7 ms·

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

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.

quackerhacker 13y 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-california-banks_n_3499177.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/jeff-olson-californ...
anigbrowl 13y 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.
- quackerhacker 13y 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).
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    That'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.

quackerhacker 13y 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-california-banks_n_3499177.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/jeff-olson-californ...

anigbrowl 13y 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.

quackerhacker 13y 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).
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  That'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.