Woke Insanity: Three Washington State Teens Face Ten Years In Prison For Vandalizing Pride Mural
Lime scooters, the new Bud Light: “‘Lime is taking immediate action against the perpetrators and doubling down on our support of Spokane Pride.”
Three Washington state teens have been arrested and charged with felonies that could land them in prison for a decade for vandalizing a “gay pride” mural.
Three Washington teens could face ten years in jail after being arrested for making skid marks on an LGBT rainbow road mural while riding e-scooters.
Nineteen-year-old Ruslan V. V Turko and two unnamed minors were arrested on Wednesday for first-degree malicious mischief after vandalizing the rainbow Pride mural that sits in front of Riverfront Park located in Spokane, Washington.
Turko appeared in court on Thursday, alongside legal counsel. Prosecutors requested a $15,000 bond that would cover the approximate cost of re-painting the mural. The teen was later released on his own recognizance on the condition that he does not return to the crosswalk, or the other suspects.
The teens got caught after a group of witnesses sitting at a nearby bar saw them acting nefariously, revving their electronic Lime scooters, and intentionally scooting their tires over the mural to create skid marks, court documents revealed, KREM News reported.
There is little that angers me more than the obvious, disgusting, and unAmerican legal persecution by Democrats of anyone who does not take a knee to their woke religion, and this story is particularly infuriating because these kids were riding scooters on a “Pride” mural that is painted on a road.
Here's an idea, don't paint your sacred religious symbols on the freaking ROAD. What a bunch of clowns. I am so over every single drop of woke. https://t.co/dpRBM012LK
— Fuzzy Slippers (@fuzislippers) June 8, 2024
Lime, the new Bud Light, issued a groveling statement condemning the use of their scooters for the desecration of the gay pride iconography.
The Daily Mail continues:
Court records cite the witnesses confronted the teens, with some taking photos with their phones. One of the minors, hit back saying: ‘F*** you’ F*****’ and ‘Go to hell, as per the news outlet.
The city said they had just finished re-painting the mural when the boys allegedly vandalized it.
Lime, the company that creates the e-scooters, was appalled by the incident, and issued a statement on Friday, that shared their support for the LGBTQ community.
‘All of us at Lime condemn these vile acts in no uncertain terms. At a time when our teams at Lime are beginning pride celebrations around the globe, it is disturbing to see the hate taking place in Spokane.
‘Lime is taking immediate action against the perpetrators and doubling down on our support of Spokane Pride and Spokane Arts.
‘Lime is proud to put time and resources into celebrating Pride Month each year and supporting LGBTQ+ organizations working to uplift and protect queer people in cities around the world.
‘We will not let the hateful few spoil the joy of Pride Month in Spokane, and are grateful for those working to make Spokane more welcoming for all.’
The company also said that are enacting a no-ride zone around the mural to protect it from any future vandalism attempts.
Meanwhile, actual historic statues were defaced near the White House in DC. This is okay, however, because shut up.
Never forget that just days ago Democrats arrested 3 teenagers with felonies for making scooter marks on a street painted with a rainbow. These people, on the other hand, are given a free pass. 🤡🌎h/t @politicalmath pic.twitter.com/hlJFaeDKNQ
— @amuse (@amuse) June 9, 2024
This cannot stand.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Gay guys love skid marks. It’s what they’re all about. Skid marks should be part of any so-called “gay flag”.
And … “road mural”?? LOL. When was that term invented? Yesterday?
And when did the various departments of transportation start including “art” in their expenses? Isn’t it generally illegal to paint pictures on a road, other than lines and road commands and the like??
No, it’s illegal for you to paint stuff on the road; it is not illegal for the city to do so. The road is the city’s property and it may paint whatever it likes on it; nobody else has the right to vandalize it, or to paint something different.
There is no first amendment issue, because it’s government speech. It would be very different if the city had merely given permission to an outside group to paint it. If it were to do that it would have to offer a similar opportunity to other groups, using viewpoint-neutral criteria.
Could the city paint the Knights of Columbus crest on a public road? What about a Star of David….or a picture of Mohammad?
The government shouldn’t be displaying or promoting totems of religious identity, theological religion or secular religion.
