6 ms·
California man faces 13 years in jail for scribbling anti-bank messages in chalk
- hedonist 13y ago13 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-of-america-mortgage-fraud/1654441/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/10/24/bank... - http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/bank-of-america-foreclosure-reviews-new-part-iii.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/bank-of-america-forec... The answer, of course, is almost certainly no one.
- ars 13y agoHe 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.
- nazka 13y agoHo yes sure it's not too bad...
- nazka 13y agoAs I can see people are happy to get 1 month in prison. Great for them they don't know what it is. Anyway they forgot the heart of the US: the First Amendment, which is maybe even more terrible...
- emidln 13y agoWhy 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.
- CanSpice 13y agoUnfortunately that's the way the law works. If you write on some property that isn't yours, it doesn't matter if it disappears in a second or lasts forever, you've still written on some property that isn't yours and you've committed vandalism in California. The restriction to being able to exercise his freedom of speech is another issue entirely.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoDon't do it in Waco http://www.wacotrib.com/news/courts_and_trials/theft-of-ribs-gets-five-time-felon-years-in-prison/article_8b90161d-9132-57cc-9a29-74d679015585.html http://www.wacotrib.com/news/courts_and_trials/theft-of-ribs...
- hexis 13y agoTell it to Aaron Swartz.
- ars 13y agoExactly. Someone should have told him, and he should not have committed suicide. But probably someone did tell him, and his suicide was because of other things.
- hedonist 13y agoIt'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.
- lettergram 13y agoYou can order the local police department to arrest the guy who writes on your wall too.
- jlgreco 13y agoYou can order them to deliver you pizza, the question that should be asked is if you can effectively order it. The last time I called the cops it was because a bum was in my backyard, next to my livingroom window, dumping out my trash and going through it. They never sent anybody. Am I to expect they will care when I complain about a hippie with chalk?
- hedonist 13y agoIt wasn't the banks walls he was accused of writing on; it was the sidewalks out in front.
- dlss 13y agoYou're forgetting that he's not plea bargaining (hence the judge barring arguments)
- rdouble 13y agoThis 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 13y agoIs 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?
- rdouble 13y agoI 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.
- anigbrowl 13y agoJury isn't there to decide constitutional questions, but factual ones.
- comrade_ogilvy 13y agoWhether 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.
- rdouble 13y agoIt'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.
- iterationx 13y agoThis is why we have trial by jury and Jury Nullification.
- softbuilder 13y agoThat's why we have an appeals process.
- ChuckMcM 13y agoI 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 13y agoI 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 13y agoDo 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 13y agoMentioning 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.
- iterationx 13y agoIt would be if I was on the Jury.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- angersock 13y agoIt's delightful to see things like this whenever anybody champions Cali over my state in flyover country for being conservative.
- guelo 13y agoYou enjoy seeing suffering and injustice in order to score meaningless political points in your head? Doesn't seem healthy.
- angersock 13y agoOh, 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 13y agoAnd 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 13y agoI'm sorry, is this a competition?
- angersock 13y agoYep. Race to the bottom.
- swift 13y agoIn fairness San Diego is a very different place from, say, San Francisco.
- zhemao 13y agoWait, 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 13y agoThe 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-value 13y agoI 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 13y 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.
- tptacek 13y agoThe claim isn't relevant to the statute. At a jury trial, you're not allowed to make irrelevant arguments.
- xanderstrike 13y agoThe article says he spent six months doing it a few times a week. I think that qualifies as a habitual repeat offender.
- m4tthumphrey 13y agoThis story made me cry and actually made me feel better for living in the UK, which in turn has made me cry more.
- jpablo 13y agoAfraid 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.
- jpablo 13y agoAnd 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.
- lettergram 13y agoPretty sure a power washer can handle it in about 20 seconds, even a hose with an attachment.
- jpablo 13y agoI have a rugged white wall used by mi nieces to draw using Crayola Chalks to prove otherwise. I don't have a power washer but I did tried washing it using a hose with an attachment. Then scrubbing it with soap and in faded considerably but didn't went away completely. Still why will someone have to pay/do the work to clean up the mess that this guy was doing (for six months, 13 times!), just because it's a "political message" it's ok to make a mess and have other people clean it up?
- jlgreco 13y agoWhy should society foot the bill to jail this guy for any amount of time when a far lower sum of money could be used to rent a pressure washer to make him use to clean it up?
- danielweber 13y agoIf he's a first-time offender, your solution is a lot better idea than any jail time.
- draugadrotten 13y agoNSA 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.
- tokenadult 13y agoTry 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.
- tptacek 13y agoFun fact about Russia: while we were striking down DOMA today, Saint Petersburg was working to criminalize same-sex couples.
- rmc 13y agoNot only that, they are criminalizing the "promotion of homosexuality", a "don't say gay" law. Gay pride marches are also being banned due to "protect the children".
- ihsw 13y agoIrrelevant.
- grecy 13y agoI'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.
- doe88 13y agoMeanwhile in Wall Street, nobody has yet been held responsible for all the financial crisis debacle that has cost billions to the americans.
- xanderstrike 13y 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 13y agoYour 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 13y agoA 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?
- quackerhacker 13y agoProhibiting 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.
- quackerhacker 13y agoTo 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-california-banks_n_3499177.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/jeff-olson-californ...
- anigbrowl 13y agoProhibiting 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.
- quackerhacker 13y agoWhat 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).
- anigbrowl 13y agoThat's what the jury would decide, yes (it's up to the prosecutor to prove it, but I know what you meant). It's quite possible that it'll go to trial, he'll be convicted and get some nominal sentence like community service, then the moral/legal question will be the subject of an appeal.
- nzealand 13y agoHe 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-%20Vio%201-1-13%20forward.pdf 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 13y agoIf 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
- anigbrowl 13y agoConviction != 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.
- tptacek 13y agoNo 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&group=00001-01000&file=594-625c 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.
- SwellJoe 13y agoWe'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.
- tptacek 13y agoI 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.
- 13y ago
- icegreentea 13y agoOk... 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 http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/594.html
- danielweber 13y agoAs we've gone through before, "maximum sentence" is much different than "actual sentence."
- redblacktree 13y agoNot 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.
- grecy 13y agoMy 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 13y agoSure, 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 https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/05/29/cali-m29.html [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_California#Prison_growth_and_overcrowding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_California#Prison_g... [3]: http://solitarywatch.com/2013/03/15/california-prison-conditions-driving-prisoners-to-suicide/ http://solitarywatch.com/2013/03/15/california-prison-condit...
- ulysses 13y agoThe 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/23/he-chalks-the-line-city-attorney-prosecutes-man-fo/ http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/news-ticker/2013/jun/2...
- just_hobbyst 13y agoOK, 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?
- danielweber 13y agoA 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.
- anigbrowl 13y agoJudge decides law, can be appealed against. Jury decides facts, jury findings are (generally) not subject to appeal.
- dragonwriter 13y 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.
- gromy 13y 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 13y agort.com should be banned, just like dailymail. It's crap.
- gromy 13y agoMeanwhile, “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-overcrowding/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/20/justice/california-prison-over...
- omonra 13y agoRT is not journalism - it's propaganda - http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php?page=all&print=true 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 13y agoWhat a waste of tax payer money.