PDA

View Full Version : Occupy Protester has been in jail for the last three weeks for writing on the sidewal



Carol
01-12-2012, 11:37 PM
link
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002161891)

Bjorn Against (6,349 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

Occupy Protester has been in jail for the last three weeks for writing on the sidewalk with chalk

ORLANDO, FLA. (CBS Tampa) - A South Carolina man associated with the Occupy Orlando movement was arrested late last year for writing on the ground with sidewalk chalk, and has been in jail ever since.

According to an arrest affidavit provided by the Orlando Police Department to CBS Tampa, Timothy Michael Osmar was found by authorities on Dec. 15 writing on the sidewalks with chalk.

Officer Phil Scaglione and Sgt. Ernest Payne approached Osmar, at which point Payne explained that it is "unlawful for any person to write, print, mark, paint, stamp or paste any sign, notice of advertisement upon the surface of any sidewalk or paved street in the city."


http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/231613/19/Occupy-protester-arrested-for-writing-on-ground-with-chalk

Parents beware! If the law is applied consistently your five year old could face serious jail time for playing hop scotch!


The listing also states that Osmar is a transient, with no formal address to his name. His state of origin was determined by the identification he carried, which came from South Carolina.

Several days prior to the sidewalk chalk incident, Osmar was arrested for prohibited camping.

He has been charged with "writing or painting advertising matter on streets and sidewalks." As of Jan. 10, he was being held on a $500 bond.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/231613/19/Occupy-protester-arrested-for-writing-on-ground-with-chalk.\

So, in other words, he's being kept in jail because he has not posted bond. OWS has lots of money they don't know what to do with. They used some of it for lawyers, fines and posting bond.

So why haven't they posted this guys bond? Is it because he's homeless and a "throw away", someone they can use to "score points" against the police and the government?

It's scandalous the way they are using this guy. But of course DU left out that part of the article and the media place it in the very last paragraph in order to bury the reality of the OWS movement.

NJCardFan
01-12-2012, 11:40 PM
Do these idiots not realize that his living conditions have improved 10 fold? Going from homeless to getting free clothing, free healthcare, free room and board, free meals. Yeah, he's in a regular gulag. :rolleyes:

Novaheart
01-13-2012, 01:38 AM
Do these idiots not realize that his living conditions have improved 10 fold? Going from homeless to getting free clothing, free healthcare, free room and board, free meals. Yeah, he's in a regular gulag. :rolleyes:

His parents have a pretty spiffy house, I think we have a poseur.

noonwitch
01-13-2012, 09:49 AM
If he was using sidewalk chalk to write F#&% the Cops, then he got what he was asking for.


Otherwise, sidewalk chalk washes away when it rains. It's one of those $ store items that can amuse children for at least an hour during nice weather.

SarasotaRepub
01-13-2012, 10:26 AM
Otherwise, sidewalk chalk washes away when it rains. It's one of those $ store items that can amuse children for at least an hour during nice weather.


That so describes #OWS it isn't funny...:taser:

Adam Wood
01-13-2012, 12:18 PM
They're behind the times. He's already been released after the charges were dropped (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/crime/os-tim-osmar-chalk-writer-occupy-orlando-20120111,0,4651730.story). And the very first thing he did was try to get arrested again. :rolleyes:

Novaheart
01-13-2012, 12:41 PM
They're behind the times. He's already been released after the charges were dropped (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/crime/os-tim-osmar-chalk-writer-occupy-orlando-20120111,0,4651730.story). And the very first thing he did was try to get arrested again. :rolleyes:

It's probably not the best PR for the Sheriff to arrest people for sidewalk chalking. Especially when you consider that the tired and worn out concepts of urban uplift usually include "art walk" with sidewalk chalk, face painting, and all the same stuff everywhere.... or as my mother would say while reading the brochure, "Blah.... blah.... just like every other riverwalk."

Lanie
01-13-2012, 01:21 PM
Perhaps somebody should write on the wall that it's illegal to write on the wall.

Adam Wood
01-13-2012, 03:38 PM
Perhaps somebody should write on the wall that it's illegal to write on the wall.

Doesn't work.



http://i41.tinypic.com/105drgz.jpg


http://i43.tinypic.com/15mo6eb.jpg

Bailey
01-13-2012, 03:39 PM
I hope he isn't getting molested in jail just for writing on the sidewalk, that would suck. :D

DumbAss Tanker
01-13-2012, 04:00 PM
I hope he isn't getting molested in jail just for writing on the sidewalk, that would suck. :D

Maybe he's into it, who knows?

