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 157
    More: Asinine, Jeff Olson, convicts, sidewalks, Hillcrest  
•       •       •

11052 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»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-26 09:49:00 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.




No it isn't.
 
2013-06-26 09:52:31 AM
Take it to trial, and insist on a jury.
Explain very carefully in opening and closing arguments about the civic virtue of non-violent protest, speak lovingly of the 1st Amendment, point out the utter ridiculousness of the claimed "damage" that cost $6000 to fix.

Let the jury decide if writing on the sidewalk with chalk purchsed from the toy department os a store is worth more prison time than rape or kidnapping.
 
2013-06-26 09:53:12 AM

mattharvest: He describes his own actions as an attempt to hurt the bank.  Again, I'm not agreeing with the discretionary choice to prosecute him, but he fits the standards of the statute.


TFA:"I was encouraging folks to close their accounts at big Wall Street banks to transfer their money local nonprofit, community credit unions,"

I'm really having a problem with this idea that encouraging people to use an alternate service provider is "hurting" a multinational corporation. Maybe if people started listening to Olson it might reduce corporate revenue but lets not pretend that anyone is being physically harmed here.
 
2013-06-26 09:53:42 AM

Pants full of macaroni!!: 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.....


It's the highest form of patriotic.
 
2013-06-26 09:55:38 AM

mattharvest: mgshamster: 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.

He describes his own actions as an attempt to hurt the bank.  Again, I'm not agreeing with the discretionary choice to prosecute him, but he fits the standards of the statute.


That depends on which half of the sentence you want yo focus on, because there is only a single sentence quoted by the guy on that subject.

Either, "close accounts from big wall street banks" or "transfer money to local nonprofit community credit unions."

And since we don't know what website he was promoting, we can't judge ABC 10 News' description of the website being anti big bank.

They could have spun the story to say he was promoting local non profit community credit unions just as easily as they spun the story to make it anti big bank.

Concerning his intent, the article is very light on details.
 
2013-06-26 09:57:45 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: lets not pretend that anyone is being physically harmed here.


If you think physical damage is the only way something or someone can be "hurt" then we are done discussing this, or for that matter, any issue.
 
2013-06-26 09:57:48 AM
As a side walk chalk vandal my self I am getting a kick.


Long story short.  When I was 12 a friend and I were caught tagging the side of the school with the chalk.  A police officer saw us and "arrested" us.  Our parents were called and we had to clean it up.  No real arrest and no BS over chalk on the school.  however....

Joke was on them.  Our parents thought it was clever and perhaps a little cruel to have us use a very small brillo pad and tooth brush to clean off our naughty language.  My friend and I looked at each other as there wasn't much to start with and we realized very early that super cleaning only 1 part of a building results in only one thing.  Orders are orders and if parents and a police officer are that damn stupid... well they just became part of the prank.  I whispered this fact to my friend and we continued to vigorously scrub.  Afterwords our art was now engraved into the brick of the school and our parents failed to realize this.  Our artwork was visible for a few years until somebody felt it was worth preserving and gave it an upgrade with real spray paint.

The right thing would have been to just have us hose it down, but our parents thought it would be a better idea to get creative with the solution.  It backfired and it was awesome.
 
2013-06-26 09:58:24 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: mattharvest: He describes his own actions as an attempt to hurt the bank.  Again, I'm not agreeing with the discretionary choice to prosecute him, but he fits the standards of the statute.

TFA:"I was encouraging folks to close their accounts at big Wall Street banks to transfer their money local nonprofit, community credit unions,"

I'm really having a problem with this idea that encouraging people to use an alternate service provider is "hurting" a multinational corporation. Maybe if people started listening to Olson it might reduce corporate revenue but lets not pretend that anyone is being physically harmed here.


Don't do a false equivalency: maliciousness doesn't require physical harm, but rather just harm.  If you intend to harm someone's business, that's maliciousness (that's why we have a tort for interfering with someone's business).  Moreover, the nature and content of his behavior indicate it was intended to harm them.  Not physically injure anyone, but definitely to harm.

The 'winning' issue here is that this is simply silly, not that he doesn't fit the statute.
 
2013-06-26 10:01:49 AM

mgshamster: Concerning his intent, the article is very light on details.


I do concede that point, but I did find an article that stated that at least initially he was simply writing "stop big banks".

Look, I don't this guy deserves 13 years (and highly doubt he gets any jail time tbh) but I do think that he did actually break the law as the statute listed above reads.  Maybe the statute should be changed, maybe the guy has a point, but that doesn't mean he didn't break the law.
 
