California man faces 13 years in jail for scribbling anti-bank messages in chalk

http://rt.com/usa/california-man-13-prison-banks-237/

by o0-0o • 13 years ago

72 123 13 years ago

hedonist3• 13 years ago

13 years in prison for scribbling stuff in chalk. Yeah.

Just wondering who, exactly, will be going to jail, and how much time they'll be serving to account for the various mortgage fraud & other abusive practices BoA has been engaged in systematically over the years, e.g.:

- http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/10/24/bank...

- http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/bank-of-america-forec...

The answer, of course, is almost certainly no one.

ars2• 13 years ago

He won't get 13 years.

People need to stop this practice of listing the maximum possible under best (worst) possible conditions sentence.

If he doesn't have a criminal history he'll get a month of probation and that's all.

nazka2• 13 years ago

Ho yes sure it's not too bad...

emidln• 13 years ago

Why should criminal history matter? He wrote something in fucking CHALK. That he is being barred from mentioning anything related to free speech when his method of conveying speech was a temporary (comparable to holding a sign) and fleeting (from the rain, a hose, or a drunk on saturday night) is a travesty.

hexis• 13 years ago

Tell it to Aaron Swartz.

hedonist3• 13 years ago

It's the fact that he's being threatened with 13 years that's significant.

Oh, and the fact some stuffed shirt from a major bank can basically order the local police department to go and arrest this guy. Like you or I might order a pizza.

dlss4• 13 years ago

You're forgetting that he's not plea bargaining (hence the judge barring arguments)

rdouble3• 13 years ago

This is what happens to graffiti artists, though. If you get busted you get charged for every instance of graffiti that looks similar to what you got caught doing.

DanBC• 13 years ago

Is there a difference between graffiti art using permanent paints / inks / dyes, and temporary political sloganeering using water washable chalk?

I'm not sure how a judge can exclude the constitution from a court case?

rdouble3• 13 years ago

I dunno about the judge or the specifics. It's a RT post so not sure how accurate it is. The guy is in San Diego which is a very uptight republican town, so they are using gang graffiti laws as a hammer. Sucks, but pretty typical of how differences in locale can affect outcomes in the USA. If this happened in SF nobody would care.

anigbrowl11• 13 years ago

Jury isn't there to decide constitutional questions, but factual ones.

comrade_ogilvy• 13 years ago

Whether or not additional examples of graffiti are actually the work of the same artist is a fact to be determined by a jury. What do you expect the prosecutor to do? Believe the defendant's word of honor, only after being caught red-handed?

Choosing to commit a crime that closely mimics the details of previous criminal activity by others (or yourself) is not the brightest idea. That is a kind stupidity that I am not sure we need special consideration for.

rdouble3• 13 years ago

It's determined by a cop who has a binder of graffiti photos. Graffiti cases never see a jury. The defendant gets slammed with a potential $500K fine and decade in jail and then they plea bargain it down to a lesser fine, probation and community service, maybe short jail time if it's not the first offense.

iterationx2• 13 years ago

This is why we have trial by jury and Jury Nullification.

softbuilder• 13 years ago

That's why we have an appeals process.

ChuckMcM• 13 years ago

I think this is more likely. There are a number of cases that have looked at speech rights versus vandalism (Graffiti being the poster child for these). The "correct" way to protest the bank is to stand out in front of it and hold up signage, that is protected by law.

cschep• 13 years ago

I so badly want to live in a country where we can count on people to hear this, acknowledge it's absurdity, and act accordingly. Do we?

I appreciate your optimism. I really hope it works out well for this guy. I am seriously glad I'm not the one facing these charges though.

akama• 13 years ago

Do you honestly think that this going to be a case involving Jury Nullification? Jury Nullification is rarely used. Also a huge problem with this article is that it mentioning the maximum sentence that someone can receive for this. There is no evidence that he will be sentenced for that amount of time.

