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)   "My son said, 'Daddy, why are you mad?' And I said I was upset because a man got in trouble, got arrested for writing on a sidewalk with chalk"   (10news.com) divider line 205
    More: Followup, Jeff Olson, dads, Hall of Justice, sidewalks, closing arguments, City News Service, rally  
•       •       •

11078 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jun 2013 at 10:08 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-30 01:44:11 AM
This truly is one of the most bizarre prosecutions I've heard about.

Also who gags a misdemeanor?

He could have pissed the chalk off, there is no damage. This is just nutty.
 
2013-06-30 02:09:37 AM
Judge Howard Shore issued a gag order in the case, barring both sides from talking. Shore also prohibited Olson's attorney from using freedom of speech in his defense.

What the ever-loving' fark?
 
2013-06-30 02:15:15 AM

propasaurus: Judge Howard Shore issued a gag order in the case, barring both sides from talking. Shore also prohibited Olson's attorney from using freedom of speech in his defense.

What the ever-loving' fark?


Technically i can see why it is not a defense, you don't really have the right to chalk up some private sidewalk or building, and the Bill of Rights applies to what the government can't do to you. But it is just a silly prosecution anyway.
 
2013-06-30 04:27:23 AM
Same thing just happened here in PA.

People were peacefully protesting at the Gov mansion in Harrisburg, a guy took normal washable chalk and wrote on the (public) sidewalk "Governor Corbett has healthcare, we should to"

They arrested him for making a derogatory remark about the Governor.

I wish I had my own thug army to arrest people on whatever trumped up bullshiat they can think up.

Oh no, wait, I don't,
because I'm not a farking fascist.
 
2013-06-30 10:13:24 AM
Judge Howard Shore issued a gag order in the case, barring both sides from talking. Shore also prohibited Olson's attorney from using freedom of speech in his defense.

Howard Shore is an asshole but his music is pretty cool.
 
2013-06-30 10:15:06 AM
Synder v Phelps.  8-1 First Amendment.  Free to go.

San Diego v Chalk.  13 years.
 
2013-06-30 10:15:26 AM

MurphyMurphy: Same thing just happened here in PA.

People were peacefully protesting at the Gov mansion in Harrisburg, a guy took normal washable chalk and wrote on the (public) sidewalk "Governor Corbett has healthcare, we should to"

They arrested him for making a derogatory remark about the Governor.

I wish I had my own thug army to arrest people on whatever trumped up bullshiat they can think up.

Oh no, wait, I don't,
because I'm not a farking fascist.


What happened to the freedom of speech nuts, did they all go deaf, dumb and blind?
 
2013-06-30 10:15:35 AM
This is fu*king ridiculous. Will stores now stop selling sidewalk chalk for children? How can something which can be rained off considered vandalism?
 
2013-06-30 10:17:21 AM
Judge Howard Shore issued a gag order in the case, barring both sides from talking. Shore also prohibited Olson's attorney from using freedom of speech in his defense.

Complete and utter horseshiat.
 
2013-06-30 10:18:29 AM
Chalktavists

/sorry
//please don't use that word
 
2013-06-30 10:19:10 AM
Did you see the ridiculous "if some one has the right to write on a sidewalk, next they'll write on your property argument? The slow slide to fascism: never overnight, always in increments.
 
2013-06-30 10:19:57 AM
Adults writing on sidewalks with chalk. How farking pathetic.
 
2013-06-30 10:20:06 AM
I'm just glad that their city is so crime free that they can spend their tax dollars prosecuting someone for something as harmless as this.
 
2013-06-30 10:20:10 AM
I thought this was the Christmas thing when that guy dressed up as santa and the cops came to cuff and stuff him for chalk drawings of love and peace.  And with children present too.
 
2013-06-30 10:21:45 AM
I have to be consistent about this, I would not support someone chalking up a public sidewalk to promote religion or to put forth some sort of racist speech. The issue is that this person felt entitled to take a piece of public property and brand it with his message. It does not matter that chalk washes off because up until the chalk is removed that sidewalk was vandalized.

