[jamesmccann]

The fact that the defendant used "washable chalk" does not make him innocent of vandalism, as some are suggesting.

Chalk can stain the side of a building if repeatedly used in the same place. Washing the building will reduce the chalk to a faint smudge, but restoring the side of the building to its original state before the offending still requires repainting/resurfacing in the same way cleaning spraypaint would.

In regards to limiting the use of the First Amendment - the right of the defendant to express his views have not been violated. The First Amendment has nothing to do with the vandalism charges he faces. He could have expressed his views over a medium that wasn't illegal, allowing him to defend himself via the First Amendment, but then he wouldn't have a need for defence, would he?

[cgag]

13 years wouldn't be reasonable if he wrote it in someone else's blood.

[mpyne]

As is repeatedly mentioned every single time a legal case hits the HN airwaves, the maximum sentence one might compose by sequentially stacking maximum penalties for all charges is not the sentence that is anywhere close to possibly being handed down for real.

From one of anigbrowl's comments on here: " The maximum penalty for vandalism in California (which is what this case is about) is 3 years. It isn't possible to get a 13 year sentence for vandalism in California. In fact, since the defendant has no previous convictions for vandalism that I'm aware of I'm pretty sure the maximum penalty that can be imposed under CA law (CA PC 640.5/6) is community service and a $1000 fine. "

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5956128

[PavlovsCat]

Then what's the point of threatening something that draconian? Pure habit?

[rdouble]

If he ran 13 red lights he'd be assessed the penalty 13 times for that, too. I'm not sure why the number of charges multiplied by the penalty would be draconian. That's just arithmetic. Luckily, the legal system in the USA is flexible and he will just get a small fine and community service.

[infrec]

I think you are missing the context of the question (mpyne's comment). If the max that will logically be handed down is way below the summed offenses, why is it being used? It seems like it's a threatening tactic and yes, draconian.

[rdouble]

But how else would you do it? You still have to let the guy know what the max sentence could be, whether it seems threatening or not.

[PavlovsCat]

He didn't run a red light with tons of steel though, he wrote words. Even if you consider property damage, fuck that comparison big time. Thankfully,

"In fact, since the defendant has no previous convictions for vandalism that I'm aware of I'm pretty sure the maximum penalty that can be imposed under CA law (CA PC 640.5/6) is community service and a $1000 fine."

seems to imply that at least in this case it is slightly more than "just arithmetic".

This is a human we're talking about, too. Arithmetic, bleh.. speaking of that, if society gets to pay for the ill-meant fuckups of banks, why can't it pay for the well-meant fuckups of individuals?

Who would even mention 13 years, even as a joke, in this context? I think that's my question. I understand that such idle threats are used to get people to give in without trial, and that's bad enough, but in this case, I still can't fathom someone saying or writing it with a straight face. Without stopping to think for a second. That it would not actually come to such a punishment is a small, but not sufficient consolation for me, I'm still puzzled.

[anigbrowl]

Who would even mention 13 years, even as a joke, in this context?

A lawyer, to drum up sympathetic media coverage for his client (and increase his own public profile).

a reporter, to get eyeballs on a story.

Seriously, just because you read it on a news site does not mean it is true.

[anigbrowl]

He isn't being threatened with anything that draconian. It's bullshit reporting, designed to attract clicks from gullible people.

[moflo]

I think the point was that the bank's claim that $6,000 was spent cleaning the sidewalk is bogus. Regular chalk is indeed difficult to remove from porous surfaces like brick or concrete, but this type washes off in the rain. My kids use it regularly on our patio, which at the moment is spotless despite my expending zero effort removing their previous artwork.