2013-06-26 10:02:08 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?


Holy shiat you are retarded; intentionally or not doesn't matter. I doubt you will ever offer anything resembling meaningful commentary.
 
2013-06-26 10:05:53 AM

TonyDanza: mgshamster: Concerning his intent, the article is very light on details.

I do concede that point, but I did find an article that stated that at least initially he was simply writing "stop big banks".

Look, I don't this guy deserves 13 years (and highly doubt he gets any jail time tbh) but I do think that he did actually break the law as the statute listed above reads.  Maybe the statute should be changed, maybe the guy has a point, but that doesn't mean he didn't break the law.


I found an article that said he was writing "stop bank blight . com" but I couldn't find that website. It doesn't seem to exist (or perhaps, doesn't exist anymore...)
 
2013-06-26 10:06:09 AM

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


yeah every damn day america seems just a little more retarted. Take it from a concerned northern neighbour, you fellas need some help. As a nation you guys need a shrink.

back in the 90's I used to love going to the states. Now not even if you paid me would I go. Which is a shame cause there are lots of cool places to see.
 
2013-06-26 10:07:10 AM

TonyDanza: Monkeyhouse Zendo: lets not pretend that anyone is being physically harmed here.

If you think physical damage is the only way something or someone can be "hurt" then we are done discussing this, or for that matter, any issue.


Sloppy writing is an indication of sloppy thinking. Maybe you mean "damage" rather than "hurt"?

Hurt has as its primary definition the infliction of physical pain associated with injury and is generally used in reference to living things since they're the ones that can feel pain. Damage, on the other hand, is generally used in reference to inanimate objects and doesn't include the connotation of causing physical pain.

My point is that you're anthropomorphizing a business entity in an attempt to invoke an emotional response associated with the word "hurt". So yeah, I see what you're doing there.
 
2013-06-26 10:08:58 AM

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

yeah every damn day america seems just a little more retarted. Take it from a concerned northern neighbour, you fellas need some help. As a nation you guys need a shrink.

back in the 90's I used to love going to the states. Now not even if you paid me would I go. Which is a shame cause there are lots of cool places to see.


Sadly, as a nation, we hate/fear psychiatry.
 
2013-06-26 10:10:19 AM
1) It rains in San Diego about one month a year, so you guys saying just wait til it rains, thats east coast talk, useless in this context.

2) That being said, Bank of America obviously is getting some checkbook justice here. Typical banana republic bullsh*t. We need to social media this sh*t while we still have rights to do it.
 
2013-06-26 10:10:50 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: TonyDanza: Monkeyhouse Zendo: lets not pretend that anyone is being physically harmed here.

If you think physical damage is the only way something or someone can be "hurt" then we are done discussing this, or for that matter, any issue.

Sloppy writing is an indication of sloppy thinking. Maybe you mean "damage" rather than "hurt"?

Hurt has as its primary definition the infliction of physical pain associated with injury and is generally used in reference to living things since they're the ones that can feel pain. Damage, on the other hand, is generally used in reference to inanimate objects and doesn't include the connotation of causing physical pain.

My point is that you're anthropomorphizing a business entity in an attempt to invoke an emotional response associated with the word "hurt". So yeah, I see what you're doing there.


That's probably why he put "hurt" in quotes. By all means though keep using semantics to argue against him though.

you'renothelping.jpg
 
2013-06-26 10:12:23 AM
According to Olson, one of the banks -- Bank of America -- said it cost them $6,000 to clean up the chalk writing

It was $50 for the clean-up followed by a $5950 bonus.
 
2013-06-26 10:14:01 AM

Egoy3k: That's probably why he put "hurt" in quotes. By all means though keep using semantics to argue against him though.

you'renothelping.jpg


In his defense on that one, I did original using the term hurting in regards to Bank of America.

That being said, apparently when using words, we can only use primary definitions now.  So just keep that in mind.
 
2013-06-26 10:15:03 AM

fireclown: [www.larryvilleh3.org image 719x314]
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.


I agree, but it's not easy to find someone to volunteer their basement for it.
 
2013-06-26 10:15:21 AM

Egoy3k: That's probably why he put "hurt" in quotes. By all means though keep using semantics to argue against him though.


TonyDanza: 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.


What was that you were saying about quotes?

He's using loaded language. I'm just calling him on it.
 