13 years in jail and/or a 13,000 dollar fine? Now that sounds like horseshiat. Fine the guy 500 and let's be done with this...oh wait, the message was anti-bank, well there's the reason why this is a thing.
 
2013-06-30 10:22:05 AM

dopekitty74: How can something which can be rained off considered vandalism?



Olson is charged with 13 misdemeanor vandalism counts involving protest messages in sidewalk chalk in front of three Bank of America branches in San Diego. He faces 13 years in prison and a $13,000 fine if convicted.

That's how. Protest against the banks and the cops will come down on you like a ton of bricks, even if it means they go after rapists, murderers, arsonists and rapists.

/but it's not like they WANT to mace, wrongfully arrest or throw hand grenades at protesters, they're just following orders
//but don't you dare call them fascists
 
2013-06-30 10:22:09 AM

propasaurus: Judge Howard Shore issued a gag order in the case, barring both sides from talking. Shore also prohibited Olson's attorney from using freedom of speech in his defense.

What the ever-loving' fark?


It might be because freedom of speech cannot legally be used in this case as an excuse, but I have no legal training at all and don't know the laws. If someone spray painted my car with a "Meat is Murder" or some other slogan they can't claim freedom of speech as a defense when I sue them for damages. That being said, this case is bullshiat and I wonder why the government is spending so much time and money on this. How can they prove there are any damages?
 
2013-06-30 10:22:27 AM
IMO, taking some of that expanding foam to their ATMs would be the way to go.

I think I might go color on the sidewalk in front of the local BofA this evening.
 
2013-06-30 10:22:29 AM

Astorix: Did you see the ridiculous "if some one has the right to write on a sidewalk, next they'll write on your property argument? The slow slide to fascism: never overnight, always in increments.


Would someone be allowed to dump a gallon of water on the sidewalk drawings? Could the governors supporters or whomever just wait until they were almost done and just ruin them somehow?
 
2013-06-30 10:22:36 AM
...for using chalk to scribble anti-bank slogans on city sidewalks...

I think I found his problem.

/don't mess with the money people
 
2013-06-30 10:22:36 AM

dopekitty74: This is fu*king ridiculous. Will stores now stop selling sidewalk chalk for children? How can something which can be rained off considered vandalism?


Let me put some animal shiat on your car and get back to me.

But chalk messages should be explicitly protected as freedom of speech. At worst, the penalty should be to scrub the chalk off.
 
2013-06-30 10:23:37 AM
Vandalism is against the law.
The guy should stop whining.
 
2013-06-30 10:24:22 AM
The man insulted a large bank.  He has to be punished.
 
2013-06-30 10:25:05 AM
Activists are standing behind a North Park man charged with 13 counts of vandalism for using chalk to scribble anti-bank slogans on city sidewalks.

i1198.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-30 10:25:12 AM

MurphyMurphy: Same thing just happened here in PA.

People were peacefully protesting at the Gov mansion in Harrisburg, a guy took normal washable chalk and wrote on the (public) sidewalk "Governor Corbett has healthcare, we should to"

They arrested him for making a derogatory remark about the Governor.

I wish I had my own thug army to arrest people on whatever trumped up bullshiat they can think up.

Oh no, wait, I don't,
because I'm not a farking fascist.


With grammar like that, I would have arrested him to.
 
2013-06-30 10:25:59 AM

Owangotang: 13 years in jail and/or a 13,000 dollar fine? Now that sounds like horseshiat. Fine the guy 500 and let's be done with this...oh wait, the message was anti-bank, well there's the reason why this is a thing.


Yeah, this is the main thing I have a problem with. Fine him, send him to county jail for 2 weeks if you MUST jail him, and let it go.
 
2013-06-30 10:26:06 AM

dopekitty74: This is fu*king ridiculous. Will stores now stop selling sidewalk chalk for children? How can something which can be rained off considered vandalism?


Because permanent damage isn't required in order for something to be vandalism.  You are free to write whatever you want on your sign..carry it around in front of the bank...shout its message to your heart's content.  You are not free to write that message on someone else's sidewalk.
 
