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  
•       •       •

11054 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
 
2013-06-26 07:17:09 AM  
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
 
2013-06-26 07:32:07 AM  
Goddamn hippy vandal!

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-26 07:46:01 AM  
Brooklyn, 2007 (click for details)
www.brooklynpaper.com
 
2013-06-26 07:46:41 AM  
$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.
 
2013-06-26 07:50:59 AM  

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.
 
2013-06-26 07:51:31 AM  
13 years?  Will there be conjugal visits?
 
2013-06-26 07:52:49 AM  
You people are a goddamn mess. I wouldn't set foot in the US on a dare.
 
2013-06-26 07:53:43 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org

/no, not for the "chalk terrorist"
 
2013-06-26 08:00:43 AM  
I really hope this gets thrown back into their faces (the banks and the city). It's not really defacing if it's not permanent or a light rainstorm can take care of it for you. Hell a temp with a rented power washer can take care of it in under an hour.
 
2013-06-26 08:00:46 AM  
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
 
2013-06-26 08:01:32 AM  
Chalk on the sidewalk is worth 13 years in jail now?
 
2013-06-26 08:01:53 AM  
http://www.sandiego.gov/cityattorney/

This is the contact information for the person responsible for this case.  Note they are a government official.
 
2013-06-26 08:02:25 AM  

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.
 
2013-06-26 08:02:35 AM  

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.  In never rains in Southern California.  Never mind.
 
2013-06-26 08:02:55 AM  
summerlandbc.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-06-26 08:05:15 AM  

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.


In my version it was going to be a bucket and a scrub brush, but This.
How could a bank possibly have spent $6k to do what the next rain storm would have done for free?
Fly the CEO in to take care of it personally?
Sidewalk Chalk Guy was right.
 
2013-06-26 08:05:18 AM  

cman: 1. Guy was retarded by vandalizing public property


Yeah.  I once dumped some of my latte on a sidewalk.  I'm glad Johnny Law wasn't around, or I'd have faced a serious caning or worse for such an egregious violation.

But, every day, I walk past the spot of my vandalism, and I see the stain.  It makes me smirk knowing just how badly I stuck it to the man.
 
2013-06-26 08:05:24 AM  
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.
 
2013-06-26 08:06:49 AM  

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.
 
2013-06-26 08:07:10 AM  
It cost Bank of America only $6K? They had to fly in a BoA vice president and assistant to supervise the operation. And truck to the site the special cleaning fluids and personnel to do the job. Or they could have one of their maintenance people do it.
 
2013-06-26 08:07:52 AM  
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.
 
2013-06-26 08:08:17 AM  
"Bank of America -- said it cost them $6,000 to clean up the chalk writing."

Are you farking kidding me? I bet it cost them nothing to clean it up and the rest are the 'bank charges'...
 
2013-06-26 08:08:45 AM  

Vodka Zombie: cman: 1. Guy was retarded by vandalizing public property

Yeah.  I once dumped some of my latte on a sidewalk.  I'm glad Johnny Law wasn't around, or I'd have faced a serious caning or worse for such an egregious violation.

But, every day, I walk past the spot of my vandalism, and I see the stain.  It makes me smirk knowing just how badly I stuck it to the man.


Outrage is stupid.

Everyone is making a big fuss out of nothing.

This has gone way to stupidly far.

Thats all I am saying.
 
2013-06-26 08:10:08 AM  
$6000 ?! What kind of chalk was it - radioactive anthrax chalk?
 
2013-06-26 08:10:36 AM  
Can they show their fear any more than this?
 
2013-06-26 08:11:08 AM  
Just wait, I don't think it's happened yet, but it will... Someone is bound to be prosecuted and sent to PMITA prison for 'defacing' a city, county, or other government online message board.
 
2013-06-26 08:12:10 AM  

weapon13: "Bank of America -- said it cost them $6,000 to clean up the chalk writing."

Are you farking kidding me? I bet it cost them nothing to clean it up and the rest are the 'bank charges'...


They must have overdrafted their maintenance account.
 
2013-06-26 08:14:20 AM  

Uncle Tractor: [upload.wikimedia.org image 600x445]

/no, not for the "chalk terrorist"


As long as Americans have cheap food, energy, & entertainment, this (probably) will never happen.

/ I can see the age of cheap energy ending real soon,,,
 
2013-06-26 08:14:44 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.


What's stopping you?
 
2013-06-26 08:14:45 AM  
thecomicninja.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-06-26 08:14:47 AM  
It could easily have cost them six grand to clean it up assuming the guy used sixty thousand dollars worth of sidewalk chalk.
 
2013-06-26 08:15:07 AM  
If people didn't have enough reason to hate BoA, here you go.
 
2013-06-26 08:15:26 AM  
How much jail time would he have gotten if he bombed the bank instead?
 
