Occupy

[Telarus]

Vandalizing a recruiter station is a douchey thing to do IMO.

Retracted. I had a monkey moment and didn't read the full article.

I'm still confused. i scanned through the article and it looks like they did 'vandalize' the recruiter station?  (albeit water soluble vandalism.)
what mitigates this if you find that behavior douchey?

Probably the fact that they all got off when their lawyers argued that it was purely 1st Amendment protected speech which did not damage the property.

[Elder Iptuous]

Right.  anything more than a stern fingershaking would be overkill IMO since the remedy was simply to hose down the windows and sidewalk, but i would still think it goes under the heading of 'vandalism'.  If coyote said he thinks that is a douchey thing to do to a recruiter station, i was wondering whether, after reading the article, he decided that they were justified or whether what they did was not really vandalism, or whether he decided that it's not really douchey after all...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Right.  anything more than a stern fingershaking would be overkill IMO since the remedy was simply to hose down the windows and sidewalk, but i would still think it goes under the heading of 'vandalism'.

Then we'd better start arresting kids for sidewalk chalk.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Vandalizing a recruiter station is a douchey thing to do IMO.

Retracted. I had a monkey moment and didn't read the full article.

I'm still confused. i scanned through the article and it looks like they did 'vandalize' the recruiter station?  (albeit water soluble vandalism.)
what mitigates this if you find that behavior douchey?

Put yourself in the judge's shoes.  These aren't bangers or taggers we're talking about; these are senior citizens.  It's not like they're doing this on a lark.

So maybe - just possibly - the judge acknowledged that in certain circumstances, free speech goes a little bit farther than bitching about the state of the nation over a cup of coffee.  The fact that they were careful to use water-soluble paint lends support to that.

After all, you DO have a constitutional right to peaceably assemble to petition the government for redress...And the military is undeniably the government, and since no property was damaged, and nobody was harmed, it was peaceful.

Because, you know, "petitioning for redress" is just fancy language for "losing your shit".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The old are brave.
Braver than any.

There should be a granny/grampy movement.
-just saying

Oh there is, they're called The Raging Grannies.

The Portland chapter (I think they go by "Seriously Pissed Off Grannies") vandalized an Army recruiting place in December.

I saw them holdin' it down at the Occupy the Courts protest a few weeks ago.

What a bunch of fucking assholes.

Yes, those old ladies are total dicks for not wanting any more kids to get sent off to fight and die for corporate interests.

[Elder Iptuous]

the kids with sidewalk chalk should probably get the same stern fingershaking that i said might be appropriate if they were also using it to display their displeasure with somebody on said person's property without permission.  as i said, arrest is certainly overkill. 
i was just curious that

If coyote said he thinks that is a douchey thing to do to a recruiter station, i was wondering whether, after reading the article, he decided that they were justified or whether what they did was not really vandalism, or whether he decided that it's not really douchey after all...

if i were in the judge's shoes, i would make the same call of letting them go.  possibly saying,'hey, i actually agree with you, but please try not to tread into the vandalism territory.'

[The Good Reverend Roger]

the kids with sidewalk chalk should probably get the same stern fingershaking that i said might be appropriate if they were also using it to display their displeasure with somebody on said person's property without permission.

So.

Public sidewalk.  Kids chalk it up to play hopscotch (do kids still play that?), or just draw on it.

They have no permission from the city.  Should they get the stern fingershaking?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

the kids with sidewalk chalk should probably get the same stern fingershaking that i said might be appropriate if they were also using it to display their displeasure with somebody on said person's property without permission.  as i said, arrest is certainly overkill. 
i was just curious that

If coyote said he thinks that is a douchey thing to do to a recruiter station, i was wondering whether, after reading the article, he decided that they were justified or whether what they did was not really vandalism, or whether he decided that it's not really douchey after all...

if i were in the judge's shoes, i would make the same call of letting them go.  possibly saying,'hey, i actually agree with you, but please try not to tread into the vandalism territory.'