Evil Anti DU Man
01-14-2012, 02:32 PM
Getting arrested for sidewalk chalk, even if he is saying stuff like Fuck the cops, is ridiculous. It's called free speech, and free speech means allowing unpopular opinions to be heard. There is no such thing as the right to not be offended.

Now if he was advocating violent acts towards cops, then get him the fuck out of our society.

They wonder why they're harassed so much.

Idiots.

Rockntractor
01-14-2012, 02:39 PM
I hope he isn't getting molested in jail just for writing on the sidewalk, that would suck. :D
Nova happily skips out the door with box of chalk in hand.

Tipsycatlover
01-14-2012, 05:32 PM
They're behind the times. He's already been released after the charges were dropped (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/crime/os-tim-osmar-chalk-writer-occupy-orlando-20120111,0,4651730.story). And the very first thing he did was try to get arrested again. :rolleyes:

Of course he did. Do you have any idea what it's like to be homeless in a New York winter?

Adam Wood
01-16-2012, 12:12 PM
Getting arrested for sidewalk chalk, even if he is saying stuff like Fuck the cops, is ridiculous. It's called free speech, and free speech means allowing unpopular opinions to be heard. There is no such thing as the right to not be offended.

Now if he was advocating violent acts towards cops, then get him the fuck out of our society.

They wonder why they're harassed so much.

Idiots.Your freedom of speech does not mean that I have to put up with your graffiti. The city has an ordinance against writing things on the sidewalk. That's everyone's sidewalk, not just yours to write on. If you want to make a sign and carry it around on that sidewalk, fine, but you don't have some Constitutionally-protected right to deface the sidewalk that belongs partially to me, even if it is something non-permanent like chalk.

Odysseus
01-16-2012, 01:16 PM
A pertinent fact from the article:


The affidavit says that this was explained to Osmar multiple times, but that he disregarded the warning and continued to write on the ground.

In other words, he wanted to get arrested.

Novaheart
01-16-2012, 01:21 PM
Your freedom of speech does not mean that I have to put up with your graffiti. .

I might have to disagree with you here. In CITY COUNCIL v. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT the Supreme Court ruled that a city could prohibit and remove temporary signs, even those with political speech, as long as the content neutral law was applied across the board to all similar signs regardless of message.

So the question is if the city prohibits the use of chalk on a sidewalk under all circumstances. Given that it's unlikely that any child has been arrested for drawing a grid for hopscotch, and we have not heard of the city prosecuting a store for having sidewalk art, then we can reasonably suspect that this law is not being universally enforced, and would therefore run afoul of the protection of the government in CITY COUNCIL v. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT.

Novaheart
01-16-2012, 01:23 PM
A pertinent fact from the article:


The affidavit says that this was explained to Osmar multiple times, but that he disregarded the warning and continued to write on the ground.

In other words, he wanted to get arrested.

He may well have wanted to get arrested, but it doesn't change the legality of the city's action. If the city isn't prosecuting all sidewalk chalkers, then they are being selective on content, and that is a no-no.

Rockntractor
01-16-2012, 01:25 PM
I might have to disagree with you here. In CITY COUNCIL v. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT the Supreme Court ruled that a city could prohibit and remove temporary signs, even those with political speech, as long as the content neutral law was applied across the board to all similar signs regardless of message.

So the question is if the city prohibits the use of chalk on a sidewalk under all circumstances. Given that it's unlikely that any child has been arrested for drawing a grid for hopscotch, and we have not heard of the city prosecuting a store for having sidewalk art, then we can reasonably suspect that this law is not being universally enforced, and would therefore run afoul of the protection of the government in CITY COUNCIL v. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT.

Find any polyps?:confused:

Novaheart
01-16-2012, 01:29 PM
Find any polyps?:confused:

Remember the nasty question I borrowed from Tony Soprano? I agreed not to use it here again and I won't despite the level of stupid and nasty you choose to revert to on a regular basis. Howbeit, consider it implied.

Rockntractor
01-16-2012, 01:49 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/having-your-head-up-your-ass-assbot-demotivational-posters-1326735712-1.jpg

Odysseus
01-16-2012, 05:20 PM
He may well have wanted to get arrested, but it doesn't change the legality of the city's action. If the city isn't prosecuting all sidewalk chalkers, then they are being selective on content, and that is a no-no.

Does the law require a complaint? If so, then there's the difference. You cited, among other things, sidewalk art in front of stores and hopscotch grids. In both cases, the piece of sidewalk in question belongs to someone who is not complaining about the chalking. If the property owner complains, then the police have a cause of action. If not, then they don't. If somebody is chalking up my driveway with inflammatory language or rhetoric, then I can exercise my right as the property owner to have him arrested for vandalizing my property. It doesn't matter whether the medium is chalk or paint, except for the calculation of physical damages, so much as whether the perp has the right to mark up something that doesn't belong to him.