Aloisius• 13 years ago

Mentioning jury nullification is a surefire way to get out of jury duty though I'd happily keep my mouth shut and serve for this case.

iterationx2• 13 years ago

It would be if I was on the Jury.

angersock3• 13 years ago

It's delightful to see things like this whenever anybody champions Cali over my state in flyover country for being conservative.

guelo• 13 years ago

You enjoy seeing suffering and injustice in order to score meaningless political points in your head? Doesn't seem healthy.

angersock3• 13 years ago

Oh, no, it's quite awful--don't get me wrong.

However, it serves as a funny sort of schadenfreude whenever there is plain evidence that that state is not some mythical civil liberty land of milk and honey, especially when one of the most common things I see talking about Texas is how evil and republican it is and how there are no sex shops and all kinds of damn fool other things.

At least headlines like this help people maybe reconsider where they want to end up. :)

(If this were a federal decision, I'd be raging. Since it's just a state or city being dumb, it's darkly funny.)

xenophanes• 13 years ago

And you call people unhealthy when you disagree with their ideas. This kind of delegitimization of disagreement with specious medical-scientific authority is one of the larger problems facing the country.

tadfisher• 13 years ago

I'm sorry, is this a competition?

angersock3• 13 years ago

Yep. Race to the bottom.

swift2• 13 years ago

In fairness San Diego is a very different place from, say, San Francisco.

zhemao2• 13 years ago

Wait, so the judge can order the lawyer not to talk about free speech. That's like, a meta-violation of the first amendment. Not only can you not exercise your 1st amendment rights, you can't even exercise your 1st amendment rights to complain about not being able to exercise your 1st amendment rights.

hga• 13 years ago

The judge's decision is a point of law which can be appealed. Appeals courts, at least in the US, are normally supposed to deal with issues of law and accept the findings of fact in the court of first instance.

shock-value2• 13 years ago

I really don't see how first amendment rights apply to his situation. You can't spray paint over a billboard and then claim you're protected under the first amendment, for example.

That being said, I don't even know that I'd consider writing with washable chalk to be vandalism. Maybe "littering" or something, considering how easy it is to wash off. Certainly nothing that should warrant any jail time (unless you're talking about a habitual repeat offender or something).

ianterrell• 13 years ago

You can't spray paint over a billboard and then claim you're protected under the first amendment, for example.

Why not? The court doesn't have to agree that your claim is valid. To prohibit you from even making that claim seems preposterous.

xanderstrike2• 13 years ago

The article says he spent six months doing it a few times a week. I think that qualifies as a habitual repeat offender.

darkarmani• 13 years ago

Can you just mention that it is covered by the Bill of Rights or by the constitution without mentioning the Amendment directly?

anigbrowl11• 13 years ago

A trial jury is supposed to decide factual questions, not legal ones. The judge tells them what the law is; the jury's job is decide whether the defendant committed a particular act, or not.

Arguments over what the law means or what's constitutional take place in front of judges, not juries. That's why ajuries are sometimes asked to leave the courtroom temporarily in the middle of a trial, or the judge orders attorneys into chambers - one side objects to something the other is doing as a matter of law, and the argument takes place out of hearing of the jury, because there jury is not there to decide the legal question, only the factual one.

anigbrowl11• 13 years ago

Again, don't get your news from RT.

How this works: defense counsel files a motion claiming a free-speech exception for D's actions. Judge looks at vandalism statute, finds that it doesn't conflict with First Amendment (and i should note here in passing that the First Amendment right is not unlimited; if you think it is, please give me your address so I can spray graffiti on your house). Now that the judge has issued his ruling on the law, he's disposed of the question and Defense counsel is forbidden to bring it up again.

In criminal trials, the judge makes decisions about what are matters of law. The jury makes decisions about matters of fact, because the jury members are typically not trained in law, whereas judges are. If you lose a case and appeal, then in the appeal court you must make your argument to the appelate judges on points of law - there is no jury in an appeal court. So the appellant argues that in a case like this, the trial judge misread the law. On the other hand, you can't bring up issues of fact at appeal, absent new evidence; if the judge conducted the trial properly but a jury rendered a verdict you don't like, too bad - there are some exceptions to this, but they're highly unusual.

