: You people are a goddamn mess. I wouldn't set foot in the US on a dare.

I don't blame you... If I could leave, I would.


Any country taking in American citizens as refugees yet? My wife and I are ready to bail...
 
2013-06-26 08:49:51 AM

take_flight: redmid17: Cataholic: redmid17: Cataholic: WhyteRaven74: cman: 1. Guy was retarded by vandalizing public property

except given that chalk is not permanent nor damages the property it's not really vandalism.

California Penal Code Sec 594


(a) 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.

Chalk doesn't damage or destroy concrete. You also notice that nowhere in the penal code is 'deface' defined in the CA penal code.

Then you go with the plain dictionary meaning.  If it mars the appearance of something, it defaces it.

Yeah but marring the appearance of something implies some type of permanence. Am I defacing a whiteboard if I draw a dick on it (and I have many a times)? Not in my view since it is easily removed.

Drawing a dick on a whiteboard is not "defacing". Everyone knows it's not a dick, it's scissors.


Oh they know what it is. It's always a real big veiny, triumphant bastard.
 
2013-06-26 08:50:35 AM
Stop using banks and start using credit unions.
Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans.
Stop watching network TV news.
Start telling other people to do the same.
 
2013-06-26 08:54:18 AM
An attitude! Don't have one! It's against the law!
 
2013-06-26 08:56:38 AM
People in that area should take their kids down to that sidewalk with a sidewalk chalk and let them draw whatever they desire and see what happens
 
2013-06-26 08:58:47 AM

cman: 1. Guy was retarded by vandalizing public property
2. Bank was retarded by asking police to press charges because the man was being mean.
3. Judge is retarded

YOU ARE ALL ACTING RETARDED


You have a childishly low threshold for what constitutes vandalism.
 
2013-06-26 08:59:36 AM

mattharvest: redmid17: Cataholic: redmid17: Cataholic: WhyteRaven74: cman: 1. Guy was retarded by vandalizing public property

except given that chalk is not permanent nor damages the property it's not really vandalism.

California Penal Code Sec 594


(a) 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.

Chalk doesn't damage or destroy concrete. You also notice that nowhere in the penal code is 'deface' defined in the CA penal code.

Then you go with the plain dictionary meaning.  If it mars the appearance of something, it defaces it.

Yeah but marring the appearance of something implies some type of permanence. Am I defacing a whiteboard if I draw a dick on it (and I have many a times)? Not in my view since it is easily removed.

I'm not saying the law is  good here, but you're also wrong.  To mar something doesn't imply permanence; it's simply (per Meriam-Webster) to impair the appearance of the thing.  In fairness, it also  includes permanent impairments, but I don't see anything in any dictionary definition (nor my own experience of the word) to require permanence.

The statute appears to have been specifically written to include non-permanent marring, perhaps in response to situations such as this where the 'vandal' seeks to defend themselves by saying "It's not permanent".  Among other things, what is the definition of 'permanent' there?  If you can repair damage, is it really "permanent" in any sense?  How much effort must the 'repair' require before something transitions from non-permanent to permanent?

If you cut your hair, it's permanent in the sense that you'll never glue your hair back together; it's non-permanent in the sense that, obviously, your hair will grow out on it's own.  If you require permanence in the definition of vandalism, you're constantly going to have to define and redefine permanence.

By having their definition simply leave that out, it appears California is avoiding that little Gordian knot.


Still no malice.
 
2013-06-26 09:02:52 AM
Shut up! Be happy!

The comforts you've demanded are now mandatory.
 
2013-06-26 09:04:25 AM

sno man: Egoy3k: Canada even

yea, Toronto where the asses are so tight, only dogs hear the fatrs...
[craphound.com image 850x566]


Damn Toronto's prisons must be very full.

And cleaning that will cost millions.
 
2013-06-26 09:04:48 AM
I'll clean it up for $5000, same them a grand.
 
2013-06-26 09:07:27 AM

OnlyM3: Thisbymaster

If people didn't have enough reason to hate BoA out of control government, here you go.




It's CA's liberal government pressing these charges, not BoA.


/ plenty of reasons to Hate BoA, this isn't one of them.


San Diego County is by no means liberal. The government there is full of conservative busybodies.
 
2013-06-26 09:08:44 AM
Up with power, down with the little guy.

/imidoingitright?
 
2013-06-26 09:15:38 AM

But Wait There's More: Brooklyn, 2007 (click for details)
[www.brooklynpaper.com image 352x500]


Clearly she was spreading communist propaganda as evidenced by the Sputnik drawing.  A not too subtle jab at the USA's inferiority.
 
2013-06-26 09:15:55 AM

cman: 1. Guy was retarded by vandalizing public property
2. Bank was retarded by asking police to press charges because the man was being mean.
3. Judge is retarded

YOU ARE ALL ACTING RETARDED


Correction, The Judge is bought and paid for by the bank.
 
2013-06-26 09:17:04 AM

SecretAgentWoman: $6k to clean chalk off of a sidewalk?


And these people who say we're better off letting them manage our money.
 
