
Jury finds protester not guilty in chalk-vandalism case - scottshea
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-chalk-verdict-20130701,0,1617754.story
======
jessaustin
_That the Bank of America contacted the city attorney 's office to reportedly
urge prosecution has become part of the dispute._

Make that, they called and visited her office repeatedly over the course of
many months to emphasize the _quid pro quo_ established by previous political
donations. If any corner store had made a similar ruckus for a one-time chalk-
on-sidewalk "incident", the store owner would have been cited for interfering
with the duties of the City Attorney.

I look forward to voting for Mayor Filner when he runs for higher office. I'm
also glad the jury saw fit to correct the judge's egregious Constitutional
error.

~~~
scottshea
If I lived in San Diego I would be tempted to organize a chalk-in at BofA
branches

------
quackerhacker
I could not express my elation in words for this victory!

I said it before when this trended on HN, that I hoped he would go to trial
and not take a deal. I don't care if BOFA showed video of him doing it, he had
chalk on his hands, and posted pictures up online on FB or Twitter...if I was
on the jury, I would've said he wasn't guilty.

Ridiculous lobbying of resources and obvious oppression by BOFA!

------
sirsar
Good, we've acquitted the guy with children's chalk.

Now can we please jail those responsible for the illegal foreclosures?

~~~
jayfuerstenberg
It hasn't happened in the last 4 years and it won't in the next 4.

The only way to bring justice to banks is to cause a run on them. Take your
money out and put it in a small, local credit union.

You'll be glad you did, if only for the level of service you'll receive.

~~~
cheald
Another option is USAA. Unlike their insurance, you don't have to be a member
of the military to use their banking services. They are an online-only bank
and have magnificent customer service. I switched to them from Wells Fargo a
few years back and can't recommend them enough.

~~~
charlieflowers
I switched to USAA too. Overall I've been happy, but I must admit it's a pain
in the butt to get money in there. The only easy way to get money there is
direct deposit.

If they'd fix that somehow, it would be fantastic.

~~~
cheald
You can take a check to a UPS store[1]. If you're a customer of their car
insurance, you can also deposit checks directly by taking a picture of them
with your phone via their app[2] - I realize that's not accessible to many
folks though.

[1]
[https://www.usaa.com/inet/pages/usaa_easy_deposits_main](https://www.usaa.com/inet/pages/usaa_easy_deposits_main)

[2]
[https://www.usaa.com/inet/pages/mobile_banking_dm?akredirect...](https://www.usaa.com/inet/pages/mobile_banking_dm?akredirect=true)

------
jack-r-abbit
Where did this guy get a permanent chalk WMD?

Wait... you're telling me this was chalk like my kids use on my driveway
nearly every weekend? The same stuff that takes about 2 seconds to hose off?
No shit he's not guilty of vandalism. SMH

------
noonespecial
This is why when you are summoned for jury duty, _go_.

~~~
pezh0re
Assuming your case is one that actually goes to trial as opposed to the tons
that settle.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
More cases like this, and people may become brave enough to forgo extortive
settlements.

------
kanja
In all of the bad news about the system, this makes me feel pretty good

------
tlrobinson
Was he actually facing jail time for this, or was the "13 years" line fed to
the media by him/his defense?

Jail time for writing in chalk is absurd, but surely he deserved some
reasonable punishment for doing this _13 times_. A small fine and/or community
service seems appropriate.

~~~
bobwaycott
> _... surely he deserved some reasonable punishment for doing this 13 times._

Write the following, in chalk, 13 times in front of Bank of America:

 _I will not write in front of your premises in chalk._

------
ryanac
Wow... Embarrassing that this guy was ever charged in the first place. I
thought it was some kind of joke when reading the title or that there was more
to it, but nope, that pretty much sums it up, chalk. :|

------
_delirium
Here's some discussion of the legal issues, mostly based on _another_ recent
chalk-vandalism prosecution: [http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/01/chalking-and-
the-first-amen...](http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/01/chalking-and-the-first-
amendment/)

------
quackerhacker
Just for a reference, the old HN thread:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5948804](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5948804)

------
lightyrs
Dismayed that this is news. This guy should have never been charged. Now we're
surprised he wasn't convicted. SMH.

~~~
scottshea
It should have been one of those news stories that are saved for the 'look at
the absurdity' humor sections of the news. It does seem to illustrate the
political fighting that has gripped the nation though. The Mayor and DA hold
opposite views and drug this into the open.

My tendency is to agree with the mayor; massive waste of money. On the other
hand it does serve as a small legal precedent now so I guess there is some
absolute value. Maybe.