Governments can’t endorse specific religions, or religion in general. They can endorse any non-religious opinion they like.
…unless it’s the government’s unofficial official secular religion, of course.
That is not a thing. Religion has a specific definition, and the establishment clause does not prevent governments from endorsing non-religious opinions. Anything that would not have been recognized as a religion in the 1780s is not a religion for the purpose of the first amendment. Buddhism was recognized as a religion. So would be explicit nature-worship. But radical environmentalism without the trappings of worship is not.
Actually religion basically meant Christian denomination at the time the Constitution was written. Things like Islam may have been accepted as religion too, though I’m not certain.
Something like homosexuality? A vile abomination not protected by the Constitution and almost certainly in breach of one or more laws.
For government to treat homosexual icons as sacrosanct and give out decade long prison time where burning the American flag is considered protected speech, is beyond obscene.
The framers’ view of religion explicitly included Judaism, Mahometanism, Hindooism, and all varieties of heresies. Buddhism too, though I’m not aware of them mentioning it explicitly. But they were aware of it, and it fit their definition of a religion. Nature-worship with an explicitly pagan character would have been on their horizon as well, though they might not have imagined that anyone would actually go for it.
Nobody claims homosexuality is protected by the religion clauses! Lawrence is based on the concept of substantive due process and the implicit rights protected by the ninth and tenth amendments.
That is a completely false take. The government isn’t and can’t treat the Pride flag as “sacrosanct”. It accepts, because it has no choice, that burning it is protected speech, exactly like burning the US flag. But you only have the right to burn your US flag, not someone else’s. And in exactly the same way you have the right to burn your Pride flag, but not someone else’s. If the city were to paint a US flag on the road and someone were to vandalize it, they would be subject to the exact same charges and penalties as these kids are.
I’m not saying the prosecutor would be guaranteed to bring the same charges, since he has absolute discretion on which charges to bring; but I am saying that the courts would treat both cases exactly the same once brought. The law cannot distinguish between them.
“They can endorse any non-religious opinion they like.”
Untrue. Public funds cannot be used for partisan purposes. Painting “pride” symbols on a public road is as political as would be the painting of “MAGA” or swastikas. None of it should be permitted. One politician’s “messaging” is my “defacing,” and my defacing of the politician’s message is my messaging. But if government deigns to use public property (not “government” property) to deliver a political message, then the media used to deliver the message becomes fair game for counter-messaging, including defacement (the equivalent of tearing down a broadsheet). (I happen to believe that people have a right to put up political messaging. But when the messaging is put up on public property, I have a right to take it down, as my own form of demonstrating my disagreement with the messaging. The same rules do not apply to private property.)
Can a city government elect to put up “Biden” campaign signs on the lawn of a public park? Certainly not. And if a city government does so, I have a complementary right to remove those signs, as the property upon which they are displayed is mine and the public’s. The city cannot decide for me, nor for the people collectively, what political messaging is appropriate for public spaces and public property.
That is not a thing. Religion has a specific definition, and the establishment clause does not prevent governments from endorsing non-religious opinions.
Actually, it does.
In the other part of that clause–
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of relihion or prohibiting the free expression thereof
Government is not permitted to undermine any religion.
Forcing the citizenry to endorse a practice that is prohibited by many religions is doing just that, and is literally unconstitutional.
read about how things went back in the time shortly after BC turned into AD. The greek and roman religions of that time had homosexuality and temple prostitution as part of their “worship services”. So don’t tell ME homosexuality is not “religious”.
The state cannot be promoting any such thing. In this instance in Spokane, that’s precisely what they are doing.
If I lived in the area I’d be figuring out how to drop by that area and burning some rubber across that vile piece of propaganda. If the state can exercise “freedom of speech” so can the kids on the scooters.
Goose, meet gander.
I don’t think so. Anything that makes navigating difficult or perilous and confuses drivers or pedestrians is likely illegal in every municipality, especially as it has nothing to do with roads or transportation.
And under what category does the expense of “road art” appear in the department of transportation budgets? I never heard of “road art” being done by any DOT anywhere before all of the Boy George insurrectionist riots. How are these expenses budgeted and accounted?
