1st Amendments Rights? Not In My Courtroom

[Andara Bledin]

However, I would like to think it's a tough sell to say a protester with water soluble chalk on a public sidewalk has malicious intent.

You have to consider that this is legal terminology, not common conversational terminology. According to the law:

Someone acts maliciously when he or she intentionally does a wrongful act or when he or she acts with the unlawful intent to annoy or injure someone else.

Since being "malicious" in legal context extends to merely trying to annoy someone, it's not going to be a tough sell at all.

The text of Penal Code 894 PC

[Gravekeeper]

Since being "malicious" in legal context extends to merely trying to annoy someone, it's not going to be a tough sell at all.

Your right, I keep foolishly thinking in terms of common sense. California has some of the harshest vandalism laws in the country short of New York.

I mean, the "King Of Graffiti" in Pittsburgh only got 5 years after tagging some odd 200 buildings with permanent paint on drug fueled ego trips. So I don't see how the can lock this guy up for 13.

So I'm not sure he'll get jail time. The whole thing smacks of the bank trying to make an example out of him by flying its friends in high places BS. Seeing as he was never arrested until after the CEO pressured his buddies in office to come down on the guy. Which is dubious.

It will be hard to find a jury that will side with Bank of America over anything >.>

[Andara Bledin]

They're not going to lock this guy up for 13 years, and everybody who keeps harping on that could use a good bitchslap.

California law requires that each and every count be listed separately and the complaint, and the associated penalties added up. From the article I linked to earlier, there's a statement from the attorney's office commenting on the figure, and they're just as tired of the use of "maximum possible sentence" being equated to "they're trying to get this sentence" just to foment rage and get a few more eyeballs as I am.

Here's an article that lists a punishment that was handed out to one newsworthy vandal.

Article at New York Times

Last year, Mr. Yazdani was arrested and sentenced to 10 months in county jail and 256 hours of graffiti removal duty after pleading guilty to 32 counts of felony vandalism.

That one had a guy pleading guilty to 32 counts of felony vandalism (the case with the chalk is misdemeanor vandalism) and he only got 10 months in jail and a raft of hours of community service. If they were going to make an example of somebody, he would have been a great choice, not only pleading guilty, using paint, tagging a place that is particularly difficult to work to remove, and having a few dozen instances.

It's entirely likely that the current case might not see any jail time at all (or time served) and involve a fine. I suspect the fine will be more than $1000 maximum for a single infraction, but probably not very much more.

As for why this guy is getting prosecuted: He was caught on film doing the deed. It makes for a fairly quick case and is exactly the sort of open and shut prosecution that looks good on the books.

That it was a major bank that complained is likely not relevant to anything, but it makes for great headlines. Plus, the jury doesn't need to side with the bank; the jury just has to agree that he did what is being claimed, and since they have him on tape doing it, it's going to be hard to argue otherwise, particularly when his only apparent defense is a right he gave up when he did the deed. My guess is this will go to a plea once that fact really sinks in.

[Panacea]

Did you note the location of the graffiti? Do you know the last time this area had a "good rain?"

San Diego does get an annual rainfall. OK, so it'll be a good six months or so In the meantime traffic and wind will eventually wear at it, and it'll be an unreadable colored blob.

The basic facts are that it's the public's sidewalk, and despite the First Amendment, he has no right to alter it's appearance for his message.

OK, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I wasn't talking about the letter of the law, a point you are correct on. I was talking about human nature, and with public opinion of big banks at an all time low, I can easily see locals letting this guy off scot free if a First Amendment argument was made, even if that argument was not consistent with what the actual law is.

And I would have been one of those locals voting to acquit in such a case because, if I may quote what someone famous once said, "The law is an ass."

[mikoyan29]

I'm sure that the judge received contributions from Bank of America had nothing to do with this, right?

[Andara Bledin]

I'm sure that the judge received contributions from Bank of America had nothing to do with this, right?

First, the judge isn't the one who decides to prosecute, and second, this is what the law states. Are you going to accuse the lawmakers of having received contributions from BofA when they ruled that 1A didn't count for vandalism, and the transitory nature of the vandalism was irrelevant?

I mean, you can crow about how evil the banks are (I won't argue that point) or how corrupt public officials can be (they can be pretty damned corrupt), but when the system is working precisely how the system is intended to work, all the sly insinuations just sound lame.

[mikoyan29]

First, the judge isn't the one who decides to prosecute, and second, this is what the law states. Are you going to accuse the lawmakers of having received contributions from BofA when they ruled that 1A didn't count for vandalism, and the transitory nature of the vandalism was irrelevant?

I mean, you can crow about how evil the banks are (I won't argue that point) or how corrupt public officials can be (they can be pretty damned corrupt), but when the system is working precisely how the system is intended to work, all the sly insinuations just sound lame.

Of all the stuff to prosecute out there, why this?

[Panacea]

I'm sure that the judge received contributions from Bank of America had nothing to do with this, right?

Did he?

The DA has some ties with BoA, I believe.

[Andara Bledin]

Of all the stuff to prosecute out there, why this?

Why not this?

As I mentioned before, it's pretty much a slam dunk case, with video evidence and his own admission that he did what it is the prosecution is claiming. They'll pursue the case, get their conviction, likely give him a fine and time served and move on to the next case.

Also, in the meantime, it gets the message out there that, yes, even scrawling messages in chalk on a public sidewalk can be vandalism.

[Panacea]

Also, in the meantime, it gets the message out there that, yes, even scrawling messages in chalk on a public sidewalk can be vandalism.

Or civil disobedience.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Civil disobedience comes with the expectation of punishment. It is in the act of punishment that the entity being protested looks ridiculous or inhuman.

If this guy had said, "as a part of my message, I accept these consequences" it would qualify.

As it stands, he just broke the law and is now trying to avoid punishment. This is also the flaw people tend to bring up with guys like Snowden and parallels of civil disobedience.

Rosa Parks didn't have a trial, she had a stipulation of facts entered into the court record and allowed a ruling. She appealed and the Montgomory Bus Boycott occurred which forced the change in the laws. But in the end, although she did not plead "Not Guilty" and she did nothing to obscure the facts or argue them. She let posterity and the public fight over the result.

This guy is obviously fighting. That's fine, but civil disobedience it isn't.

[Gravekeeper]

Acquitted of all charges.

Slam dunk, indeed.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Acquitted of all charges.

So Bank of America doesn't have any recourse for the six-thousand dollars they had to spend to hire the semi-nude, vestal virgins to pour holy water on the chalk to remove it?

To quote Merida from Disney's Brave..."Aww, Wee lamb."

[Daskinor]

So Bank of America doesn't have any recourse for the six-thousand dollars they had to spend to hire the semi-nude, vestal virgins to pour holy water on the chalk to remove it?

To quote Merida from Disney's Brave..."Aww, Wee lamb."

that service only costs $6,000?! Now I know what I am getting for my birthday.

[mikoyan29]

Did he?

The DA has some ties with BoA, I believe.

I was mistaken. It was the DA that received the contributions. But as our Supreme Court has said, the appearance of corruption is not necessarily corruption.

it also sounds like this law was kind of selectively enforced.

But he's been acquitted, so it's a moot point.