Now, I don't know that I agree with the judge's decision in this case, because I'm not sure that an impermanent thing like a chalk writing ought to count as vandalism (although I haven't researched this or read the judge's decision onthat). But even though I may disagree with the judge's conclusion on law, the fact is that he's made his decision and now he wants to get on with the trial. The proper place to dispute that decision is in the court of appeals. defense counsel knows this perfectly well and probably has the appeal paperwork already written and ready to file, but it's easier to put on his shocked face for the public and hope that it raises awareness of his client's case.

m4tthumphrey• 13 years ago

This story made me cry and actually made me feel better for living in the UK, which in turn has made me cry more.

jpablo4• 13 years ago

Afraid of ending on the wrong side of this debate, but:

- I'm sure, if convicted, it's unlikely that he will get maximum penalty (13 years), sensationalist headers and all.

- If someone was writing whatever (political speech, gang signs, etc) on my property I sure would like them to be arrested and given a good punishment so they won't do it again.

jpablo4• 13 years ago

And yeah, if you have even tried writing with chalk on a rugged wall you'll find soon enough that it's not that washable, at least not with some effort.

lettergram2• 13 years ago

Pretty sure a power washer can handle it in about 20 seconds, even a hose with an attachment.

dlss4• 13 years ago

Wait, so you think maybe 1/13th of the max punishment (1 year in prison) is a reasonable punishment for writing things in chalk on private property?

If we're talking community service, repaying the cost of cleanup, or that sort of thing I agree with you... if we're talking about taking away years of someone's life I'm really confused.

wheaties• 13 years ago

He never said anything about any jail sentence being reasonable. He just said 13yrs is unreasonable.

jpablo4• 13 years ago

I think judges usually do escalated punishment.

I don't any prison time would be fair time at this point. Maybe paying for cleaning all the damage and doing some community service (he did it 13 times in a lapse of 6months).

Then if he goes and does it again, maybe prison time will discourage him for doing it again?

I don't see him as a political protester, but as equal to someone painting gang signs.

swift2• 13 years ago

Are San Diego sidewalks private property? In most places I've lived they belong to the city.

jlgreco3• 13 years ago

In San Diego, property owners are responsible for fixing normal wear and tear on sidewalks. I don't know if this would cover cleaning up graffiti or not.

http://www.sandiego.gov/street-div/services/roadways/sidewal...

chrishepner• 13 years ago

I'm not sure for the purposes of this case, but San Diego has some strange policies for their sidewalks.

By CA law the property owner is usually responsible for the upkeep of the sidewalk on their property. However, if someone falls and breaks their face on a broken sidewalk the city is liable.

quackerhacker4• 13 years ago

I really hope he goes to trial with his case and WILL NOT take a deal. I'd like to believe a jury of his peers would see this as a protest...yet in my own criminal case, my lawyer told me "ignorance of the law is not excusable."

draugadrotten• 13 years ago

NSA taping all your phone calls and logging your emails, and now you get 13 years for chalk writing. But you still believe in the land of the free and the home of the brave

You're Free.

Really Free.

As long as you're not Brave enough to criticize the rich in chalk.

Good night, and good luck.

tokenadult2• 13 years ago

Try the same experiment in Russia (the place of publication of this story) and let us know how the experiment goes.

AFTER EDIT: I'm fully serious in the suggestion "try the same experiment in Russia." Let's be empirical here. Once we know how a lot of actual cases turn out, we have something to talk about that is more informative than one anecdote.

P.S. The pattern of upvotes and downvotes on this comment is especially interesting in light of the replies it has received.

tptacek10• 13 years ago

Fun fact about Russia: while we were striking down DOMA today, Saint Petersburg was working to criminalize same-sex couples.

ihsw• 13 years ago

Irrelevant.

grecy2• 13 years ago

I'm sick of hearing the United States compared to the typical 2nd and 3rd world countries over and over, which is meaningless.