2013-06-26 10:19:26 AM

powhound: I agree, but it's not easy to find someone to volunteer their basement for it.


we could hide bins full of floating Heinekens  for  beer checks, and run from basement to basement.
 
2013-06-26 10:19:52 AM

mattharvest: mgshamster: 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.

He describes his own actions as an attempt to hurt the bank.  Again, I'm not agreeing with the discretionary choice to prosecute him, but he fits the standards of the statute.


2.bp.blogspot.com

Yep, it's exactly the same.

If banks were kids then would be bullied mercilessly for their pussiness.
 
2013-06-26 10:24:46 AM
I read a story once about an artist who did conceptual 'graffiti' using washable/ clean-rinsing, theatrical black hairspray. His theory was that if he were caught, it would be a quick cleanup.
After one of his more visible 'defacings', a predictable furor ensued- real paint was was donated to a cause to cover what they thought was damage. The artist became bored with the medium on moved on.
 
2013-06-26 10:26:21 AM

mattharvest: Monkeyhouse Zendo: mattharvest: He describes his own actions as an attempt to hurt the bank.  Again, I'm not agreeing with the discretionary choice to prosecute him, but he fits the standards of the statute.

TFA:"I was encouraging folks to close their accounts at big Wall Street banks to transfer their money local nonprofit, community credit unions,"

I'm really having a problem with this idea that encouraging people to use an alternate service provider is "hurting" a multinational corporation. Maybe if people started listening to Olson it might reduce corporate revenue but lets not pretend that anyone is being physically harmed here.

Don't do a false equivalency: maliciousness doesn't require physical harm, but rather just harm.  If you intend to harm someone's business, that's maliciousness (that's why we have a tort for interfering with someone's business).  Moreover, the nature and content of his behavior indicate it was intended to harm them.  Not physically injure anyone, but definitely to harm.

The 'winning' issue here is that this is simply silly, not that he doesn't fit the statute.


Tortious interference with contract. What contract was he interfering with?
 
2013-06-26 10:29:58 AM
"said it cost them $6,000 to clean up the "

holy obama, give me that contract... even if i have to buy a $600 pressure washer i'll still be 5400 ahead.
 
2013-06-26 10:32:51 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?



Slavers?
 
2013-06-26 10:34:41 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Tortious interference with contract. What contract was he interfering with?


I believe tortious interference with business relations is what he was referring to.  Which are essentially the same, but without a written contract already in existence.
 
2013-06-26 10:34:42 AM
If this was a public right of way, how would that play into this?

Is there some correlation between "damage" re: clean up costs and fine/jail time in this statute?

What justifies a reasonable damage estimate for cleaning up sidewalk chalk?  Even if they can prove they paid someone 6K to clean up the mess, how does one demonstrate that level of clean up was unnecessary relative to the damage?

They could have cleaned it up by replacing several yards of concrete, would dude be on the hook for that amount too?
 
2013-06-26 10:35:00 AM
B of A needs to look up the Streisand Effect.
 
2013-06-26 10:36:47 AM
Now if only they would arrest and charge graffiti punks too. It would make my day.
 
2013-06-26 10:37:50 AM

Inflatable Rhetoric: B of A needs to look up the Streisand Effect.


B of A  IS the Streisand Effect.
 
2013-06-26 10:46:08 AM

TonyDanza: I believe tortious interference with business relations is what he was referring to.


In that case, BofA would need to demonstrate that Olson's claims were false and that they had been damaged by those claims, correct?
 
2013-06-26 10:47:11 AM
Hey, is anybody else outraged that Bank of America said it cost them $6,000 to clean up the chalk writing???
 
2013-06-26 11:00:10 AM

TonyDanza: StoPPeRmobile: Tortious interference with contract. What contract was he interfering with?

I believe tortious interference with business relations is what he was referring to.  Which are essentially the same, but without a written contract already in existence.


Oh, I think I dismissed that because I don't have billions of dollars.
 
2013-06-26 11:09:30 AM

Opposable Thumb: Hey, is anybody else outraged that Bank of America said it cost them $6,000 to clean up the chalk writing???


Focus groups showed that complaining that they had to hose off the sidewalk wasn't a winner.
 
2013-06-26 11:17:06 AM

take_flight: It cost $6,000 to hose off the sidewalk? I'd love to see the explanation of that.

It's not vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. The person who commented on the original article who said this is third world country stuff is 100% correct.


Nope, this is the very definition of first world problems. We've got it so damn good here we have to look or reasons to get all upset.
 
2013-06-26 11:28:22 AM
Perhaps the rest of us should mosey over to our local BofA and scrawl "$6k" on their sidewalk?
 
