Trump-Loving California Couple Charged With Hate Crime For Brazen Vandalism Of Black Lives Matter Mural

[Billiejeens]

The problem is not even Black People -no, we ae not compatible - but we do occasionally make some progress with them.

These idiot white woke folk that are funding BLM and doing most of the destruction - will never be truly compatible with the US.
They must be destroyed.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Well, now Trog, the city authorized the mural. The two people who defaced it did NOT have the city's permission to paint over it. Want to walk that dog back?

They city doesn't legally have the authority to put partisan messages on public property.
Unless you think the municipality of Martinez can ignore all laws and regulations on the matter
then it's obvious prosecuting these two people is a crime in and of itself.

 

[whitehall]

Hillary loving idiots smashed windows and torched cars last inauguration day. A Sanders loving democrat operative opened fire on a republican baseball team. Now the crazy TDS left wants to make a federal case out of defacing graffiti? You gotta be kidding

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

"White Rage" is like a rainy day coloring book for morons with a massive collective guilt problem.

 

[colfax_m]

'Karen and Chad' couple caught painting over Black Lives Matter mural on July Fourth are charged with hate crime

A COUPLE who was filmed painting over a Black Lives Matter mural in California on Saturday has been charged with hate crimes. Nichole Anderson, 42, and David Nelson, 53, were each hit with several …

www.thesun.co.uk

Oh dear, poor Karen and Chad !

You cant help but laugh at this. How much hate can you carry in your heart to do this nonsense?

I dont think these idiots should be locked up. Maybe attending a racial awareness course would help to make them normal ?

Thanks Tommy, I was just getting ready to post this story myself when I saw yours.

Well this good news - first & foremost, no one was injured or killed due to the racist acts of this couple, but equally important is that they were at least charged. This is further than a lot of cases involving injury and death get, when the victim(s) is of African descent or person of color.

We'll see if they're actually convicted though and/or serve any time.

Oh and it was almost comical to hear one of the resident racist describing these two as "the brave white couple who engaged in an act of civil disobedience" while another of them was wishing out loud that he had the money to bail them out of jail.

They deliberately defaced a mural that had city approval to be painted where it was and the racists are acting as if they are candidates for sainthood, yet Ahmaud Arbery was alleged to have trespassed on a site where a home was being remodeled and where other people, including children had often stopped by to take a look around and three white racists chased him down, shot and killed him under the pretense that they were trying to place him under citizen's arrest - for the misdemeanor crime of trespass, which it still has not been established that he had.

This is what it's like to live one's life as a black person at any point in time in the U.S. of A.

The city should be charged with treason for promoting anarchy. Nobody should be allowed to paint anything political on ANY public property. Furthermore, hate crimes are bogus. There should be no such thing as a hate crime.

Nothing political on public property? Like statues of politicians?

Long dead politicians.

That doesn’t make them any less political.

 

[beautress]

'Karen and Chad' couple caught painting over Black Lives Matter mural on July Fourth are charged with hate crime

A COUPLE who was filmed painting over a Black Lives Matter mural in California on Saturday has been charged with hate crimes. Nichole Anderson, 42, and David Nelson, 53, were each hit with several …

www.thesun.co.uk

Oh dear, poor Karen and Chad !

You cant help but laugh at this. How much hate can you carry in your heart to do this nonsense?

I dont think these idiots should be locked up. Maybe attending a racial awareness course would help to make them normal ?

Thanks Tommy, I was just getting ready to post this story myself when I saw yours.

Well this good news - first & foremost, no one was injured or killed due to the racist acts of this couple, but equally important is that they were at least charged. This is further than a lot of cases involving injury and death get, when the victim(s) is of African descent or person of color.

We'll see if they're actually convicted though and/or serve any time.

Oh and it was almost comical to hear one of the resident racist describing these two as "the brave white couple who engaged in an act of civil disobedience" while another of them was wishing out loud that he had the money to bail them out of jail.

They deliberately defaced a mural that had city approval to be painted where it was and the racists are acting as if they are candidates for sainthood, yet Ahmaud Arbery was alleged to have trespassed on a site where a home was being remodeled and where other people, including children had often stopped by to take a look around and three white racists chased him down, shot and killed him under the pretense that they were trying to place him under citizen's arrest - for the misdemeanor crime of trespass, which it still has not been established that he had.