You're doing the same thing as comparing your sports team to the one on the bottom of the ladder - of course your team looks fine compared to the one at the bottom.

Why not look up and notice all the teams always above you?

Aim higher, aim for improvement.

strlen4• 13 years ago

As a former USSR immigrant, I'll just leave this Soviet joke out there:

An American tells a Russian that there's free speech in American; that anyone is free to just go infront of a government building and yell "American president is an idiot." The Russian responds that this is no big deal -- in Russia anyone is also free to go in front of a government building and yell "American president is an idiot."

For the record, I strongly support the bill of rights (I also hold the fanatical and extremist belief that there's another integer between the integers 1 and 3...) and am very much opposed to the surveillance state, hounding of whistle blowers, cruel treatment of prisoners, war on drugs, and so forth. I also understand reasons for Snowden to travel to/through those states (he does not want to go to prison and no one else is willing to have him).

However, I'll say this unequivocally: from a world-wide perspective, United States is far ahead of rest of the world (including many other liberal democracies) in terms of value put on civil liberties. Most countries are far more communitarian -- there are simply far more exceptions to free speech, privacy, etc... rights and (unlike in the US) many of those exceptions aren't even rooted in protection from a "clear and present danger."

doe882• 13 years ago

Meanwhile in Wall Street, nobody has yet been held responsible for all the financial crisis debacle that has cost billions to the americans.

xanderstrike2• 13 years ago

Over the course of the next six months Olson visited the Bank of America branch a few days per week, leaving behind scribbled slogans such as "Stop big banks" and "Stop Bank Blight.com."

I was feeling for the guy until I read this. He spent half a year writing disparaging messages outside of a business, that's an unstable guy. If I worked in that bank, seeing some guy writing crap that I have to clean up day after day for six months, I would certainly consider him a vandal. If this were a private residence or a family owned business, it would be harassment and they would probably be able to get a restraining order.

This is a clear-cut vandalism case. Your first amendment rights don't extend to defacing others' property, even if the defacement only lasts a few days, and even if the property you're defacing belongs to criminals. Two wrongs don't make a right.

_delirium• 13 years ago

Your objection here actually makes it sound like you're objecting to the speech more than the chalking.

Under existing constitutional law, he would've had a right to spend every day for six months standing on the sidewalk outside the bank holding the "Stop big banks" message on a picket sign. That isn't harassment, even if it were a family-owned business (though residences are a murkier area), unless he were doing things like attempting to block the entrance, or shouting intimidating stuff at customers. Sidewalks are a traditional public forum, and picketing on them is protected, including picketing against the business located there.

So there's nothing illegal with the content part: disparaging the business on a daily basis, right on the sidewalk outside their business. The method, writing it in chalk on the sidewalk, I'll agree, is not allowed. But it does not seem much worse than standing on the sidewalk with a picket, when it comes to what you seem to find offensive about the conduct.

segmondy• 13 years ago

A protest is not a one day event. You protest day after day, after day. How long did the civil rights movement last? How long did same sex couples have to fight to be heard? Can you find an effective one day protest?

quackerhacker4• 13 years ago

Prohibiting his lawyer from mentioning First Amendment rights is ridiculous! What good are the foundations of our society, if they are not upheld in a court of law.

This really is my only gripe. I can actually understand the reason why it would be considered vandalism, but the purpose of the case I think is to oppress the message he was sending (he pissed off the bank obviously...that's where I'm happy). This is why we have rights to protests, even though it is chalk, if everyone did it, it still is graffiti.

quackerhacker4• 13 years ago

To prove him pissing off the bank. The Huffington Post [0] says that he was instructed to stop by law enforcement, which he did. He pissed off Darell Freeman, vice president of Bank of America's Global Corporate Security whom aggressively pressured city attorneys to bring charges against Olson until they announced that they would do so in April.

[0] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/jeff-olson-californ...

anigbrowl11• 13 years ago

Prohibiting his lawyer from mentioning First Amendment rights is ridiculous!