On the contrary, it is standard for a percentage of road construction and maintenance budges, like any other government construction budget, to be devoted to aesthetics and art.
Even if that weren’t standard, there’s no reason a city couldn’t decide to do it whenever it liked. And yes, this did come out of the city’s transportation department’s budget, or the parks department, or whichever department is responsible for the roads, depending on the city’s own organization.
And no, it’s not illegal; there are no laws restricting how cities may decorate their roads, just common sense.
I have never seen road art before. Not even art by the road. I never heard of art being part of any road budget … anywhere. You just like to make things up.
Further, there is art, like an ugly sculpture in front of a building, and there is insane painting on a road that obscures the road, confuses drivers, causes unnecessary distractions for drivers and serves no logical purpose (as no one can even see paintings on a road very well, while people driving are not supposed to be ogling road art while they are at the wheel).
You don’t even give 5 seconds of thought to the cr*p you make up.
I can’t be responsible for what you have or haven’t seen, but road art is absolutely a thing, and is often not only standard but required. For instance, see this example from Arizona, which says: “The Regional Transportation Authority requires that all major road improvement projects spend 1% of the construction cost on art, in line with similar policies many jurisdictions in the region have approved.” This is just one example out of many. That 1% requirement is a common thing.
As for what kind of art, and how ugly and/or hazardous it may be, that is a matter of taste. And in matters of taste the person paying for it is always right; in business that’s the customer, in street decoration that’s the city.
It’s a fact that much public art is ugly. There used to be a good reason for that: for several decades the USSR was deliberately trying to make public art in the USA ugly and depressing, in order to lower public morale. That is not a joke, this was an actual Soviet policy that was carried out by its agents in the USA. Now the KGB is no longer running those agents, but they’ve created their own traditions and carry on autonomously.
Although there can be broad overlap between “art” and “politics”, the two can often be separated. When inseparable, they government should decide against that particular art work, as inappropriate for the spending of public funds. “Gay pride” messaging of any sort is clearly political, and a gay pride flag, insignia, or other device is no less political for being promoted as “art.”
LOL.
Those 1% instances are for art connected with projects … not paintings on the roads, themselves.
Are you completely retarded or just a liar? Road work NEVER included paintings in the roads. NEVER. NOWHERE. The idea is laughable. But you are trying to pretend that painting roads is normal and takes place everywhere and is just part of the traditional work of DoTs. You are a moron if you think anyone over the age of 25 is going to buy that.
Millhouse I normally agree with you because you bring a much needed dose of reality to the conversation.
Yes , I also agree that intentionally creating skid marks should be illegal ( not admitting if I ever did such a thing as a teenager).
I also agree that many road projects do require some form of artwork – most of the art work on road projects is on side of bridges, embankments of some kind that are not exposed to actual traffic.
In this case, the paint is on the road surface which will experience moderate levels of road traffic such that the life span of the paintings will at best be 0ne year.
Whether we approve of the paint or disapprove of the paint wont matter, The paint job is only going to last 12 months at best along with adding more solid waste material to the environment.
It was really stupid for the city to expend funds for something of so little value and usable life.
Correct. The art work is not a part of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The art work is the municipality favoring one belief (i.e. religion) over another. However, no one has challenged the wokerati over it …..yet.
It is not religion. It is the municipality favoring one secular opinion over another, which it is allowed to do.
No, I gotta say, road art is a “thing” and has been for a long time. Out here in AZ, nearly every highway overpass has mosaic Kokopellis, painted lizards, skeletal mountain vistas, Indian designs, or at the very least huge pots of flowers, decorating their abutments
On the roads, themselves?? I don’t think so. It is idiotic to paint anything on an actual road. It is distracting, obscures road lines and cannot even be seen or appreciated by anyone.
Having something on the side of an overpass is not “road art”. It is not painted onto any road. I doubt Arizona has been painting roads with designs. No one does that. Because it’s retarded.
This is just more selective persecution.