2013-06-30 10:26:16 AM
Make everything illegal and prosecute selectively. It's how we roll in the Land of the Free.
 
2013-06-30 10:27:09 AM

dopekitty74: How can something which can be rained off considered vandalism?


A charge of defacing property doesn't depend on whether or not the defacement is easy to remove.
 
2013-06-30 10:27:20 AM
Vandalism is against the law.

Is this vandalism?  Seems like a lot of people don't think so.
 
2013-06-30 10:27:53 AM

DoomPaul: propasaurus: Judge Howard Shore issued a gag order in the case, barring both sides from talking. Shore also prohibited Olson's attorney from using freedom of speech in his defense.

What the ever-loving' fark?

It might be because freedom of speech cannot legally be used in this case as an excuse, but I have no legal training at all and don't know the laws. If someone spray painted my car with a "Meat is Murder" or some other slogan they can't claim freedom of speech as a defense when I sue them for damages. That being said, this case is bullshiat and I wonder why the government is spending so much time and money on this. How can they prove there are any damages?


They wouldn't be able to use the free speech defense in that hypothetical case because they have vandalized privately-owned property (your car).

I have no idea why he is not allowed to use the free speech defense against charges of vandalizing public property (the sidewalk), unless it's because he wrote an anti-bank message near a bank.
 
2013-06-30 10:29:00 AM
You really want to hurt the banks? Start with the head.
 
2013-06-30 10:29:24 AM
But was any money hurt?


Why arent Teatards up in arms about this?
 
2013-06-30 10:30:43 AM
Police allowed protesters designated space around the Hall of Justice to write messages of free speech on the ground with chalk.

images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-06-30 10:30:53 AM

elffster: But was any money hurt?


Why arent Teatards up in arms about this?


Because they would never see vandalism as something to defend, even if there is disagreement about whether or not this is actually vandalism.
 
2013-06-30 10:31:18 AM

dopekitty74: How can something which can be rained off considered vandalism?


Is that eco-friendly chalk, especially the coloring? When it gets "rained off" where does that chalk wind up?  He should be happy he doesn't have the environmental nut jobs going after him too.
 
2013-06-30 10:31:49 AM

King Something: DoomPaul: propasaurus: Judge Howard Shore issued a gag order in the case, barring both sides from talking. Shore also prohibited Olson's attorney from using freedom of speech in his defense.

What the ever-loving' fark?

It might be because freedom of speech cannot legally be used in this case as an excuse, but I have no legal training at all and don't know the laws. If someone spray painted my car with a "Meat is Murder" or some other slogan they can't claim freedom of speech as a defense when I sue them for damages. That being said, this case is bullshiat and I wonder why the government is spending so much time and money on this. How can they prove there are any damages?

They wouldn't be able to use the free speech defense in that hypothetical case because they have vandalized privately-owned property (your car).

I have no idea why he is not allowed to use the free speech defense against charges of vandalizing public property (the sidewalk), unless it's because he wrote an anti-bank message near a bank.


Good point. I'm not sure about the legal specifics, but in the Zimmerman case the judge prohibited the prosecution from saying Z-man "racially profiled" Trayvon but they can say just plain "profiled." Granted that's limiting the prosecution and I don't recall a defendant being barred from using a specific defense but I wonder if they have something like that in the courts to prevent cases from be obfuscated. Anyway, I need more details before thinking this is just because he was targeting a bank. There has to be more to this than I'm seeing.
 
2013-06-30 10:31:53 AM

generallyso: Judge Howard Shore issued a gag order in the case, barring both sides from talking. Shore also prohibited Olson's attorney from using freedom of speech in his defense.

Complete and utter horseshiat.


I agree but it shouldn't matter. The very definition of vandalism, which is what he is being charged with, is destruction of property that does not belong to you. Legally it also requires intent and malice.

He didn't damage any property nor did he intend to damage any property, and I don't know how to ascribe malice to an action you didn't take.