No it isn't. The jury is not competent to examine constitutional arguments. The correct place for that debate is the Court of Appeals.

quackerhacker4• 13 years ago

What would the jury have to prove beyond a doubt, that he did it, not if it's morally acceptable, right?

If that's the case, it will come down to plea bargaining. Disappointing. Too bad it didn't rain away the evidence (even though it was caught on camera).

nzealand• 13 years ago

He faces up to 13 years jail, but based on current guidelines, he wont pay more than $10,000 and perhaps 1-3 years probation.

http://www.yolo.courts.ca.gov/forms/Sent%20Guideline%20-%20V...

The problem is, if he violates probation through additional activities, he will then face escalated penalties.

RealGeek• 13 years ago

If convicted, the city will waste $715,000 of tax payer's money to keep him in prison for 13 years.

If you think this case is an unreasonable waste of resources, please contact Goldsmith and let him know.

Jan Goldsmith can be reached at 619-236-6220 or cityattorney@sandiego.gov

People vs. Olson is case #M153987

anigbrowl11• 13 years ago

Conviction != maximum sentence. I hope he won't be convicted but even if he is he's more likely to be sentenced to 13 days than 13 years. It's not a mandatory minimum.

tptacek10• 13 years ago

No he doesn't. If he's convicted and if he receives a custodial sentence --- both big ifs, the latter moreso than the former --- he'll most probably be sentenced concurrently, as all 13 counts are for the same crime.

Here's the statute:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&gr...

In refusing to hear the First Amendment arguments of Olson's attorney, the judge is presumably just reading the statute narrowly; there is no "political speech" exemption to the vandalism statute, nor should there be, since we're talking about private property.

But it's hard to believe that any sane jury would recognize more than a few dollars damage from water-soluble chalk, and equally hard to believe anyone would receive a custodial sentence --- which would surely cost the city vastly more to defend at its near-certain appeal --- for chalking a bank with a political message.

Don't get your news from RT.

doe882• 13 years ago

But it's hard to believe that any sane jury would recognize more than a few dollars damage from water-soluble chalk, and equally hard to believe anyone would receive a custodial sentence --- which would surely cost the city vastly more to defend at its near-certain appeal --- for chalking a bank with a political message.

I hope you're right.

tokenadult2• 13 years ago

Don't get your news from RT.

Hear. Hear. From an earlier comment thread about the unreliability of rt.com as a source:

The source of the submitted article, rt.com, is not known for careful journalism.

Understatement of the year.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4247829

SwellJoe• 13 years ago

We've seen prosecutorial overreach over and over again on protest activities (and whistleblowing and computer crimes). This is more of that.

Whether he ends up being sentenced this harshly doesn't alter the fact that it is absurd, and immoral, that it's possible and at the discretion of a prosecutor who has a vested interest in putting people in jail for a long time.

That the state is taking the bank's word that washable children's chalk caused $6000 worth of damage is also absurd. There's a lot of absurdity and unethical behavior in this story, and I think outrage is justified.

tptacek10• 13 years ago

I agree. If I lived in San Diego, I'd donate money to get rid of that City Attorney, who is flagrantly wasting taxpayer dollars on frivolous prosecutions that are trashing the city's image. I would have grave concerns about the judgement of a City Attorney who thought that 13 counts of vandalism for chalking a building --- a charge that practically demands a vigorous and expensive defense --- was the right way to get this guy to stop chalking buildings.

The RT story is still ridiculous.

fnordfnordfnord3• 13 years ago

Sidewalks belong to banks now?

danielweber4• 13 years ago

It probably varies by location, but everywhere I lived I owned the sidewalk in front of it. There are public access exceptions to cross over it but that does include vandalism.

tptacek10• 13 years ago

Didn't he chalk the buildings, too? The bank is claiming damages, not the city.

anigbrowl11• 13 years ago

In California the sidewalk belongs to the property owner - as does the responsibility for maintaining it. If the sidewalk is in unsafe condition and I fall and hurt myself as a result, I sue the owner of the building erected there. This is one reason that homeowner's insurance is mandatory in California; your liability extends out to the edge of the road.

droithomme• 13 years ago

tptacek I can always count on you to consistently promote anti-human rights, pro bank, pro totalitarian viewpoints here, and you will consistently lie and misrepresent reality to do so. You truly have no shame and you are a sociopath.