RobJohnson
01-17-2012, 01:31 AM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/having-your-head-up-your-ass-assbot-demotivational-posters-1326735712-1.jpg



PRICELESS!:D

Novaheart
01-17-2012, 11:11 AM
You cited, among other things, sidewalk art in front of stores and hopscotch grids. In both cases, the piece of sidewalk in question belongs to someone who is not complaining about the chalking. .

I was referring to public sidewalks, that private sidewalks are private is a given.

NJCardFan
01-17-2012, 11:24 AM
Does the law require a complaint? If so, then there's the difference. You cited, among other things, sidewalk art in front of stores and hopscotch grids. In both cases, the piece of sidewalk in question belongs to someone who is not complaining about the chalking. If the property owner complains, then the police have a cause of action. If not, then they don't. If somebody is chalking up my driveway with inflammatory language or rhetoric, then I can exercise my right as the property owner to have him arrested for vandalizing my property. It doesn't matter whether the medium is chalk or paint, except for the calculation of physical damages, so much as whether the perp has the right to mark up something that doesn't belong to him.

Funny how Nova equated what this guy was doing with children drawing hopscotch grids. Just goes to show that liberals are still children.

DumbAss Tanker
01-17-2012, 11:43 AM
He may well have wanted to get arrested, but it doesn't change the legality of the city's action. If the city isn't prosecuting all sidewalk chalkers, then they are being selective on content, and that is a no-no.

It's really not that simple.

Novaheart
01-17-2012, 11:54 AM
Funny how Nova equated what this guy was doing with children drawing hopscotch grids. Just goes to show that liberals are still children.

Thankfully your involvement with the law is babysitting sociopaths and not dealing with the constitutional rights of free men. But we appreciate that you are keeping the sociopaths locked up, without prisons and barring summary execution there would be no liberty.

Odysseus
01-17-2012, 03:12 PM
I was referring to public sidewalks, that private sidewalks are private is a given.
Is it? Most cities claim authority over sidewalks, even those in front of private homes or businesses. The fact that a home or business owner can be fined for litter in front of their homes demonstrates that municipal authority. I may be responsible for the upkeep of my sidewalk and liable for anything that happens on it, but the city governs its condition and, to some degree, its use. As a homeowner, I could not block off the sidewalk and charge a toll for passage in front of it. Regardless, the point is that many laws require a complaint to be filed before the city will take action, unless the act is witnessed by a police officer, in which case the officer is the complainant. Also, as the OP article pointed out, the perp received multiple warnings. If an officer were to approach a child who was drawing a hopscotch grid or a sidewalk artist and informed them of the law, I'd say that they'd comply after the first warning. Thus, the absence of prosecutions isn't proof of selective enforcement so much as selective compliance, i.e., the perp who refused to stop drawing after multiple warnings was arrested, while the child who stopped at the first warning was not.

Funny how Nova equated what this guy was doing with children drawing hopscotch grids. Just goes to show that liberals are still children.

PJ O'Rourke had a great line about that. A couple actually:


Wealth is, for most people, the only honest and likely path to liberty. With money comes power over the world. Men are freed from drudgery, women from exploitation. Businesses can be started, homes built, communities formed, religions practiced, educations pursued. But liberals aren't very interested in such real and material freedoms. They have a more innocent -- not to say toddlerlike -- idea of freedom. Liberals want the freedom to put anything into their mouths, to say bad words and to expose their private parts in art museums.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.

NJCardFan
01-17-2012, 05:42 PM
Thankfully your involvement with the law is babysitting sociopaths and not dealing with the constitutional rights of free men. But we appreciate that you are keeping the sociopaths locked up, without prisons and barring summary execution there would be no liberty.

So this person was Constitutionally protected to deface public property? :rolleyes: Before you sound off about arresting others, people speed all day. There just aren't enough patrol officers to catch them all. However, the cop has to pick and choose who to pull over. There isn't anything nefarious about it. They can't catch everyone but they can catch some.

Arroyo_Doble
01-17-2012, 06:33 PM
Liberals want the freedom to put anything into their mouths, to say bad words and to expose their private parts in art museums.