This is what it's like to live one's life as a black person at any point in time in the U.S. of A.

The city should be charged with treason for promoting anarchy. Nobody should be allowed to paint anything political on ANY public property. Furthermore, hate crimes are bogus. There should be no such thing as a hate crime.

Outta the park, Wamose! What's funny is the idiot left is so inured into wiping out freedom of speech, they actually think this counter measure to the world's biggest jerks is a crime. So much for leftist caterwauling free speech for everybody else.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

'Karen and Chad' couple caught painting over Black Lives Matter mural on July Fourth are charged with hate crime

A COUPLE who was filmed painting over a Black Lives Matter mural in California on Saturday has been charged with hate crimes. Nichole Anderson, 42, and David Nelson, 53, were each hit with several …

www.thesun.co.uk

Oh dear, poor Karen and Chad !

You cant help but laugh at this. How much hate can you carry in your heart to do this nonsense?

I dont think these idiots should be locked up. Maybe attending a racial awareness course would help to make them normal ?

Thanks Tommy, I was just getting ready to post this story myself when I saw yours.

Well this good news - first & foremost, no one was injured or killed due to the racist acts of this couple, but equally important is that they were at least charged. This is further than a lot of cases involving injury and death get, when the victim(s) is of African descent or person of color.

We'll see if they're actually convicted though and/or serve any time.

Oh and it was almost comical to hear one of the resident racist describing these two as "the brave white couple who engaged in an act of civil disobedience" while another of them was wishing out loud that he had the money to bail them out of jail.

They deliberately defaced a mural that had city approval to be painted where it was and the racists are acting as if they are candidates for sainthood, yet Ahmaud Arbery was alleged to have trespassed on a site where a home was being remodeled and where other people, including children had often stopped by to take a look around and three white racists chased him down, shot and killed him under the pretense that they were trying to place him under citizen's arrest - for the misdemeanor crime of trespass, which it still has not been established that he had.

This is what it's like to live one's life as a black person at any point in time in the U.S. of A.

Please explain how them covering up painted letters implies they think one race is superior over another?

Why did you think that they found it necessary to attempt to erase those letters?

A myriad of reasons. So, can you answer the question now?
If they were black would you call it racist?
Isn't automatically assuming racism simply because of skin color ACTUALLY racist?

You know it's difficult to have a conversation with you because you have claimed that due to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 racism no longer exists in the U.S. Or at least you issued a challenge to find a law that allows racial discrimination against black people today.

Because I know you're unwilling or unable to grasp the concept that laws only outline what behavior is prohibited and the penalty for violating them as opposed to preventing the prohibited behavior, I suspect that no matter what I say or what arguments I present we're going to end up right back where we left off which is with you still unable or unwilling to see that racism in the U.S. is still very much a problem primarily so because it's so interwoven into the economical/social constructs of society.

Racism is not defined just one or two ways, it manifests and surfaces in a variety of ways that are often so subtle that it takes some studying to understand it all. If you're truly interested in understanding it, I recommend the book "White Rage".

I will say this. Ever since the inception of Black Lives Matter there have been a variety of opposing sayings in an effort, it would appear to cancel out the message of BLM. This couple's attempt to blot out the letters is analogous to attempting to mute Black Lives Matter's message, in my opinion.

The mural was their with the city's permission.

All that and you still didnt answer the question. In this instance, the only racist is you. What if they had a reason to do it? What if a BLM crowd burnt down their business? Or threatened a family member? What if their beef is with the group and not blacks? But you didnt even consider anything but "racism" did you?
I never said racism doesnt happen. Its all over the country, the world. I mean, look at you right now. What I said was there is no systematic racism, there are racist individuals. And you know what else? You couldnt prove me wrong on that either.
You say its difficult to have a conversation with me and i agree. Because im not emotional or hyperbolic on the real shit and you cant prove me wrong.
But I would love for you too. I love to learn

You've already been presented with the evidence that proves you wrong in your belief that racism in the U.S. is not systemic. The difficulty in conversing with you would appear to be that no amount of evidence and irrespective of the source is acceptable to you. This is true for any individual who refuses to accept factual documentation. If a Supreme Court ruling is not sufficient for you what else is there?