------
javert
The public should have zero tolerance for graffiti and vandalism of public
property. This guy should have been fined and stuck in jail for 30 days. End
of story.

I heard they were trying to put him away for 13 years. That is gross abuse by
the justice system. If I were on the jury, I would also declare him not
guilty, even though he is.

P.S. You do not have a first amendment right to write on public property.
People who are too stupid to understand that, don't actually deserve first
amendment rights (though I will still defend their rights, anyway).

~~~
ajross
With chalk. He "wrote" on public property _with chalk_. Are you in favor of
prosecuting people for "Lost Dog" signs stapled to telephone poles too?

Good grief. Thankfully our courts have historically taken a rather broader
view of the limits of political speech than you have. "Too stupid to deserve
rights" indeed. That was just disgraceful, stop it.

~~~
ars
Did he write on the sidewalk, or on the wall or entryway of the bank?

~~~
icebraining
From the article: _" (...) on the sidewalk outside branches of the Bank of
America."_

------
stretchwithme
Thank god. Reason prevails!

------
jmomo
This seems to be a classic case of jury nullification. He was clearly guilty,
but the jury refused to find him guilty.

------
coyotebush
Beside the point, but

"a 40-year-old man" "He was a civil rights activist in the 1960s"

doesn't really add up.

~~~
jessaustin
The former is the defendant. The latter is the mayor, who commented on the
case.

~~~
coyotebush
Oops, that's right.

------
alayne
Jan Goldsmith needs a new job.

~~~
nknighthb
What exactly is going on in San Diego's voting booths, anyway? A Republican
city attorney on a crusade against chalk, and a far-left civil rights activist
mayor?

I'm reading through Filner's record, and the guy looks like a much older
version of me. I'm left-wing enough that I think Berkeley would be scared of
me, nevermind San Diego.

------
gfodor
I respect the jury's decision but have a had time swallowing that anyone who
wants to should be able to systematically slander a business in chalk 13 times
and it not be considered some sort of crime. Poor precedent. Should have
gotten a slap on the wrist.

~~~
jjoonathan
IANAL, but AFAIK Slander involves communicating a falsehood. "BoA stole $10T
of lunch money from children in Africa" would be slander (outside of the
context of this post and the fact that it is a clearly ridiculous assertion).
"No Thanks, Big Banks" (a representative example of what the guy actually
wrote) is not slander.

The charges were for vandalism, which arguably has a place in political
discourse and arguably doesn't even deserve a slap on the wrist.

~~~
gfodor
Fair enough on the slander point, but how does this not set a precedent for
people to start spamming political messages all over sidewalks in front of
Evil Corporation of The Month? The only real reasoning I could see is that
perhaps just the fear of being sentence was deterrence enough.

~~~
nknighthb
Personally, I'd be thrilled to have such a precedent.

Seriously. It's a sidewalk. When not covered in chalk, it's just a boring
surface.

Protests, political slogans, landscapes, ponies, shrines to $deity of your
choice, ads for the competing coffee shop on the next street, I'll take it
all.

~~~
gfodor
Lets break it down logically. I think most people would agree this guy should
be found guilty if he had used spraypaint to deface sidewalks 13 times.
Spraypaint, like chalk, is removable too, it just requires more effort and
cost. Removing the chalk, according to BoA, cost a few thousand dollars.
(Probably because they had to hire someone come with a power washer, and
weren't going to ask their employees to do it.)

I guess my question is, why is chalk different than spraypaint in the eyes of
the law? Is it because the rain will wash it away, or because the relative
cost to washing it away with a hose is low compared to more permanent media?
What if there is no hose access to the sidewalk in an area where there is no
rain for weeks at a time? Where is the line drawn?

~~~
jasonlotito
Other people have discussed and refuted your various arguments. I want to
tackle something else.

You are dismissing elements of the case as if they aren't important.

> Lets break it down logically.

Logic dictates that you look at the case at hand, not at all the possible
permutations.

It's not as if you can say simply that killing someone is a crime and deserves
X punishment, regardless of the details, and driving over the speed limit
isn't an instant ticket if seen by a cop.

So, then you ask:

> why is chalk different than spraypaint in the eyes of the law?

First, because they are different. They aren't the same. Not all cases of
vandalism are the same, and they shouldn't be treated the same.

We see what happens in cases like that when people use zero-tolerance as an
excuse to come down hard on someone who was clearly not doing anything
harmful.

> What if there is no hose access to the sidewalk in an area where there is no
> rain for weeks at a time?

And what if it was raining at the time? The person drawing _while_ the rain
immediately washed it away. One could argue then that the act of vandalism
still occurred in both cases. One just happened to happen while it rained.