Fucking librullsss

http://interdenominationaldivineorder.com/gallery/david.jpg

Odysseus
01-17-2012, 06:56 PM
Fucking librullsss

http://interdenominationaldivineorder.com/gallery/david.jpg

There is a huge difference between a depiction of a nude and Karen Finley's insertion of yams into various orifices and then eating them. If you can't see it, then I truly feel sorry for you and your stunted sense of aesthetics.

Arroyo_Doble
01-17-2012, 08:13 PM
There is a huge difference between a depiction of a nude and Karen Finley's insertion of yams into various orifices and then eating them. If you can't see it, then I truly feel sorry for you and your stunted sense of aesthetics.

Who?

ABC in Georgia
01-17-2012, 10:00 PM
http://interdenominationaldivineorder.com/gallery/david.jpg


There is a huge difference between a depiction of a nude ... etc.

Oh Mercy!

Um ... um ... now I forget what I came in to say!

What was the subject again?

~ Auntie Mame :p :p :p

ABC in Georgia
01-17-2012, 10:13 PM
Sorry Ody ...

The devil made me do it! :eek: :D

In reality, I agree with you in here.

~ ABC

Odysseus
01-18-2012, 11:42 AM
Who?
Karen Finley. A "performance artist" who used to cover herself in chocolate while ranting about men crapping on women. and inserted yams into various orifices and then ate them. She was one of the NEA grant recipients that almost got the program derailed, and would have if the left hadn't gone berserk over the threat of the federal government not paying for "art".

Sorry Ody ...

The devil made me do it! :eek: :D

In reality, I agree with you in here.

~ ABC

I know. And it was a good post. It's always fun when a genteel lady gets a case of the vapors over something like that. I'll get the smelling salts, you just relax. :D

Novaheart
01-18-2012, 12:08 PM
So this person was Constitutionally protected to deface public property?

The operative particular in this discussion is that the medium was chalk on a public sidewalk. The temporary nature of it makes a difference. So no, he isn't categorically protected to deface public property, but he might be protected in making a temporary statement in a common medium or practice like chalking the sidewalk.

Example- there are sand sculptors who create their works on the public beach at Treasure Island. They often put a little sign in front of the sculpture like "Jesus praying at Gethsemane". The police do not prosecute these people, even though it might be in violation of a littering or signage law. So if a political artist sculpts four bodies in the sand and puts a sign up that says, "The cops kill people." to take any action against him, would be an attack on political speech.

Novaheart
01-18-2012, 12:15 PM
Before you sound off about arresting others, people speed all day. There just aren't enough patrol officers to catch them all. However, the cop has to pick and choose who to pull over. There isn't anything nefarious about it. They can't catch everyone but they can catch some.

There is if there is an illegal reason for his choice of whom to pull over. The fact that the police may not have ever enforced the law applied to chalking a public sidewalk previously doesn't mean that they can apply it with the intent of stopping political speech.

Novaheart
01-18-2012, 12:25 PM
.............piffle..............

The city dropped the charges and didn't re-arrest him. Are they now selectively non-enforcing? Surely they have the manpower to drive by city hall and see the sidewalk chalkers in action. Or perhaps they realized they were about to be bitchslapped?

Adam Wood
01-18-2012, 02:27 PM
The operative particular in this discussion is that the medium was chalk on a public sidewalk. The temporary nature of it makes a difference. So no, he isn't categorically protected to deface public property, but he might be protected in making a temporary statement in a common medium or practice like chalking the sidewalk. Cool. So, I can come along and pelt your home with every imaginable form of feces that I can find. After all, it's not permanent. You can wash that off just fine. It's only temporary. And I'm making a statement by hurling turds at your house, so my "speech" is protected there to the exclusion of your property rights.

NJCardFan
01-18-2012, 06:08 PM
The operative particular in this discussion is that the medium was chalk on a public sidewalk. The temporary nature of it makes a difference. So no, he isn't categorically protected to deface public property, but he might be protected in making a temporary statement in a common medium or practice like chalking the sidewalk.

Example- there are sand sculptors who create their works on the public beach at Treasure Island. They often put a little sign in front of the sculpture like "Jesus praying at Gethsemane". The police do not prosecute these people, even though it might be in violation of a littering or signage law. So if a political artist sculpts four bodies in the sand and puts a sign up that says, "The cops kill people." to take any action against him, would be an attack on political speech.
I'll remember that if someone makes a sand sculpture or sidewalk chalk art of God damning gays to hell. Something tells me your tune will be somewhat different.

Novaheart
01-18-2012, 07:22 PM
I'll remember that if someone makes a sand sculpture or sidewalk chalk art of God damning gays to hell. Something tells me your tune will be somewhat different.

You have no basis for that belief. In fact, you can easily find where I defended hate speech in London.