It's one thing to disagree with their ruling, it's another thing to pretend that this hasn't already been determined:

"Supreme Court: Institutional Racism Is Real​

Disparate Impact
In extending ‘disparate impact’ reasoning to housing cases, the court acknowledges that discrimination comes from more than just individual bad actors.

Jay Michaelson
Updated Apr. 14, 2017 10:34AM ET / Published Jun. 25, 2015 6:30PM ET

June 25 will be remembered as a crucial day for civil rights—not because of the Obamacare decision, and not because of the not-yet-announced marriage decision. It’s because on Thursday the Supreme Court saved a crucial part of civil rights law.​

You’d be forgiven for not knowing much about it. The principle, after all, is an obscure-sounding bit of legalese: “disparate impact.” But those words divided the court 5-4 on ideological lines, with Justice Kennedy writing to preserve, but restrict, the doctrine.​

​

Here’s why it matters.​

​

Most cases of discrimination—whether against women, African Americans, LGBT people, or other protected groups—are rarely as clear as they are in the movies. In media portrayals, discrimination is about evil individuals who fire someone because of who they are. But in real life, there’s rarely a smoking gun.​

​

First, racists are usually not dumb enough to leave records of their prejudice. They find some other reason to fire the employee, or keep the family out of the neighborhood.​

​

Second, and more importantly, discrimination is often systemic and structural, not individual. Often, not only is there no smoking gun, but there’s often no individual “bad actor.” Even neutral requirements—a high-school diploma for employment, a family-size limit for housing—can have huge de facto discriminatory effects, which may or may not be intentional.​

​

That’s where “disparate impact” comes in. Under some civil rights laws, plaintiffs can prevail even without evidence of a specific discriminatory intention if they can show a disparate impact on the affected group"​

​

Supreme Court: Institutional Racism Is Real

So systematic racism is when a group of people dont want to put projects in nice neighborhoods lol. Can you not do better that? Because that isnt systematic racism. That is "classism"
And I like how you completely abandoned our original topic.

No, that is not the definition of systemic racism, it's an example of one type of manifestation of systemic/institutional racism. And this is why conversing with you is difficult because racism and it's many pernicuous effects is a complex topic which you seem to want to reduce to a singular topic so that you can dismiss it out of hand.

If you are actually interested in learning about the topic instead of simply trying to score points on a message board I recommend the book White Rage by Dr. CarolAndersen. She explains it much better than I would ever be able to... here is an excerpt. Also let me know if you see anything within it that begins to answer the question you posed to me. People always have a reason for the things they do and it's not always what they say it is:

"...It was the same with policing, housing, voting and employment, all of which carried the undercurrents of racial inequality-even after the end of slavery, the triumphs of the Civil Rights Movement and the election of Barack Obama to the presidency. The policies in Missouri were articulated as coolly and analystically as were Giuliani's in New York.
That led to an epiphany: What was really at work here was white rage. with so much attention focused on the flames, everyone had ignored the logs, the kindling. In some ways, it is easy to see why. White rage is not about visible violence, but rather it works it way through the courts, the legislatures, and a range of government bureaucracies. It wreaks havoc subtly, almost imperceptibly. Too imperceptibly, certainly, for a nation considentiently drawn to the spectacular - to what it can see. It's not the Klan. White rage doesn't have to wear sheets, burn crosses, or take to the streets. Working the halls of power, it can achieve it's ends far more effectively, far more destructively. In my Washington Post op-ed, there, I set out ot make white rage visible, to blow graphite onto that hidden fingerprint and trace it's historic movements over the past 150 years.
The trigger for the white rage, inevitably, is black advancement. It is not the mere presence of black people that is the problem; rather, it is blackness with ambition, with drive, with purpose, with aspirations, and with demands full and equal citizenship. It is blackness that refuses to accept subjugation, to give up. A formidable arrange of policy assaults and legal contortions has consistently punished black resilience, black resolve.
And all the while, white rages manages to maintain not only the upper hand but also, apparently, the moral high ground. It's Giuliani chastising black people to fix the problems in their own neighborhoods instead of always scapegoating the police. It's the endless narratives about a culture of black poverty that devalues education, hard work, family, and ambition. It's a mantra told so often that some African Americans themselves have come to believe it. "
- Dr. Carol Andersen from her book 'White Rage'

Not wanting projects in nice neighborhoods isnt systematic racism, no matter how desperately you want it to be.
You have to do better than this.