I knew Nuthouse would pop up here defending this crap…. Are you going to google then copy and paste some… muh the law… leftist lunacy to defend the actual defacing of real monuments…and why those criminals walked… yah sure you will troll…
You are a dishonest piece of actual crap. You know very well that I do not “defend the actual defacing of real monuments”. In this very post I have condemned it repeatedly. So how dare you lie and insinuate I would defend it? Vandalism is vandalism. It ought to be treated the same no matter what. But selective prosecution is not a defense. If a prosecutor chooses to prosecute only people on one side of a matter and not on the other, there’s nothing that can be done about it except to campaign against them, or those who appointed them, at the next election.
Sure Clownhouse… and just like I said you would…there you are basically saying oh well … muh the law… it’s fine that actual monuments get defaced and destroyed… nothing you can do about it…wait till an election in a few years….my that’s some “Law” you worship at…so justicy 🤡
It is a free speech issue. The roads are ours and the government works for us. If govt puts any political messaging on public property, we can, at a minimum, remove or deface the messaging in order to send our own message on our own roads. The government can’t put political messaging on our roads and then tell us that we can’t put our own messaging there. Which is why govt should stay out of the business of political messaging – because they can’t satisfy everyone – literally any messaging put on public property would be fair game for counter-messaging (including defacing the govt messaging). To not permit counter-messaging would be a violation of freedom of speech (and probably also an infringement upon the right to petition govt).
Governments can not force its citizens to adhere to or follow or demand deference or allegiance to or to be part of a particular chosen political ideology…. And that is EXACTLY what is going on here… and NO Clownhouse a government can’t paint anything it wants. And yes LGBT+++ is officially considered a political ideology…. Google it… I know you can do that!
Outhouse, the fucking roads belong to the fucking PEOPLE, because the PEOPLE grant the government its very existence.
I get sick of hearing how you bow and scrape to the government as if it is some GOD.
Worse. You expect all of us to bow to your GOD.
The government doesn’t have any speech, except what we grant to the government.
“Government speech.” Government doesn’t have free speech rights.
You are a pharisee but you’re not very good at it.
Look at the picture. The idiotic mural is bracketed by street lights. Therefore, ON THE ROAD and thereby subject to traffic using the road driving over it. If leftists wanted to preserve their sacred symbol they would have located it out of a roadway. The charge of vandalism is obviously ridiculous because it arbitrarily picks e-bike tire marks over all the other tire marks and deems them criminal—by ascribing thought crime to them, like the Soviet’s favorite catch-all “hooliganism.”
The road is public property. Taxpayers pay for it’s upkeep and construction.
The ‘city’ has no property. It is a thing. Things cannot own things.
People own the city.
A good case could be made that those skid marks are speech.
What ? So I can deface property and American monuments and flags with terrorist propaganda but I can’t leave skid marks on rainbow colored paint. Shows you yet again that Jews are considered subhuman while “the alphabet people” to quote antisemitic Jamie Foxx are beyond holy
According to the resident pedant and democrat operative, yes, defacing anything LGBT + (premium membership) is an act of depravity that defies reason since the beginning of time.
Skid marks on a street that allowed other vehicle traffic?? Shouldn’t be considered vandalism.
The need good lawyer though, in state controlled by dems and leftists.
Other traffic doesn’t deliberately vandalize the painting. If a vehicle leaves a mark, it’s inadvertent, and not likely to be that visible. These guys did more damage than days of ordinary traffic could be expected to do, and they did it on purpose. They deserve the charges — as do all those who vandalize statues and other public installations. The problem is not that these guys have been charged but that all of those others have not been.
Public street. They were practicing their first amendment rights. If tax money was used to paint it- it’s fraud, waste, and abuse. If private money, even with permission of the government- it’s on a frickin’ street. No one OWNS it.
And- since it’s not legal road markings- it’s actually a public hazard. Generally nothing but road markings are all0wed on a road.
Now, on private property, it would be a whole other matter.
No, they were not exercising any right. What do you mean, no one owns the street? That’s impossible. The street is property, and it belongs to the city.
If it were private money doing it, with the city’s permission, then it would have to give the same permission to people with other opinions. But it’s not private money; it’s the government itself, expressing its own opinion, which it is entitled to do, and it’s entitled to spend as much money as it likes on it. It’s not fraud for the city to spend its own money on what it wants. “Waste” and “abuse” are opinions, not legal terms. You can call it that, but they will call it money well spent in accord with the wishes of the voters who elected the city council.
