Up to 13 years in jail for writing protest slogans with chalk.

[Mayhem]

What if I kept doing it?

i´d say that would be harassment

[Mihalik]

You do realize I was replying to someone who was using the general term "graffiti" and comparing it to someone just stating an opinion.

Also, it really doesn't matter what you used. It is still unwanted defacing of personal property.

If I came to your home and started to draw with chalk on your cement drive-way "I think this person could be a possible child molester", you would be okay with that simply because it can be washed off with water?

What if I kept doing it?

Again...you missed the part where he was drawing on public property. If you actually read the article you might also notice how the slogans he used weren't defamatory or contained offensive language. If that would have been the case they could have accused him of that. But because the slogans themselves were in no way grounds for legal action, instead they decided to use the public vandalism excuse on him.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

The law is the law. Within common sense. And common sense would dictate in this cafe, that if you really wan't to play the law by the letter, you will fine the person and possibly give him a reprimand and a warning to desist. You don't freaking try to throw the book at him. This was the reason why the jury told the courts that they can stick this whole thing up where the sun don't shine.

There is a reason why we dont run around jailing kids for playing hopscotch or making chalk drawings on sidewalks. Common sense.

This case was OBVIOUSLY motivated by undue influence from behalf of BoA.

You do realize chalk drawings on sidewalks generally appear in neighborhoods. Police realistically only act when a complaint has been made.

BoA made a complaint based on this person's continued defacing of BoA property. Hence the police action and subsequent arrest.

Not sure why people don't understand this.

[Last Starfighter]

Let's get one thing out of the way here. When people say "UP TO". That's exactly what that means. That means up to is the absolute limit. But there is no fuckin way this guy is getting 13 years. Or even jail time. Maybe some community service. Humans are drama. And we love to see that "OOOH HE CAN GET 13 YEARS JUST FOR THAT!! TAKE THE FREEDOM BACK!!"



Oh. Then I looked and saw it was fox news. Nothing to see here. Carry on.

[Noomz]

A California man is facing as many as 13 years in prison for scribbling a series of anti-bank messages in washable chalk on city sidewalks.
40-year-old Jeff Rogers has been charged with 13 counts of vandalism for writing the series of protest slogans between February and August 2012 on sidewalks in front of Bank of America branches in San Diego. He is standing trial this week.
The city attorney brought the case to trial despite many decrying the charges, including the city's own Mayor Bob Filner.
"This young man is being persecuted for thirteen counts of vandalism stemming from an expression of political protest that involved washable children's chalk on a city sidewalk,'' Filner said last week in a memo to the San Diego City Council, according to Reuters.
Olson, who has no criminal record, tells 10 News he believes the charges against him are politically motivated. He says he wrote nothing profane on the sidewalks, and only wanted to encourage people to use credit unions.
"I think this is really heavy handed," Olson said. "I hope that (City Attorney) Jan Goldsmith reviews the First Amendment of the Constitution and remembers that free speech is protected; just because you don't like what it says, doesn't mean you can't do it."
10 News reports Judge Howard Shore has barred Olson from invoking freedom of speech as a defense in the case.
In a memo released to multiple news outlets on the case, Goldsmith defended his pursuit of the charges against Olson and denied they were politically motivated.
"We prosecute vandalism and theft cases regardless of who the perpetrator or victim might be," he said.
On Thursday, Darrell Freeman, Vice President of Corporate Security for Bank of America told the jury he believed Bank of America's reputation has suffered because of the messages, 10 News reports. Olson has claimed Freeman pressured the city attorney to bring the case to trial.
Olson is charged with 13 misdemeanor counts of vandalism, each carrying a maximum penalty of one year in jail and a $1,000 fine, though he is not expected to receive as harsh a sentence as 13 consecutive years behind bars if found guilty.
The mayor's office has not ruled out that Filner may appear as a witness for Olson, Reuters reports


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/28...tcmp=obnetwork

I'm not the Fox news kinda guy...but the retardation of this blew my mind.

Ofcourse this sentance is politicly motivated. Freaking wake up America, the banks own you and they will do whatever they feel like! THEY OWN YOU! You have no freedom!

[Mihalik]

You do realize chalk drawings on sidewalks generally appear in neighborhoods. Police realistically only act when a complaint has been made.

BoA made a complaint based on this person's continued defacing of BoA property. Hence the police action and subsequent arrest.

Not sure why people don't understand this.

But that's the thing. It didn't deface BoA property, it was a PUBLIC SIDEWALK. Public=not BoA property.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

Ofcourse this sentance is politicly motivated. Freaking wake up America, the banks own you and they will do whatever they feel like! THEY OWN YOU! You have no freedom!

Calm down.

The complaint was made by BoA as this person was defacing public property around BoA banks. The police responded and found that public sidewalks had been defaced and they went by the law and arrested this person of charges of vandalism.

This would be no different than if he didn't like the food at McDonald's and went around doing the same thing.