Actually I don't have to do better. Your inability to read and comprehend legal theory and court decisions is not my problem.

 

[TNHarley]

'Karen and Chad' couple caught painting over Black Lives Matter mural on July Fourth are charged with hate crime

A COUPLE who was filmed painting over a Black Lives Matter mural in California on Saturday has been charged with hate crimes. Nichole Anderson, 42, and David Nelson, 53, were each hit with several …

www.thesun.co.uk

Oh dear, poor Karen and Chad !

You cant help but laugh at this. How much hate can you carry in your heart to do this nonsense?

I dont think these idiots should be locked up. Maybe attending a racial awareness course would help to make them normal ?

Thanks Tommy, I was just getting ready to post this story myself when I saw yours.

Well this good news - first & foremost, no one was injured or killed due to the racist acts of this couple, but equally important is that they were at least charged. This is further than a lot of cases involving injury and death get, when the victim(s) is of African descent or person of color.

We'll see if they're actually convicted though and/or serve any time.

Oh and it was almost comical to hear one of the resident racist describing these two as "the brave white couple who engaged in an act of civil disobedience" while another of them was wishing out loud that he had the money to bail them out of jail.

They deliberately defaced a mural that had city approval to be painted where it was and the racists are acting as if they are candidates for sainthood, yet Ahmaud Arbery was alleged to have trespassed on a site where a home was being remodeled and where other people, including children had often stopped by to take a look around and three white racists chased him down, shot and killed him under the pretense that they were trying to place him under citizen's arrest - for the misdemeanor crime of trespass, which it still has not been established that he had.

This is what it's like to live one's life as a black person at any point in time in the U.S. of A.

Please explain how them covering up painted letters implies they think one race is superior over another?

Why did you think that they found it necessary to attempt to erase those letters?

A myriad of reasons. So, can you answer the question now?
If they were black would you call it racist?
Isn't automatically assuming racism simply because of skin color ACTUALLY racist?

You know it's difficult to have a conversation with you because you have claimed that due to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 racism no longer exists in the U.S. Or at least you issued a challenge to find a law that allows racial discrimination against black people today.

Because I know you're unwilling or unable to grasp the concept that laws only outline what behavior is prohibited and the penalty for violating them as opposed to preventing the prohibited behavior, I suspect that no matter what I say or what arguments I present we're going to end up right back where we left off which is with you still unable or unwilling to see that racism in the U.S. is still very much a problem primarily so because it's so interwoven into the economical/social constructs of society.

Racism is not defined just one or two ways, it manifests and surfaces in a variety of ways that are often so subtle that it takes some studying to understand it all. If you're truly interested in understanding it, I recommend the book "White Rage".

I will say this. Ever since the inception of Black Lives Matter there have been a variety of opposing sayings in an effort, it would appear to cancel out the message of BLM. This couple's attempt to blot out the letters is analogous to attempting to mute Black Lives Matter's message, in my opinion.

The mural was their with the city's permission.

All that and you still didnt answer the question. In this instance, the only racist is you. What if they had a reason to do it? What if a BLM crowd burnt down their business? Or threatened a family member? What if their beef is with the group and not blacks? But you didnt even consider anything but "racism" did you?
I never said racism doesnt happen. Its all over the country, the world. I mean, look at you right now. What I said was there is no systematic racism, there are racist individuals. And you know what else? You couldnt prove me wrong on that either.
You say its difficult to have a conversation with me and i agree. Because im not emotional or hyperbolic on the real shit and you cant prove me wrong.
But I would love for you too. I love to learn

You've already been presented with the evidence that proves you wrong in your belief that racism in the U.S. is not systemic. The difficulty in conversing with you would appear to be that no amount of evidence and irrespective of the source is acceptable to you. This is true for any individual who refuses to accept factual documentation. If a Supreme Court ruling is not sufficient for you what else is there?