Are you deliberately thick headed? No one owns graffiti on the street, even if they and the city call it art.
Looks like you’re thick-headed. The city owns the street, and has painted it as it likes. The painting is not graffiti, it is the city’s choice for how it wants its street decorated. These kids vandalized the street, which is the city’s property.
Rather they were or were not exercising civil liberties’ is for a jury to decide, and if the decide wrong, than appeal all the way to SCOTUS.
At least in my state, the City would not “own” the street. The adjoining landowners would hold the fee, such that if the road were closed full title would revert to them. What the City holds is an easement permitting them to use the street area for road purposes.
I think a colorable argument could be made that using it to convey a message of LGBQ support is not consistent with the City’s right to use the street for road purposes. Not that I would be optimistic that a judge would accept that argument, judges being creatures of the state.
Wisewerds, you have a point. The ‘easement’ reserved to the municipality (or public) is for road purposes solely, and not art. You might have a legitimate challenge should you find someone to take up your case. The “art” is not part of the MUTCD (see above).
Wisewerds, if that’s how it works in your city then if your local municipality tried this you could try bringing a case against it. But that is not how it is in most places. The streets in a city belong to the city, not to the property owners along it. If the city decides to close a street, it can sell the land.
It’s stupid to put anything on he road and not expect it to be damaged.
I guess in your clown world, the “street art” whateverthefuck that is, must be pristine and untouched. Because of the Government God!
Milhouse, although you sometimes offer very reasonable contrarian comments, you miss the mark in this case. You are obviously not a real property lawyer. It is what I do for a living. I have litigated cases involving the very issue of fee ownership/easement rights in a public street a number of times.
What I said is true not only in my state, but in the majority of, if not all, American states.
Also, having read the article again, I see this prosecution is, in fact, taking place in my state. So what I stated is true with respect to this particular case.
“What do you mean, no one owns the street? That’s impossible.”
Not at all impossible. I have encountered several pieces of property that actually belonged to nobody. It’s far more common than you think.
I have read your comments here for years. You sir, are are a master bloviator
Again, why selective prosecution should be an affirmative defense.
Should be, but isn’t.
People burn rubber and leave tire marks on roads ALL THE TIME. ON PURPOSE. If leaving tire marks on a road is “vandalism” then every time someone burns rubber it is an act of vandalism. The illegal and retarded painting on the road doesn’t matter one way or the other in this. Roads are not for paintings. A tire mark on a road is a tire mark on a road. If it is vandalism punishable by up to ten years in jail then every single time someone makes any sort of mark on any road in that municipality they are liable for up to ten years in jail.
The paint drippings on the road don’t matter one bit in this case. Either a road is vandalized (as any road marred by tire marks would be) or it is not.
If someone is caught doing it on purpose they can be prosecuted for vandalism. Most such damage is not done on purpose, and most people doing it are not caught.
LOL.
Cite one case. In the whole United States, for the entire history of our roads, cite a single case of tire marks being prosecuted as “vandalism”.
Maybe the boys mistook the “installation” for “interactive” art, in which the artist conveys a message, and upon which viewers can express their own messages and/or alter the original message of the artist.
Seriously, Milhouse. Cars will leave rubber and oil on the road. The people in the cars will throw trash, cigarette butts, and coffee on the road. (Not to mention bird shit, squashed bugs, and the occasional flattened squirrel.) A single emergency braking on the surface will leave more rubber on the the mural (which, BTW, is from the Latin for “wall,” not “road”) than could be left on it by a legion of scooters.
When does vandalism carry a 10 year sentence? Normally it’s a misdemeanor. That sentence says they were NOT prosecuted for vandalism, but for leaving a political message through vandalism – that the government disliked.
The goose-stepping, Dhimm-crat totalitarians will brook no defilement of, or, insult to, their icons and standards — no matter how absurdly contrived that alleged defilement and insult may be. This includes the Fakestinian flag, the “Black Lives Matter” flag, and, the rainbow “pride” flag.