Would you say "Ofcourse this sentance is dietarily motivated. Freaking wake up America, the Fast Food industry owns you and they will do whatever they feel like! THEY OWN YOU! You have no freedom!

[Sayl]

The law is the law. Within common sense. And common sense would dictate in this case, that if you really wan't to play the law by the letter, you will fine the person and possibly give him a reprimand and a warning to desist.

Maybe they did.

This case was OBVIOUSLY motivated by undue influence from behalf of BoA.

That very well may be, and the city attorney is probably a jackass. That still does not excuse the individual engaging in a form of protest to be aware of the law. Don't get me wrong, I think the charges were asinine, and I'm glad he was acquitted -- but again, he was not without responsibility.

- - - Updated - - -

It didn't deface BoA property, it was a PUBLIC SIDEWALK. Public=not BoA property.

The law makes no distinction.

[Mihalik]

Let's get one thing out of the way here. When people say "UP TO". That's exactly what that means. That means up to is the absolute limit. But there is no fuckin way this guy is getting 13 years. Or even jail time. Maybe some community service. Humans are drama. And we love to see that "OOOH HE CAN GET 13 YEARS JUST FOR THAT!! TAKE THE FREEDOM BACK!!"



Oh. Then I looked and saw it was fox news. Nothing to see here. Carry on.

I linked a Huffington Post article too, other linkes LA Times...Google the source of information of your choice.

This is not about him getting or not 13 years...but about that you can actually drag someone trough the courts like this...that the state is willing to spend money on stupid crap like this, just because Mr. Bank demands it.

It's about how the court tried to issue a gag order preventing this from being discussed in public forums, very well knowing that most would consider this a frivolous charge and violation of the right to free speech.

[Mayhem]

on the other hand, he now has a free pass to keep going, doesn´t he?

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

But that's the thing. It didn't deface BoA property, it was a PUBLIC SIDEWALK. Public=not BoA property.

Actually that is partly true. When you acquire property you acquire certain responsibilities and liabilities. Part of those responsibilities is to maintain the public sidewalks in the area of your business and residence, i.e. snow or ice removal, if you do not and someone has an accident the business owner or home owner is liable.

BoA didn't want this guy defacing the sidewalks in and around their place of business so they contacted the local law enforcement to see if they could do anything about it. The police came, investigated and applied laws that were already in place to arrest this person for public vandalism.

BoA has a valid claim against not wanting people to deface either the public area or private area with garbage graffiti.

[Belloc]

I'm pretty sure Free Speech doesn't apply to chalk writing on public sidewalks, but go ahead and keep complaining.

I'm not saying that he deserves jail time, but he should certainly have to pay a fine for defacing public property.

[Sialanne]

Fine and community service? Sure, it's graffiti. Jail time? Seems a bit excessive, in my opinion. Now, that said, "could serve up to 13 years" is not the same as "will serve 13 years"

[Mihalik]

Maybe they did.

That very well may be, and the city attorney is probably a jackass. That still does not excuse the individual engaging in a form of protest to be aware of the law. Don't get me wrong, I think the charges were asinine, and I'm glad he was acquitted -- but again, he was not without responsibility.

The law makes no distinction.

I'm pretty sure Free Speech doesn't apply to chalk writing on public sidewalks, but go ahead and keep complaining.

I'm not saying that he deserves jail time, but he should certainly have to pay a fine for defacing public property.

Federal courts disagree and actually consider this action an exercise of public protest and consider it protected by the First Amendment.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...h-first-arrest

[Xolgrunek]

Jail these kids. They're drawing with chalk.

[Mihalik]

Jail these kids. They're drawing with chalk.

We should teargas them first...just in case.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

Jail these kids. They're drawing with chalk.

I guess you don't understand the difference between what this man was doing versus kids drawing on the grounds of a school?

[Belloc]

Federal courts disagree and actually consider this action an exercise of public protest and consider it protected by the First Amendment.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...h-first-arrest

She pointed out that the judge ruled only that a single city ordinance, the one regarding writing advertising on sidewalks, does not apply to Osmar. Downs said Osmar violated other city ordinances, such as defacing public parks and criminal mischief, so it was a legitimate arrest — even though he wasn't actually charged with violating those ordinances.

"The ruling doesn't address the other ordinances that Mr. Osmar violated," she said. "We think there's more to the case."

Cost may be a factor in the whether the city appeals.

In other words, they didn't appeal because it would've cost the city too much. If you're going to post an article to support your point, you should probably read it. All your article says is that he couldn't be arrested for the advertising part but that other violations applied... and the city failed to charge him with those in the beginning.

[Kraenen]

guess it's time to round up all the neighbourhood 6 year olds and send them to jail

[Sayl]

In other words, they didn't appeal because it would've cost the city too much. If you're going to post an article to support your point, you should probably read it. All your article says is that he couldn't be arrested for the advertising part but that other violations applied... and the city failed to charge him with those in the beginning.

Thank you.