2013-06-26 11:47:05 AM
$6k to clean chalk off a sidewalk. And that was for what....paying a consultant to fly in and tell them to have the janitorial staff hose it down? Also, 13 years for scribbling on the sidewalk in chalk? $13k fine? What the fark? He should have straight up robbed the bank. He would have done less time.

This whole thing is farking retarded. Fine him for loitering and tell him to cut it out if you feel the need to do something. This is excessive.
 
2013-06-26 11:52:30 AM

Generation_D: 1) It rains in San Diego about one month a year, so you guys saying just wait til it rains, thats east coast talk, useless in this context.


Then it wears off after people have been walking on it for a day or two. The point is, cleaning up is trivial. There's no reason not to let the guy who did it go out there himself and clean it up if he's willing to.
 
2013-06-26 12:07:46 PM

MechaPyx: $6k to clean chalk off a sidewalk. And that was for what....paying a consultant to fly in and tell them to have the janitorial staff hose it down? Also, 13 years for scribbling on the sidewalk in chalk? $13k fine? What the fark? He should have straight up robbed the bank. He would have done less time.

This whole thing is farking retarded. Fine him for loitering and tell him to cut it out if you feel the need to do something. This is excessive.


MechaPyx: $6k to clean chalk off a sidewalk. And that was for what....paying a consultant to fly in and tell them to have the janitorial staff hose it down? Also, 13 years for scribbling on the sidewalk in chalk? $13k fine? What the fark? He should have straight up robbed the bank. He would have done less time.

This whole thing is farking retarded. Fine him for loitering and tell him to cut it out if you feel the need to do something. This is excessive.




I guess you don't get it.

The things that you can't stop people from doing, carry the harshest punishments.

laxallstars.com
 
2013-06-26 12:21:14 PM
I wish corporations were people so I could kick B o A in groin, it'd be worth the assault charge.
 
2013-06-26 12:27:02 PM

flynn80: I wish corporations were people so I could kick B o A in groin, it'd be worth the assault charge.

-=-
Except you would be facing life in prison.
 
2013-06-26 12:36:46 PM

flynn80: I wish corporations were people so I could kick B o A in groin, it'd be worth the assault charge death penalty.



FTF the future.
 
2013-06-26 01:00:26 PM

6655321: And truck to the site the special cleaning fluids and personnel to do the job.


Of course you also had to have special people in who were trained to use the equipment, make sure the public were safe whilst the chemicals were used and acquire any permits that using such chemicals would require.   You'd also need to take samples of the material used to deface the building and test it to make sure it itself wasn't hazardous or would react badly to the specialist cleaning solutions being used.

Once you factor in that and the internal departments billing each other (+10% profit margin) the final bill only being $6k is actually remarkably cheap. 

Sure you or I would just go out with a pressure washer or a bucket of water and be done in 30 seconds or so but then we aren't cleaning professionals and don't know what were doing are we?   Hell if we'd of been let loose on that graffiti we could of ending up killing the whole done city/town with out buckets of water and washed away chalk!
 
2013-06-26 01:34:28 PM
Whoa whoa whoa wait just one second here
"Surveillance pictures showed him writing on the sidewalks of banks using children's chalk to promote anti-big bank websites. "
Sidewalks of banks?
Pretty sure those are sidewalks of the people, and the banks do not own them.
If they did, a slip and fall would find the bank being sued instead of the city as is often the case in NYC.
What a bunch of assholes to write this as if the banks owned the sidewalks... oh wait, the banks and the media are mostly part of the same companies, of course they write it that way.
 
2013-06-26 02:15:39 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-26 02:20:50 PM

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

Gimme a hose and a scrub brush, I'll do it for half in about 15 minutes.

Wankers.

Or just wait until the first good rain.  Works in my neighborhood.

Oh wait, I forgot.  It never rains in Southern California.  Never mind.


Albert Hammond sees what you did there.
 
2013-06-26 02:24:02 PM
Big Bank= Big Money= Big Power.
Your screwed.
 
2013-06-26 03:22:53 PM
The actual fee to clean up the chalk on the sidewalk was only $50, the other $5950 were the fines from the California Coastal Commission because they allowed chalk water to drain into the storm drain and that chalk water somehow hurt some protected animal.
 
2013-06-26 03:47:49 PM
Bank of America -- said it cost them $6,000 to clean up the chalk writing.

24.media.tumblr.com
 
Displayed 50 of 157 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