The story is being accurately reported, so your criticism of the source has no merit. Here is the exact same story from other sources.

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/news-ticker/2013/jun/2...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/jeff-olson-californ...

http://www.10news.com/news/jeff-olson-man-who-used-chalk-to-...

This prosecution of an activist for writing slogans critical of a bank, on a public sidewalk, and using sidewalk chalk that disappears with a small amount of rain, or a light hosing, has absolutely no merit, and is an abomination to humanity, human rights, and sanity. Justifying it and claiming it is a reasonable prosecution and the judge is being fair as you are doing is absolutely inexcusable.

tptacek10• 13 years ago

It's true. I believe that we should be ruled absolutely by an oligarchy of international banks controlled by HFT-coding porpoises. Ee! Ee! Clk! Ee! Down with humans!

anigbrowl11• 13 years ago

And you're a misinformed fool. Quoting other sensationalist and equally inaccurate sources does not validate your point. The jury in a common law trial is a trier of fact, not of law. The proper place for defense counsel to make his first amendment argument is in the appeals court.

These procedural niceties, as much as you dislike them, are what underpin the rights of criminal defendants in the first place, by providing a mechanism for challenging the law itself.

m0nastic• 13 years ago

I can at least entertain the argument about being pro-bank, and pro-totalitarian; but tptacek has gone too far in believing that anti-humans should have rights!

Where does it end? If you recognize anti-human's rights, then they'll want to get anti-human married, and what happens if an anti-human wants to marry a human? A catastrophic release of kinetic energy, that's what.

We need to avoid this slippery slope! It's Protons and Electrons, not AntiProtons and Positrons! (I'll be Kickstarting bumper stickers for the cause later this week).

strlen4• 13 years ago

Yes, exactly: would people bring up a free-speech issue if someone wrote "gentrifiers go home" on the side of a new apartment development or an anti-Semitic message on the walls of JCC or offices of an Israeli company (to compare apples to apples, I am not going to say a synagogue)?

I don't think a felony conviction or any kind of jail sentence is appropriate here due to no property damage being done and lack of intent to intimidate, but this is not a free speech issue. This is "prosecutors being douche bags" issue (still a very serious problem).

I am not in any way saying that property rights should always trump free speech right: California, for example, extends free speech to private spaces open to the public ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Ro... ). I could even tangibly see a case if, e.g., wall of a privately owned building in a busy area has been set aside as a public chalkboard (for any kind of messages), but certain (otherwise protected) speech was excluded.

Defacement of property that isn't yours and to which you've not been granted access, however, isn't exercise of free speech.

I also find it ironic that most of the posters here disagree with ACLU on Citizens United: apparently showing a political film before an election is not free speech, but vandalism is...

redblacktree4• 13 years ago

The problem with Citizens United isn't the showing of the film, it's the disproportionate voice that it gives to those with money. If you believe that having more money should give you a larger voice in the political process, then all is well in your world. I do not happen to believe that.

icegreentea• 13 years ago

Ok... so this is the relevant law as far as I can tell [1]

So, the reason why his maximum sentence is 13 years is because, the maximum sentence for a single act of vandalism of damages over $400 (see subsection b) is 1 year in a county jail. He is being charged with 13 counts of vandalism (presumably because they caught him vandalising 13 times).

Now, the Bank of America is claiming that it cost them $6000 to clean up all the vandalism (which is conveniently just over 450 dollars per act).

So, for all the people outraged over 13 years for chalk, keep in mind in california, vandalism charges are based on damages, not the means (which really makes sense). That it stacks up to 13 years is kinda ridiculous, but also pretty logical. It's not like its "oh, you vanadalized once and now you're going to jail for 13 years", its "you vandalized 13 times, and now a judge gets to decide how much cumulative punishment you're going to get".