In this behavior, the Dhimmi-crats gleefully imitate their Islamofascist and Muslim supremacist allies, who are similarly notoriously incapable of stomaching mockery or criticism, without casting such treatment as an alleged “insult,” and, resorting to a violent response.
Because they are so insecure about themselves, they cannot stand anything that ridicules their God. That is why the youth of this country demand safe spaces and protection from any micro aggression.
Murals are on walls. L murus = wall.
Yes. This is street art, but not a mural. I raised this point the last time these things were in the news.
FWIW I agree with stance on equal prosecution for acts of vandalism, though putting murals on roadways doesn’t pass my common sense test. It is inviting this exact action or worse yet someone who ‘squeels’ their tires by mistake and gets jammed up by local tribalists demanding retribution for an error.
IMO this is why our gov’t at any level should not be picking favorite ideologies. Once they let one affinity group paint a mural they gotta be willing to let every affinity group paint an equally sized, equally prominent to passers by mural as the original. That opens a very bad can of worms and should IMO be avoided. Same for flags.
That is true, which is why it is crucial to distinguish between installations made by private entities with government permission and ones made by the government itself. This one was made by the city itself, not by a private entity, so the city is not required to let anyone else do the same.
Which makes it worse not ok…obtuse much?
“installations”
LOL. Now, we’re into the modern art BS jargon.
Maybe Cristo will return from the dead and cover the whole city of Spokane in dog sh*t for one of his “installations” ..
Nowadays that would be redundant. But yes, it is an art installation, and like all such things some people like it and some don’t.
So what you’re saying is the city can establish a monopoly on form of public messaging, use that medium for partisan political purposes, and then prohibit the citizens (who actually own the medium) from similarly using the medium for themselves? That is censorship.
We agree that if the city allows one group to use public property to send a political message it cannot prevent others from using the same class of property to send its own messages. But you’re arguing the city can monopolize a medium of messaging, and then use that medium for the exclusive display of its preferred political messaging, satisfying one segment of the public while excluding all other segments of the public from similar access to medium for its own counter-messaging.
Sorry, but this does not compute.
Milhouse,
Yes the city did put it there…. which is IMO worse. Now we have the city deliberately favoring one political/policy ideology above others.
Whenever the gov’t is picking winners and losers by favoring one group/tribe or one political ideology over others whom they disfavor that’s a problem.
If y’all want to argue that this is simply the gov’t expression of its own viewpoint I don’t disagree BUT IMO when that argument is raised then the presumption should be that the govt is hostile to all other groups/tribes and ideological viewpoints that are not favored/endorsed by the City.
That sort of common sense legal presumption in all future civil litigation and criminal court proceedings would help to bring govt back to viewpoint neutrality. Taking the City’s claim that this is their 1A expression of their favored viewpoint doesn’t seem to be illogical or unreasonable. Believe what folks DO v what folks SAY.
But the pro-Palestinian crowds that defaced a monument received what punishment?
Why was there only ONE officer protecting the monument after it was defaced?
Give these three kids a medal for public service.
Even if the kids had intended to “deface” the stupid rainbow flag icon — which hasn’t been proven — I’d argue that they had every right to do so. The flag is a partisan political symbol painted in a public place used by citizens of all political persuasions and loyalties. Citizens have the right to respond accordingly, if they disagree with the message presented.
At any rate, the flag was painted in a public space. To contend that the flag is akin to some sort of sacred Dhimmi-crat icon/symbol that no one is allowed to ride over and smudge or otherwise dirty — whether engaged in innocent play, or, not — is utterly absurd.
They definitely intended to deface it, and no, they did not have the right to do so. The street belongs to the city, and it is entitled to paint whatever it likes there; citizens do not have the right to paint whatever they like on city property. If they disagree with the message, tough luck. Elect a different city council and you’ll get different messages.
Nobody ever claimed that no one is allowed to ride over it, or to subject it to the normal wear and tear that can be expected of any road surface. That is absurd. Suppose you went and dug up a street surface, and claimed that it was okay because heavy trucks are allowed to drive on it, and over time they do similar damage. You’d be laughed out of court and into the county jail. This is the same.