It's one thing to disagree with their ruling, it's another thing to pretend that this hasn't already been determined:

"Supreme Court: Institutional Racism Is Real​

Disparate Impact
In extending ‘disparate impact’ reasoning to housing cases, the court acknowledges that discrimination comes from more than just individual bad actors.

Jay Michaelson
Updated Apr. 14, 2017 10:34AM ET / Published Jun. 25, 2015 6:30PM ET

June 25 will be remembered as a crucial day for civil rights—not because of the Obamacare decision, and not because of the not-yet-announced marriage decision. It’s because on Thursday the Supreme Court saved a crucial part of civil rights law.​

You’d be forgiven for not knowing much about it. The principle, after all, is an obscure-sounding bit of legalese: “disparate impact.” But those words divided the court 5-4 on ideological lines, with Justice Kennedy writing to preserve, but restrict, the doctrine.​

​

Here’s why it matters.​

​

Most cases of discrimination—whether against women, African Americans, LGBT people, or other protected groups—are rarely as clear as they are in the movies. In media portrayals, discrimination is about evil individuals who fire someone because of who they are. But in real life, there’s rarely a smoking gun.​

​

First, racists are usually not dumb enough to leave records of their prejudice. They find some other reason to fire the employee, or keep the family out of the neighborhood.​

​

Second, and more importantly, discrimination is often systemic and structural, not individual. Often, not only is there no smoking gun, but there’s often no individual “bad actor.” Even neutral requirements—a high-school diploma for employment, a family-size limit for housing—can have huge de facto discriminatory effects, which may or may not be intentional.​

​

That’s where “disparate impact” comes in. Under some civil rights laws, plaintiffs can prevail even without evidence of a specific discriminatory intention if they can show a disparate impact on the affected group"​

​

Supreme Court: Institutional Racism Is Real

So systematic racism is when a group of people dont want to put projects in nice neighborhoods lol. Can you not do better that? Because that isnt systematic racism. That is "classism"
And I like how you completely abandoned our original topic.

No, that is not the definition of systemic racism, it's an example of one type of manifestation of systemic/institutional racism. And this is why conversing with you is difficult because racism and it's many pernicuous effects is a complex topic which you seem to want to reduce to a singular topic so that you can dismiss it out of hand.

If you are actually interested in learning about the topic instead of simply trying to score points on a message board I recommend the book White Rage by Dr. CarolAndersen. She explains it much better than I would ever be able to... here is an excerpt. Also let me know if you see anything within it that begins to answer the question you posed to me. People always have a reason for the things they do and it's not always what they say it is:

"...It was the same with policing, housing, voting and employment, all of which carried the undercurrents of racial inequality-even after the end of slavery, the triumphs of the Civil Rights Movement and the election of Barack Obama to the presidency. The policies in Missouri were articulated as coolly and analystically as were Giuliani's in New York.
That led to an epiphany: What was really at work here was white rage. with so much attention focused on the flames, everyone had ignored the logs, the kindling. In some ways, it is easy to see why. White rage is not about visible violence, but rather it works it way through the courts, the legislatures, and a range of government bureaucracies. It wreaks havoc subtly, almost imperceptibly. Too imperceptibly, certainly, for a nation considentiently drawn to the spectacular - to what it can see. It's not the Klan. White rage doesn't have to wear sheets, burn crosses, or take to the streets. Working the halls of power, it can achieve it's ends far more effectively, far more destructively. In my Washington Post op-ed, there, I set out ot make white rage visible, to blow graphite onto that hidden fingerprint and trace it's historic movements over the past 150 years.
The trigger for the white rage, inevitably, is black advancement. It is not the mere presence of black people that is the problem; rather, it is blackness with ambition, with drive, with purpose, with aspirations, and with demands full and equal citizenship. It is blackness that refuses to accept subjugation, to give up. A formidable arrange of policy assaults and legal contortions has consistently punished black resilience, black resolve.
And all the while, white rages manages to maintain not only the upper hand but also, apparently, the moral high ground. It's Giuliani chastising black people to fix the problems in their own neighborhoods instead of always scapegoating the police. It's the endless narratives about a culture of black poverty that devalues education, hard work, family, and ambition. It's a mantra told so often that some African Americans themselves have come to believe it. "
- Dr. Carol Andersen from her book 'White Rage'

Not wanting projects in nice neighborhoods isnt systematic racism, no matter how desperately you want it to be.
You have to do better than this.