2013-06-26 09:18:13 AM

cman: 1. Guy was retarded by vandalizing public property
2. Bank was retarded by asking police to press charges because the man was being mean.
3. Judge is retarded

YOU ARE ALL ACTING RETARDED


Where is the "destruction of or damage to public or private property"? it's chalk, people walking by will wear it away.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#s a fe=off&qscrl=1&sclient=psy-ab&q=define%20vandalism&qscrl=1&oq=&gs_l=&p bx=1&fp=522be3f4542a7d02&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48340889, d.eWU&biw=1626&bih=927">https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome- instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#sa fe=off&qscrl=1&sclient=psy-ab&q=define%20vandalism&qscrl=1&oq=&gs_l=&p bx=1&fp=522be3f4542a7d02&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48340889, d.eWU&biw=1626&bih=927
 
2013-06-26 09:20:34 AM
Lets see, it's something like $60K a year to store someone in PMITA prison so, including court costs, this little bit of foolishness could cost the taxpayers upwards of $8M.

If I was the defense attorney, those would be my opening remarks.
 
2013-06-26 09:22:14 AM
www.larryvilleh3.org
ON-ON!

/and to think we used chalk for a few years post 9/11 to ease peoples minds about harmless white powder.  This is why we can't have nice things.
//we STILL need a fark hash.
 
2013-06-26 09:23:00 AM
$6000 for a bucket of water? I would sue the DA and the banks.
 
2013-06-26 09:23:26 AM
I'm guessing they used Perrier to wash away the chalk? That's the only way I can think it would cost them so much money.

You know how in the original Despicable Me film, the Bank of Evil was formerly Lehman Brothers? I'm wondering if there's still time to change that for the sequel...
 
2013-06-26 09:23:28 AM
By spawning an unstoppable wave of mass-paranoia and distrust and turning America into a gigantic Orwellian Gulag, the terrorists have won.
 
2013-06-26 09:24:33 AM

Walker: According to Olson, one of the banks -- Bank of America -- said it cost them $6,000 to clean up the chalk writing.

[media.tumblr.com image 193x135]


They got the CEO to clean it. It took him 15 minutes to clean the street (ever seen a CEO scrub? That's why it took so long). This goes into his job review as a job well done so it might even be more expensive come bonus time.
 
2013-06-26 09:28:58 AM
Six grand?  Sounds like the CEO did the job in about 15 minutes.  And it's the most honest work he's ever done.
 
2013-06-26 09:30:35 AM
6 grand!? Did they pay an executive to go outside with a mop?
 
2013-06-26 09:32:12 AM

wallywam1: Still no malice.


His action was done with the sole intent of hurting Bank of America.  By the very definition of the term it was an act of malice.
 
2013-06-26 09:35:44 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: How much jail time would he have gotten if he bombed the bank instead?


Or raped a teller.
 
2013-06-26 09:37:36 AM

TonyDanza: wallywam1: Still no malice.

His action was done with the sole intent of hurting Bank of America.  By the very definition of the term it was an act of malice.


Today I learned that attempting to reduce a corporation's profits by advocating that consumers use an alternate service provider is "hurting" that corporation. I guess Mitt was right: corporations are people too.

/my friend
 
2013-06-26 09:38:48 AM

TonyDanza: wallywam1: Still no malice.

His action was done with the sole intent of hurting Bank of America.  By the very definition of the term it was an act of malice.


His actions were done to help his local community.
 
2013-06-26 09:40:04 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Today I learned that attempting to reduce a corporation's profits by advocating that consumers use an alternate service provider is "hurting" that corporation. I guess Mitt was right: corporations are people too.


Today you learned that a corporation is made up of people?  What did you think they were previously?
 
2013-06-26 09:41:51 AM
I know the cleaning 'bill' is beyond ridiculous, but 13 years in jail?

He'd have gotten less time for murdering someone (preferably from BOA)

/This country is now full-on batsh*t crazy.
 
2013-06-26 09:42:16 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: TonyDanza: wallywam1: Still no malice.

His action was done with the sole intent of hurting Bank of America.  By the very definition of the term it was an act of malice.

Today I learned that attempting to reduce a corporation's profits by advocating that consumers use an alternate service provider is "hurting" that corporation. I guess Mitt was right: corporations are people too.

/my friend


Didn't you get the memo? Dissent=terrorism.
 
2013-06-26 09:43:15 AM

TonyDanza: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Today I learned that attempting to reduce a corporation's profits by advocating that consumers use an alternate service provider is "hurting" that corporation. I guess Mitt was right: corporations are people too.

Today you learned that a corporation is made up of people?  What did you think they were previously?


Today I learned that healthy business competition is fueled by malice and a desire to hurt the employees of competing companies.
 
2013-06-26 09:43:42 AM

Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Monkeyhouse Zendo: TonyDanza: wallywam1: Still no malice.

His action was done with the sole intent of hurting Bank of America.  By the very definition of the term it was an act of malice.

Today I learned that attempting to reduce a corporation's profits by advocating that consumers use an alternate service provider is "hurting" that corporation. I guess Mitt was right: corporations are people too.

/my friend

Didn't you get the memo? Dissent=terrorism.


Descent, on the other hand.....
 
2013-06-26 09:43:56 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: TonyDanza: wallywam1: Still no malice.

His action was done with the sole intent of hurting Bank of America.  By the very definition of the term it was an act of malice.

Today I learned that attempting to reduce a corporation's profits by advocating that consumers use an alternate service provider is "hurting" that corporation. I guess Mitt was right: corporations are people too.

/my friend


Consider:

Corporations are people.

It is illegal to maliciously harm people.

So if advocating that a consumer use an alternative service provider is maliciously hurting a corporation, then would all competitive advertisement be illegal?
 
Displayed 50 of 158 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report