You can point out all sorts of unfortunate points in how the law, damages, and punishment is structured, but the whole point of the law is to leave room for human discretion. The $400 dollar barrier seems kinda low, and that's really I guess where the issue is... I guess and combined with Bank of America's damages claims.

[1] http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/594.html

danielweber4• 13 years ago

As we've gone through before, "maximum sentence" is much different than "actual sentence."

redblacktree4• 13 years ago

Not to mention that there is no way in hell that it legitimately cost BoA $6000 to clean up sidewalk chalk 13 times. That's absurd on the face of it. You can hose it off in, at maximum, an hour. I can easily hire a guy for $50 to hose off the sidewalk for an hour. $450 for that job is ridiculous.

grecy2• 13 years ago

My god, even when Americans try to protest and demonstrate and have their voices heard, the corporate interests have the law clamp down on them and even takes away their free speech rights.

Americans need to start protesting, big time, right now!

Things are going down hill, fast.

charonn0• 13 years ago

Sure, he almost certainly will not face the full 13 year sentence if convicted. Sure, the bar against first amendment arguments seem likely to be struck down on appeal. Sure, it probably won't turn out as bad as the worst case scenario.

These are all true.

There is something terribly wrong here, anyway. The fact that he's facing up to 13 years in prison for what amounts to graffiti or very-low-level harassment (the article made no mention of threats, e.g.) is a very bad sign.

When the government, or private interests directing the government, can threaten a dissenter with a decade or more in squalid[1], overcrowded[2], deadly[3] prisons for minor nuisances, we are all endangered.

[1] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/05/29/cali-m29.html

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_California#Prison_g...

[3] http://solitarywatch.com/2013/03/15/california-prison-condit...

ulysses• 13 years ago

The San Diego Reader has a little more background, it's also clearer that he was writing with chalk on city sidewalk:

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/news-ticker/2013/jun/2...

just_hobbyst• 13 years ago

OK, I don't know anything about US laws, but I really don't understand it. How can a judge forbid mentioning constitution or amendments in court? I thought constitution is the most important part of US law system and it seems this judge overruled it just like that. How could he do this?

danielweber4• 13 years ago

A court case isn't where each side gets to throw everything they possibly can at the jury and the jury has to figure it all out.

Juries are exposed to carefully controlled subsets of all possible facts. What does this guy's mom do? What kind of cars do the people working at the bank drive? The answers to those questions are true facts but not relevant to the court.

anigbrowl11• 13 years ago

Judge decides law, can be appealed against.

Jury decides facts, jury findings are (generally) not subject to appeal.

dragonwriter• 13 years ago

OK, I don't know anything about US laws, but I really don't understand it. How can a judge forbid mentioning constitution or amendments in court?

It seems to me that what happened is that the argument (which is one of law, not of fact) has already been made in court prior to the trial. The judge has rejected it, and prohibited it from being raised in the trial (and thus, to the jury) as it is immaterial to the questions of fact the jury is to decide.

Of course, if there is a conviction, the judge's rejection of the argument can be challenged as legal error on appeal.

gromy2• 13 years ago

"13 counts of vandalism"

How is it just to charge him with more than one count of vandalism? He may have only written in chalk once if they would have charged him immediately after the first incident.

staunch• 13 years ago

rt.com should be banned, just like dailymail. It's crap.

gromy2• 13 years ago

Meanwhile, “A three-judge federal court panel ordered the state to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity by December 31.”

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/20/justice/california-prison-over...

omonra• 13 years ago

RT is not journalism - it's propaganda - http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php?page=all...

Please do us all a favor and stop linking to it. If the story is real - a credible source will talk about it; find and link to it.

rhokstar• 13 years ago

What a waste of tax payer money.

California man faces 13 years in jail for scribbling anti-bank messages in chalk

Related Stories