WGJ
2013-06-26 08:15:53 AM  
I think the bank claiming it took $6,000 to clean the sidewalk is perfect example of what this guy was warning people about.
 
2013-06-26 08:17:05 AM  
If this was on a public sidewalk then Bank of America was not responsible for cleaning it up, since it's not their property.  They only cleaned it because it embarrassed their business; then went straight to their cronies in the justice department to get them to make an example of someone who dare try to embarrass them.
This guy should first sue the city for selective persecution, then sue Bank of America.
 
2013-06-26 08:17:43 AM  

Forbidden Doughnut: Uncle Tractor: [upload.wikimedia.org image 600x445]

/no, not for the "chalk terrorist"

As long as Americans have cheap food, energy, & entertainment, this (probably) will never happen.

/ I can see the age of cheap energy ending real soon,,,


Cheap food will disappear before too long as well.
 
2013-06-26 08:20:38 AM  

Weaver95: Chalk on the sidewalk is worth 13 years in jail now?


It is if the goal is silencing dissent.

Martin Luther King Jr was arrested at least a dozen times for civil disobedience yet didn't spend years in prison for it. The people in power learned their lesson from the civil rights movement. Nowadays, civil disobedience can get one serious time behind bars so people think twice before protesting. That's what the gun nuts don't understand; the government doesn't have to kick in everyone's door, they just have to make most people too afraid to fight back.
 
2013-06-26 08:22:19 AM  

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


I think they used RIAA-math.
 
2013-06-26 08:23:14 AM  
O__O

I am going to prison for life. Tell my momma I left my will in the glove box.
 
2013-06-26 08:24:20 AM  
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.
 
2013-06-26 08:24:42 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: [thecomicninja.files.wordpress.com image 600x191]


That needs to be sent to the prosecutor, and the judge.
 
2013-06-26 08:25:11 AM  

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.
 
2013-06-26 08:25:14 AM  

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.


For $6, I'd like to apply for a job as a BOA cleaning guy.

Hell, just wait for it to rain.
 
2013-06-26 08:25:48 AM  

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


To be fair I can see this happening in a few other countries as well. Take Singapore or the UAE for example.  Hell I could see this exact scenario happening in the UK or Canada even. I don't know enough about other European countries to say but it's not like the Swiss of Germans are super happy when things are out of place or messy either.
 
2013-06-26 08:27:18 AM  

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

I think they used RIAA-math.


It was $1 per particle of chalk they found.
 
2013-06-26 08:27:58 AM  
The police narcotics division came up with that 6K number, didn't they.
 
2013-06-26 08:29:03 AM  

basemetal: The police narcotics division came up with that 6K number, didn't they.


Either them or the RIAA.
 
2013-06-26 08:30:22 AM  

Hagbardr: weapon13: "Bank of America -- said it cost them $6,000 to clean up the chalk writing."

Are you farking kidding me? I bet it cost them nothing to clean it up and the rest are the 'bank charges'...

They must have overdrafted their maintenance account.


The Bank of America sucks a*s.

/Nope never had any trouble with them, that's because I've never and will never do any business with those crooked farks.
 
2013-06-26 08:30:43 AM  

Egoy3k: Canada even


yea, Toronto where the asses are so tight, only dogs hear the fatrs...
craphound.com
 
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?
 
2013-06-26 09:45:08 AM  

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.
 
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
 
2013-06-26 04:03:53 PM  

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]


Well it's good to know they are spending our money wisely.

A reasonable business, when confronted by protestors, sucks it up and tries to work something out so they can go back to doing stuff.  A place like BofA run by people that belong in jail, gets really pissy.
 
2013-06-26 04:10:37 PM  
Wow, the guy with the big pushbroom and water that cleans the chalk drawings/advertisements outside the student union must be raking it in. I never knew cleaning chalk could be so expensive.

/Sounds like BoA is a little butthurt
 
2013-06-26 05:46:42 PM  
Cataholic:

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

Your sophomoric, pseudo-authoritative quotation of statute is so intellectually vacuous IT IS MAKING MY TESTICLES CRAMP.
 
2013-06-26 06:40:04 PM  

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.


Yeah, a town where the airport is named after John Wayne is so liberal.

And in 10-20 years, this guy will be taking care of situations like this in America:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-cias-mystery-man-in-bagdad-salvador -s tyle-death-squads-in-iraq/5330445
 
2013-06-26 10:15:17 PM  
So, outside of the sensible exclusion of threatening harm to the jury and their families (or someone else out there), and promises of handsome payments for declaring someone not guilty, judges can prevent someone from using a line of defense? Ab-so-lute nonsense. Judges and prosecutors should not be on the same team.
 
2013-06-27 12:11:09 AM  

mutterfark: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 500x275]


First thing I thought of! Thanks.
 
2013-06-27 03:48:30 AM  
It's good to see that Americans are losing their illusions of democracy and are finally coming to accept the reality of their plutocracy.
 
Displayed 157 of 157 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report