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

• Evaris wrote on 2013-06-26 04:35
  And the judge says that his first-amendment rights cannot be used in his defense or even talked about by the defense.
  http://rt.com/usa/california-man-13-prison-banks-237/
• Mentosftw wrote on 2013-06-26 04:46
  The corruption is just too amusing.
• Hanna wrote on 2013-06-26 05:19
  What in the actual fuck
  this man did nothing wrong
  i can see if he painted in on the sidewalk but it was fucking child's chalk that washes off with a little water or rain
  $6000 my ass
• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2013-06-28 06:52
  Sensationalized
  
  1. This is a graffiti case where the defendant is alleged to have engaged in the conduct on 13 different occasions. The trial judge has already held that, under California law, it is still graffiti even if the material can be removed with water. Most graffiti can be removed. Also, the judge and a different pre-trial judge held that the First Amendment is not a defense to vandalism/graffiti.
  2. The defense is trying to make this case into a political statement, which it is not. This is just one of some 20,000 criminal cases that are referred to us annually by the police department. We have prosecutors who decide whether to issue cases. They are professionals. The City Attorney was not involved in deciding whether to issue this case as is typical practice in prosecution offices for most cases. He hadn't heard of this case until it was in the media.
  3. The defense is whipping up hysteria about the prospect of 13 years in custody. This is not a 13 year custody case. It is a standard graffiti case compounded by the fact that the defendant is alleged to have done it on 13 separate occasions. Because there were 13 different occasions when the defendant allegedly engaged in the conduct, the law requires them to be set out separately in the complaint. This increases the maximum sentence, but it still is a graffiti case and nothing more. The courts routinely hear graffiti cases and handle them appropriately using judicial discretion.
  4. It is not unusual for victims to contact police or prosecutors about a case. Our prosecutors are trained to focus only on their ethical standards in deciding whether to file a case.
  5. We prosecute vandalism and theft cases regardless of who the perpetrator or victim might be. We don't decide, for example, based upon whether we like or dislike banks. That would be wrong under the law and such a practice by law enforcement would change our society in very damaging ways.
• Kingofrunes wrote on 2013-06-28 13:08
  And this is where fact checking before getting riled up about it is key. Never rely on one side of the story, get the full scoop. Thanks Cat, for bringing this to light.
• Space Pirate Nithiel wrote on 2013-06-28 22:54
  Assuming that members of the legal system never do anything wrong or illegal is very naive. Especially with recent events.
• Kingofrunes wrote on 2013-07-01 20:21

  Quote from Space Pirate Nithiel;1113994:

  Assuming that members of the legal system never do anything wrong or illegal is very naive. Especially with recent events.

  
  
  Not saying they do. However, in this case, it's a graffiti case under California Law which is a legit thing.
• Thorne wrote on 2013-07-02 20:08
  So even children can get arrested for scribbling in chalk? Okay...
• Hanna wrote on 2013-07-02 23:08

  Quote from Kingofrunes;1115374:

  Not saying they do. However, in this case, it's a graffiti case under California Law which is a legit thing.

  
  
  Then the junkmail in my mailbox should be considered littering
• Royale wrote on 2013-07-05 23:11
  The man is now acquitted of all charges by the jury,which is great, calling chalk vandalism is just ridiculous.
  however i think the bank had some hand in this, especially seeing the deals the the prosecution tried to make to the defence in exchange for not going on trial.
  
  

  After the verdicts were read, the San Diego City Attorney’s office criticized the defendant, saying it had offered him options that would have allowed everyone to avoid a trial.
  One such offer required the defendant to perform 32 hours of community service, attend an 8-hour seminar by the “Corrective Behavior Institute,” pay Bank of America $6,299, and surrender his driver’s license for three year period.”
  Shortly before the trial began, City Attorney Jan Goldsmith tried to sweeten the deal, allowing him to plead guilty to one vandalism charge, serve three years probation, pay an undetermined amount of restitution, spend 24 hours cleaning up graffiti, and surrender his driver’s license for two years.

• Space Pirate Nithiel wrote on 2013-07-05 23:38
  I laughed really hard at what they considered a "good deal" especially when their case was BS and he did nothing wrong. xD
• Kingofrunes wrote on 2013-07-05 23:50
  Wow that "deal" was complete bullshit. Fuck you Bank of America! Burn in fucking hell greedy bastards.