So. Is leaving a nasty note for a shitty parking job under somebody's windshield wiper also "vandalism"?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And, again, you have a constitutional right to lose your shit, as long as it's peaceful.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, let's just clarify for a moment the difference between "publicly owned property" and "privately owned property". Who, exactly, pays for the Army recruiting station?

Might want to think it ALL the way through before you start the contrarian position.

[Elder Iptuous]

I taught my kids how to do hopscotch with the sidewalk chalk and they love it. (but the three year old still just kinda jumps around and declares victory).  they have since taught other neighborhood kids how it works and i've seen them doing it independently.
next up, mumbleypegs! 

but, no.  public sidewalk... hopscotch...kid's art.  of course not
on somebody's house or business stating that they are poopypants?  yeah.  someone should shake their fist at them and tell their parents.
in TFA they said that it was the sidewalk right out front of the station and on their windows.

[Elder Iptuous]

So. Is leaving a nasty note for a shitty parking job under somebody's windshield wiper also "vandalism"?

not according to the dictionary

willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property

Also, let's just clarify for a moment the difference between "publicly owned property" and "privately owned property". Who, exactly, pays for the Army recruiting station?

actually, i was looking for a clarification on Coyote's thinking, rather than start up a contrarian position.
i guess i'm a sucker for arguing though. 
so, you are certainly not saying that public property cannot be vandalized, right?

Might want to think it ALL the way through before you start the contrarian position.

On a side note,  is it bad form to use a discussion as a sounding board in order to think through a position without actually believing that you are Right™ and they are Wrong™ without explicitly saying so?  i am guilty of doing that all the time (as i consider it folly to hold such belief) and perhaps i should amend this behavior, but it seems that it would get tiresome to actually preface each conversation as such.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So. Is leaving a nasty note for a shitty parking job under somebody's windshield wiper also "vandalism"?

not according to the dictionary

willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property

Also, let's just clarify for a moment the difference between "publicly owned property" and "privately owned property". Who, exactly, pays for the Army recruiting station?

Might want to think it ALL the way through before you start the contrarian position.

actually, i was looking for a clarification on Coyote's thinking, rather than start up a contrarian position.
i guess i'm a sucker for arguing though. 
so, you are certainly not saying that public property cannot be vandalized, right?

Derp. Of course not. I am equating using washable paint to writing a note, because it A: contains a verbal message, and B: is removable with no damage or permanent defacement. Since the recruiting center is public property, the line between writing on the building and writing on the sidewalk is blurred, and it has already been determined by the courts that sidewalk chalk and washable paint on public sidewalks and roadways is not vandalism.

Coyote changed his mind after he read the article, and I think you're just arguing for shits and giggles, which can be fun but only when it's a subject worth expending mental energy on.

[Elder Iptuous]

and it has already been determined by the courts that sidewalk chalk and washable paint on public sidewalks and roadways is not vandalism.

That is interesting... i wonder how far that could be pushed?

Coyote changed his mind after he read the article, and I think you're just arguing for shits and giggles, which can be fun but only when it's a subject worth expending mental energy on.

again, my response to Coyote was not argument.  i was asking for clarification of his change of mind.
my responses to Roger implying that this was similar to kids chalking up a hopscotch on the sidwalk and your implication that it is was similar to leaving a note under a windshield wiper would be argument, i guess.  perhaps i should not have responded to those assertions?  (or respond to this post either?)

[The Good Reverend Roger]

On a side note,  is it bad form to use a discussion as a sounding board in order to think through a position without actually believing that you are Right™ and they are Wrong™ without explicitly saying so?

No, not at all.

But here, it is also not considered bad form to throw a wobbler for any reason or no reason at all.  Why disagree quietly when you can explode all over the upholstery and run off screeching at the heavens?

Nothing should be done in a calm manner¹, because life isn't a calm event.



¹  Unless, perversely enough, you are in the middle of an emergency.