Man who faced 13 years for defacing bank with chalk found not guilty - Polidicks

[quote]SAN DIEGO - A 40-year-old man was acquitted Monday of 13 misdemeanor vandalism charges that stemmed from protest messages he wrote in chalk in front of three Bank of America branches in San Diego. Jeffrey David Olson's attorney argued during the trial -- which garnered national attention -- that his client was engaging in a legal protest and was not maliciously defacing of property. Defense attorney Tom Tosdal argued that vandalism law required jurors to find something was "maliciously defaced." "His purpose was not malicious. His purpose was to inform," Tosdal said of his client.[/quote] [url=http://www.10news.com/news/verdict-in-san-diego-chalk-vandalism-case-070113]Source[/url] [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1282110&highlight=]Original thread[/url]

Now time to de-robe that judge for disallowing certain parts of the law to be mentioned.

Even if it was vandalism, 13 years is insane. How come nonviolent crimes are starting to get faced with exaggerated punishment.

[quote]"His purpose was not malicious. His purpose was to inform," Tosdal said of his client.[/quote] If your purpose is to inform, there's much better ways of doing that. Ways that don't end up with you standing in a court accused of vandalism. Good that he got found not guilty though, I'm just saying that this particular statement seems kind of weirdly chosen.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;41280104]If your purpose is to inform, there's much better ways of doing that. Ways that don't end up with you standing in a court accused of vandalism. Good that he got found not guilty though, I'm just saying that this particular statement seems kind of weirdly chosen.[/QUOTE] [quote] he wrote in [B]chalk[/B] in front of three Bank of America[/quote] Hardly vandalism. Just wash it off.

Good

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;41280104]If your purpose is to inform, there's much better ways of doing that. Ways that don't end up with you standing in a court accused of vandalism. Good that he got found not guilty though, I'm just saying that this particular statement seems kind of weirdly chosen.[/QUOTE] The best way to inform (especially in a society that's blasted with information all the time) is to do so in a way that catches attention and breaks the mold. If he hadn't done this and hadn't been prosecuted for it, then would you even know about his particular message?

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41280324']The best way to inform (especially in a society that's blasted with information all the time) is to do so in a way that catches attention and breaks the mold. If he hadn't done this and hadn't been prosecuted for it, then would you even know about his particular message?[/QUOTE] You mean the message that bankers are evil and bad? Yeah, I think everyone kinda figured that out right around the latest recession.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;41280374]You mean the message that bankers are evil and bad? Yeah, I think everyone kinda figured that out right around the latest recession.[/QUOTE] Which is exactly why everything is different with the bankers and economic situation now, right?

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;41280374]You mean the message that bankers are evil and bad? Yeah, I think everyone kinda figured that out right around the latest recession.[/QUOTE] Some people really don't realize how they're constantly fucked over, though.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;41280374]You mean the message that bankers are evil and bad? Yeah, I think everyone kinda figured that out right around the latest recession.[/QUOTE] considering the bankers still have their jobs i would say almost no one figured it out.

Everybody knows; it's just that everybody with power is either lazy (plight of the commons) or bribed.

Fuck that judge, how is barring someone from mentioning the constitution in any way okay? [sp] $ [/sp]

[QUOTE=areolop;41280208]Hardly vandalism. Just wash it off.[/QUOTE] Courts have already ruled that the fact it washes off doesn't mean it's not vandalism. This was, in my opinion, a case where the vandal is a middle aged white guy with a 'political' message against BANKS, so the jury doesn't care. If it was a minority teen writing some gang name I don't think the outcome would have been the same.

[QUOTE=Iago;41280059]Even if it was vandalism, 13 years is insane. How come nonviolent crimes are starting to get faced with exaggerated punishment.[/QUOTE] They're not. It was thirteen counts of vandalism. Each one carries a maximum sentence of one year. Even if he were convicted on every count it would be extremely unlikely for him to be sentenced to thirteen years in prison. The variation in the recommended punishment is because not all crimes are the same and the law has to reflect the inherent variability in necessary punishment. [QUOTE=Alec W;41283314]Fuck that judge, how is barring someone from mentioning the constitution in any way okay?[/QUOTE] Because almost all of the Constitutional rights have limitations. You can't use the First Amendment as a defense for vandalizing someone else's property, or for hate speech, or threats of violence, or public disturbance, or harassment. The judge decided that in this case the right to free speech wasn't applicable so he was barred from using it as a defense.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;41283343]Courts have already ruled that the fact it washes off doesn't mean it's not vandalism. This was, in my opinion, a case where the vandal is a middle aged white guy with a 'political' message against BANKS, so the jury doesn't care. If it was a minority teen writing some gang name I don't think the outcome would have been the same.[/QUOTE] Let's not try to compare apples and orangutans now.