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 64
    More: Asinine, Jeff Olson, convicts, sidewalks, Hillcrest  
•       •       •

11047 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
WGJ
2013-06-26 08:15:53 AM
9 votes:
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 07:52:49 AM
6 votes:
You people are a goddamn mess. I wouldn't set foot in the US on a dare.
2013-06-26 08:50:35 AM
5 votes:
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 08:20:38 AM
5 votes:

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 08:14:45 AM
5 votes:
thecomicninja.files.wordpress.com
2013-06-26 07:50:59 AM
5 votes:

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 07:46:41 AM
5 votes:
$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 08:17:05 AM
4 votes:
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 09:23:28 AM
3 votes:
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 08:45:39 AM
3 votes:

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 08:34:54 AM
3 votes:

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 08:24:20 AM
3 votes:
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 08:07:52 AM
3 votes:
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 02:15:39 PM
2 votes:
4.bp.blogspot.com
2013-06-26 09:57:48 AM
2 votes:
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 09:53:12 AM
2 votes:

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 09:52:31 AM
2 votes:
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 09:15:55 AM
2 votes:

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 08:48:20 AM
2 votes:
Now might be a good time to remind the good people of California about the concept of jury nullification.
2013-06-26 08:45:09 AM
2 votes:

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 08:30:43 AM
2 votes:

Egoy3k: Canada even


yea, Toronto where the asses are so tight, only dogs hear the fatrs...
craphound.com
2013-06-26 08:30:22 AM
2 votes:

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 08:15:07 AM
2 votes:
If people didn't have enough reason to hate BoA, here you go.
2013-06-26 08:10:36 AM
2 votes:
Can they show their fear any more than this?
2013-06-26 08:08:17 AM
2 votes:
"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 08:06:49 AM
2 votes:

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 08:05:24 AM
2 votes:
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 08:05:15 AM
2 votes:

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 08:00:43 AM
2 votes:
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 07:53:43 AM
2 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org

/no, not for the "chalk terrorist"
2013-06-26 07:32:07 AM
2 votes:
Goddamn hippy vandal!

1.bp.blogspot.com
2013-06-26 07:17:09 AM
2 votes:
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 12:27:02 PM
1 votes:

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 10:35:00 AM
1 votes:
B of A needs to look up the Streisand Effect.
2013-06-26 10:10:19 AM
1 votes:
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 10:07:10 AM
1 votes:

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 10:06:09 AM
1 votes:

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 10:02:08 AM
1 votes:

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 09:58:24 AM
1 votes:

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 09:49:00 AM
1 votes:

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 09:43:15 AM
1 votes:

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 09:42:16 AM
1 votes:

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 09:41:51 AM
1 votes:
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 09:38:48 AM
1 votes:

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 09:37:36 AM
1 votes:

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 09:24:33 AM
1 votes:

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 09:23:00 AM
1 votes:
$6000 for a bucket of water? I would sue the DA and the banks.
2013-06-26 09:20:34 AM
1 votes:
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 09:17:04 AM
1 votes:

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 08:59:36 AM
1 votes:

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 08:58:47 AM
1 votes:

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 08:56:38 AM
1 votes:
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 08:54:18 AM
1 votes:
An attitude! Don't have one! It's against the law!
2013-06-26 08:45:13 AM
1 votes:
time to light up BOA facebook page
2013-06-26 08:44:39 AM
1 votes:

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 08:39:24 AM
1 votes:
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 08:36:17 AM
1 votes:

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 08:27:58 AM
1 votes:
The police narcotics division came up with that 6K number, didn't they.
2013-06-26 08:15:26 AM
1 votes:
How much jail time would he have gotten if he bombed the bank instead?
2013-06-26 08:12:10 AM
1 votes:

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 08:10:08 AM
1 votes:
$6000 ?! What kind of chalk was it - radioactive anthrax chalk?
2013-06-26 08:07:10 AM
1 votes:
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 08:05:18 AM
1 votes:

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 08:00:33 AM
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 64 of 64 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report