Actually I don't have to do better. Your inability to read and comprehend legal theory and court decisions is not my problem.

You are correct there. You dont have to but you proved nothing.
Its completely ludicrous to claim upper class people that dont want dirty poor people living in there neighborhoods is racist.
To racists like you EVERYTHING is racist. Its pathetic. You are no better than the people you despise. You just lack the awareness to know it.
Good day.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Nope. It violated city law, just like the gangsters who spray paint graffiti on your viaduct that you cross on the way to work.

It's politically favored graffiti. The city of Martinez had no right to put partisan political messages on public streets to begin with. Not being remotely honest or moral they refuse to concede this point, however.
Try to imagine the city spraying MAGA messages on public streets.
And the DA who chose to press these draconian charges should be flipping burgers where he can't
hurt people.

Actually, that is total bullshit. There city council can put anything they want on public property, and if the citizens don't like it, they can vote the council out, pretty much like we are going to do to Trump in November.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Actually, that is total bullshit. There city council can put anything they want on public property, and if the citizens don't like it, they can vote the council out, pretty much like we are going to do to Trump in November.

At least you are right about the bullshit part (that would be your unsubstantiated claim).
If graffiti is legal in Martinez, which it is not, then I guess it would be legal for the Martinez city council to
simply spray their politicized copyrighted slogans wherever they want.
But it is illegal and the city cannot simply ignore it's own laws. If white nationalists tried this they would
be stopped cold in an instant.

The reporting on this is dishonest as shit, calling the letters BLM a "mural" for instance. It is nothing of the kind just as covering over those letters is not a hate crime. Everything about this matter is phony, disingenuous, politicized garbage.

It is group-think propaganda and it's clear you will accept whatever crap you are fed by the media but there
are many of us who haven't forgotten how to think.
We aren't nearly as stupid and animal like as you are.

 

[Billiejeens]

LOL Maybe Trump can invite them to a rally. They can pose with the war criminals and the My Pillow guy.

Can you explain how the couple painting over words on a street is violating anyone's civil rights?

No?

Don't feel bad. No one else can, either.

Nope. It violated city law, just like the gangsters who spray paint graffiti on your viaduct that you cross on the way to work.

From the article:

"Nelson and Anderson are each charged with violation of civil rights, vandalism, and possession of tools to commit vandalism."

From the criminal complaint:

"COUNT 1 – VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

The undersigned states, on information and belief, that Nicole Caludia Anderson and David Richard Nelson, Defendants, did commit a Misdemeanor, a violation of PC422.6(b), Violation Of Civil Rights, committed as follows: On or about July 4, 2020, in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, the crime of Violation Of Civil Rights in violation of PC422.6(b), a Misdemeanor, was committed in that NICOLE ANDERSON AND DAVID NELSON did unlawfully and knowingly deface, damage and destroy the real and personal property of Justin Gomez for the purpose of intimidating and interfering with the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege secured by the Constitution and laws of California and the Constitution and laws of the United States because of disability, gender, nationality, race and ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and association with a person and group with one and more of these characteristics and because the defendant perceived that the victim had such characteristics and perceived that the victim associated with a person and group with one and more of these characteristics."

Yeah, that's definitely horseshit.

And the left (marxists) have no problem with this. The city has NO RIGHT to push its left wing agenda on the rest of the citizens

While simultaneously screaming Trump doesn't represent everyone.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Actually, that is total bullshit. There city council can put anything they want on public property, and if the citizens don't like it, they can vote the council out, pretty much like we are going to do to Trump in November.

