Posted on 02/23/2013 9:21:46 AM PST by OKRA2012
A suspect has been charged in a recent defacing of a mural of President Barack Obama near a popular midtown restaurant.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
Should have blown the wall down instead, then they would have something to scream about. The “dictator’s” picture doesn’t belong aanywhere in this country.
The wall was already defaced he was just trying to fix it with the wrong tools!
Big Bro is watching. Sounds like a setup. And to charge a felony when it can easily be fixed with a can of spray paint? mugglefuggle
The problem is that Obama does not set gun laws in Texas and the property owner under the castle doctrine could legally shoot to kill a person who is in the process of vandalism.
A similar incident.
The sheep will not stand for their god being profained. And texas has the death penalty.
“Freedom of speech is, as I recall, the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.”
Do the local gang bangers in your neighborhood have the First Amendment right to enter your property and splash paint on your home?
1. It wasn’t his property so no matter what you feel about the subject, it was vandalism.
2. Charged with a felony; are you kidding? Vandalism is a misdemeanor and possibly could result in a civil suit as well but not felony.
3. Where else have we seen ‘dear leader’ murals everywhere? Hmmmm...
that's a campaign advertisement complete with date.
how is that a mural or artwork? are all campaign images now protected artwork?
So is the concept of private property. A right is something that can't infringe upon the rights of others. Just as you have no right to go into someone's home and tear up a book claiming free speech, free speech doesn't give him the right to damage someone else's private property.
We may not like the poster he damaged, we don't have the right to damage another person's property.
“He could name it “Feces on Crap”.”
Or $hit Squared!
“He could name it “Feces on Crap”.”
Or $hit Squared!
That was Zero’s poster, now the American flag, that is fair game.
How does removing or covering up unattractive pictures become “defacing”?
Time to take down the campaign posters anyway. Or is the Current Regime going to maintain an “eternal campaign”?
The paint splash was a vast improvement.
Fool!
Should have painted a graffiti portrait of George Washington right next to it.
“how is that a mural or artwork? are all campaign images now protected artwork?”
It is private property and we do no have the right to go splash paint on property that we do not own.
Again, Voir dire will be interesting and key to the trial.
And if the prosecution has a video of the accused vandalizing the private property, there is little or no chance that the accused will be found not guilty.
Good chance he will be counting the days with chalk on a prison cell wall.
Big Bro would be the government watching.
In this case it was the property owner monitoring the actions that took place on his property.
In Texas, the accused in damn lucky he did not get shot.
does the owner have a permit for the sign?
if not, the owner should be fined and the sign taken down
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.