I cannot imagine him losing this case, but then again, IANAL.

/maybe they're charging him with something like criminal mischief?
 
2013-06-30 10:33:12 AM
feckingmorons:

Technically i can see why it is not a defense, you don't really have the right to chalk up some private sidewalk or building, and the Bill of Rights applies to what the government can't do to you. But it is just a silly prosecution anyway.

That bullshiat all on its own. Is it a bad defense? Is it not appropriate in his case? Yeah, it may be. But thats up for the court process (ie: jury) to decide. If his team puts up that defense, and the prosecution tears it apart and he loses the case, then so be it.

It should not be for the judge to decide when the constitution can be discussed.
 
2013-06-30 10:33:58 AM
www.law-of-attraction-parenting.com

13 Years.
 
2013-06-30 10:34:05 AM
thecomicninja.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-06-30 10:35:08 AM
sp.ask.com

26 Years.
 
2013-06-30 10:35:35 AM

King Something: DoomPaul: propasaurus: Judge Howard Shore issued a gag order in the case, barring both sides from talking. Shore also prohibited Olson's attorney from using freedom of speech in his defense.

What the ever-loving' fark?

It might be because freedom of speech cannot legally be used in this case as an excuse, but I have no legal training at all and don't know the laws. If someone spray painted my car with a "Meat is Murder" or some other slogan they can't claim freedom of speech as a defense when I sue them for damages. That being said, this case is bullshiat and I wonder why the government is spending so much time and money on this. How can they prove there are any damages?

They wouldn't be able to use the free speech defense in that hypothetical case because they have vandalized privately-owned property (your car).

I have no idea why he is not allowed to use the free speech defense against charges of vandalizing public property (the sidewalk), unless it's because he wrote an anti-bank message near a bank.


A vandalism charge isn't based on whether the property is on private or public property.
It is based on whether property was defaced or damaged.
Why it was defaced (a free speech discussion) doesn't matter.
 
2013-06-30 10:35:43 AM
static.guim.co.uk

RICO!
 
2013-06-30 10:37:27 AM

King Something: I have no idea why he is not allowed to use the free speech defense against charges of vandalizing public property (the sidewalk), unless it's because he wrote an anti-bank message near a bank.


The charges are bullsh*t and the procedure is worse, but marking up the sidewalk in front of a business with slogans protesting that business is not necessarily protected speech.  Bank should have just sued the guy for defamation, but it is Bank of America after all.  They've never been the sharpest tool in the shed.
 
2013-06-30 10:38:09 AM

Malacon: generallyso: Judge Howard Shore issued a gag order in the case, barring both sides from talking. Shore also prohibited Olson's attorney from using freedom of speech in his defense.

Complete and utter horseshiat.

I agree but it shouldn't matter. The very definition of vandalism, which is what he is being charged with, is destruction or defacement of property that does not belong to you. Legally it also requires intent and malice.


FTFY
 
2013-06-30 10:41:35 AM

susler: Vandalism is against the law.

Is this vandalism?  Seems like a lot of people don't think so.


It rains.  Chalk washes away.  Krylon, not so much.
 
2013-06-30 10:43:05 AM
My only worry about kids with chalk (a couple in my court like to decorate the parking lot) is when they graduate to spray paint. At least the chalk can be washed off.
 
2013-06-30 10:43:08 AM
Did the dude damage the property? It costs money to repaint someone's retarded tag, so that's clear. It would cost the bank labor, the cost of water, possible lost customers to remove sidewalk chalk from the front of their business. Does that mean it's "damage" per a law-talking guy? I'm not a law-talking guy, so I dunno, but it seems you can make the case.

Was the intent malicious? Well, the dude didn't like the bank, so probably. I don't know what he scrawled on the sidewalk, but I'm guessing it wasn't kind.

So, vandalism. If he wanted to protest, hold a damn sign & assemble peaceably.
 
2013-06-30 10:43:45 AM
(Insert picture of Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins here.)

"Bert" is furious!


/All the images I found were too big

// Limited computer skills
 
Displayed 50 of 205 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report