At least you are right about the bullshit part (that would be your unsubstantiated claim).
If graffiti is legal in Martinez, which it is not, then I guess it would be legal for the Martinez city council to
simply spray their politicized copyrighted slogans wherever they want.
But it is illegal and the city cannot simply ignore it's own laws. If white nationalists tried this they would
be stopped cold in an instant.

The reporting on this is dishonest as shit, calling the letters BLM a "mural" for instance. It is nothing of the kind just as covering over those letters is not a hate crime. Everything about this matter is phony, disingenuous, politicized garbage.

It is group-think propaganda and it's clear you will accept whatever crap you are fed by the media but there
are many of us who haven't forgotten how to think.
We aren't nearly as stupid and animal like as you are.

Sorry, pal, but your not agreeing with the city council of Martinez, does not make their actions illegal. As for the citizens of the city being represented by the council, having lived in Martinez, CA, I can assure you that the council represents their desires almost unanimously.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We aren't nearly as stupid and animal like as you are.

Sorry, pal, but your not agreeing with the city council of Martinez, does not make their actions illegal.

My Gawd, Vandalbrain, you are as fucking stupid as a sack of hammers.

The City of Martinez does not control who can and cannot do jack shit on Californias roads. The California Department of Transportation does. It is a state level authorization, not left up to a bunch of braindead hippy commies.

The California law about vandalizing its highways is here.

And, in fact, vandalism charges are serious business in California. A vandalism conviction can result in penalties that include jail time and very large fines. 1 2​

​

Penalties​

​

The penalties for 594 PC charges generally depend on the dollar value of the property damage that was done.​

​

If the damage is worth four hundred dollars ($400) or more, vandalism is a wobbler in California law. This means the charge can be filed as a misdemeanor or a felony. The penalties for felony vandalism may include a jail sentence of between one (1) and three (3) years--and/or a fine of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or even more if the damage is very extensive.3​

​

In fact, in the summer of 2014, the Los Angeles County sheriff’s department was even recommending that the pop star Justin Bieber be charged with California felony vandalism--just for tossing a few eggs at his neighbor’s house!​

​

If the damage is worth less than four hundred dollars ($400), vandalism is still punishable by misdemeanor penalties of up to one (1) year in county jail, and/or a maximum one thousand dollar ($1,000) fine.4​

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Sorry, pal, but your not agreeing with the city council of Martinez, does not make their actions illegal.

It isn't a question of my feelings determining law there or not. It's a question of illegalities, period!
Once again, if the city council decided to spray sidewalks and streets with MAGA "murals" would you
consider that legal and proper or not?

That's a rhetorical question. We both know you would not. So let's both be honest here (instead of just me).
What the Martinez City Council has done is spray partisan graffiti on it's streets and that's illegal and improper.
Lie to yourself but do not lie to me.

As for the citizens of the city being represented by the council, having lived in Martinez, CA, I can assure you that the council represents their desires almost unanimously.

And having lived in Napa for several decades and worked on and off in Martinez I can assure you
this is a matter you can't really substantiate and even if you could the City Council cannot break the law
as it wishes. They are not Dukes, Kings and Queens.
Cities are governed by laws and not popularity polls.

 

[daveman]

LOL Maybe Trump can invite them to a rally. They can pose with the war criminals and the My Pillow guy.

Can you explain how the couple painting over words on a street is violating anyone's civil rights?

No?

Don't feel bad. No one else can, either.

Nope. It violated city law, just like the gangsters who spray paint graffiti on your viaduct that you cross on the way to work.

From the article:

"Nelson and Anderson are each charged with violation of civil rights, vandalism, and possession of tools to commit vandalism."

From the criminal complaint:

"COUNT 1 – VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

The undersigned states, on information and belief, that Nicole Caludia Anderson and David Richard Nelson, Defendants, did commit a Misdemeanor, a violation of PC422.6(b), Violation Of Civil Rights, committed as follows: On or about July 4, 2020, in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, the crime of Violation Of Civil Rights in violation of PC422.6(b), a Misdemeanor, was committed in that NICOLE ANDERSON AND DAVID NELSON did unlawfully and knowingly deface, damage and destroy the real and personal property of Justin Gomez for the purpose of intimidating and interfering with the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege secured by the Constitution and laws of California and the Constitution and laws of the United States because of disability, gender, nationality, race and ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and association with a person and group with one and more of these characteristics and because the defendant perceived that the victim had such characteristics and perceived that the victim associated with a person and group with one and more of these characteristics."

Yeah, that's definitely horseshit.

Ok, you win. Just give them 5 years in the slammer form vandalism.

Also from the article:

Nelson and Anderson are each charged with violation of civil rights, vandalism, and possession of tools to commit vandalism. If convicted of the charges, the defendants--who share a Martinez address--face up to a year in the county jail.

The charges are only worth a year.

Leftists sure do like to harshly punish people with the wrong opinions. Maybe you'd like them put in re-education camps.

 

[daveman]

Actually, that is total bullshit. There city council can put anything they want on public property, and if the citizens don't like it, they can vote the council out, pretty much like we are going to do to Trump in November.

At least you are right about the bullshit part (that would be your unsubstantiated claim).
If graffiti is legal in Martinez, which it is not, then I guess it would be legal for the Martinez city council to
simply spray their politicized copyrighted slogans wherever they want.
But it is illegal and the city cannot simply ignore it's own laws. If white nationalists tried this they would
be stopped cold in an instant.

The reporting on this is dishonest as shit, calling the letters BLM a "mural" for instance. It is nothing of the kind just as covering over those letters is not a hate crime. Everything about this matter is phony, disingenuous, politicized garbage.

It is group-think propaganda and it's clear you will accept whatever crap you are fed by the media but there
are many of us who haven't forgotten how to think.
We aren't nearly as stupid and animal like as you are.

The law doesn't apply to Democrats. Just ask 'em.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The charges are only worth a year.

Leftists sure do like to harshly punish people with the wrong opinions. Maybe you'd like them put in re-education camps.

Yes. That seems to be the consensus from the left.

 

[Markle]

Permission should never have been given for any markings on the street, other than those serving legitimate traffic control purposes. Certainly not for political statements on one side or another.

It's not just a matter of political unfairness, to give such favor to one side or another, but of basic traffic safety. Unnecessary street markings only make it more difficult for drivers to see and understand legitimate traffic control markings. And very much paint on a road surface can create traction issues.

You are more than 100 percent right. This opens a whole new can of worms for every city in the country. If one political voice can co-op city streets for their political message, every political voice has that permission.

The transaction issue is no small potatoes either. I have ridden motorcycles since 1959. Harley's since 1967. If they are using the paint used for striping roads, when wet, that paint is a slick as wet ice. With the whole intersection with that paint, I can just see the attorneys lining up to sue the city for damages over an accident at that location. And they would be 100% right and the city 100% liable.

 

[Markle]

That doesn’t make them any less political. [statues]

My guess is that if you were to ask every protestor trying to tear down a statue, what is the name of the person represented by that statue, 99.9% would have no clue! My example is all the statues being torn down that were major players in the emancipation movement. They don't give a rats behind about who the statue represents, they just want to DESTROY.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Sorry, pal, but your not agreeing with the city council of Martinez, does not make their actions illegal.

It isn't a question of my feelings determining law there or not. It's a question of illegalities, period!
Once again, if the city council decided to spray sidewalks and streets with MAGA "murals" would you
consider that legal and proper or not?

That's a rhetorical question. We both know you would not. So let's both be honest here (instead of just me).
What the Martinez City Council has done is spray partisan graffiti on it's streets and that's illegal and improper.
Lie to yourself but do not lie to me.

As for the citizens of the city being represented by the council, having lived in Martinez, CA, I can assure you that the council represents their desires almost unanimously.

And having lived in Napa for several decades and worked on and off in Martinez I can assure you
this is a matter you can't really substantiate and even if you could the City Council cannot break the law
as it wishes. They are not Dukes, Kings and Queens.
Cities are governed by laws and not popularity polls.

Don't give up your day job to practice law, Eric. If the city council wants to spray paint day glow orange and pea green outlings of Santa and his reindeer on city owned property, and call it a mural, it is, in fact, and city owned mural, the vandalism of which is illegal.