So damage done intentionally is actionable, while similar, if not greater, damage done accidentally (or merely as a matter of course) is not? Is not the property “damaged” in either event? And was not the property established where it was situated knowing that it would suffer damage identical to that which may have been inflicted intentionally? At worst, the scooter riders reduced the lifetime of the installation by a very small amount. Is the city going to rush out and continually touch up the paint every time a small mark is made on it?
The City of Olympia put down some paving stone on section of street near the downtown area. It sealed the stones with some sort of coating which turned out to be slippery in the rain. The city ended up having to scour off the coating to eliminate the hazard it unintentionally created. I wouldn’t be surprised if the pride installation presents a similar hazard. There’s probably a federal transportation regulation that specifies the types and qualities of paints that can be used on road surfaces. It would probably be a good bet to surmise the paints used for this installation are not of a type approved for road surfaces and that Spokane receives federal money for its roads, making it responsible for using only regulation paint. Likely the installation is illegal for not meeting federal regulations.
Any traffic engineers out there who would speak to this? Speaking of traffic engineers, might an installation like this have to go through some sort of review by the city’s traffic engineering department? For instance, I know that all traffic signage must be carefully vetted by traffic engineering. Almost certainly all street markings must be similarly vetted. It’s possible the installation doesn’t meet the city’s own regulations for street markings. The attorneys for the “vandals” should maybe look into this.
Streets are inherently by their nature subject to tire marks from vehicles. Tire marks on street aren’t vandalism.
So NOW you claim to be a mind reader… and what about your constant yell of MUH THE LAW….has there already been a trial… but there you are a guy who claims to be a lawyer declaring they are already guilty… tsk tsk tsk
Outhouse the Democrat worships his Government God. All knowing, all seeing, always on a constant search for any violation that can be used to send the perpetrator to Purgatory ( what we previously called prison).
I respect and enjoy M’s comments. He is just sometimes wrong-headed (IMHO) about things. I can’t fault him for his stubbornness, as I’m a stubborn SOB myself.
Milhouse isn’t a lawyer–he just says ‘liar’ with a long drawl.
Your take is farcical and illogical. Likening the dirtying of a partisan political symbol/icon painted on a street surface — whether intentionally, or, innocently — to the intentional physical destruction of the street, itself — is laughably inapposite.
Isn’t this an excessive punishment? Is the bill of rights still in effect?
Ten years is the statutory maximum for the charges they face. There is no prospect of the prosecution even asking for such a sentence, let alone the judge actually giving it.
Bullcrap. They’ll go for the maximum.
No, they won’t. Don’t be more ridiculous than you have to be.
And Trump won’t be fined a half a billion dollars for minor infractions too – oopsie.
Be careful in assuming any norms including legal ones these days.
Little doubt they will threaten the maximum punishment to incentivize a plea bargain, including a written sworn oath to Pride, DEI, and the entire Pantheon of Progress. They aren’t interested in martyring Traditionalists — they want supplication.
LOL.
So a clearly un-Constitutional (and insane) punishment is okay because you are confident that the dirtbag prosecutors will never ask for it and the dirtbag judge will never impose it … but there’s nothing wrong with it being on the books to leave people in jeopardy of it.
WTFF??
That is the maximum penalty for vandalism. If applied in this case it would be unconstitutional as applied, but there is nothing unconstitutional about it being the max for that offense, in cases where it’s warranted. The eighth amendment bans excessive penalties, but what is excessive depends heavily on the circumstances.
If the maximum punishment for some crime is excessive then it is un-Constitutional to even have it available. Period.
This ain’t rocket surgery.
The actual jail term is almost irrelevant compared to being branded for life as a felon. This should not have been brought as a felony charge.
Selective prosecution is not a defense. There’s no question that their prosecution is justified; the problem is that all those other people who do the same thing are not. But first of all, you’d have to find someone in that jurisdiction who was treated differently; what happens in other jurisdictions is completely irrelevant. Second, even if you did find someone, you would have a legitimate political complaint but it would not be a legal defense.
“This cannot stand”
And yet it does
Making a good case to NEVER buy or use something that someone else can take control of. Say you are fleeing a ‘mostly peaceful protest’ and someone decides that makes you racist and they shut down your transportation.
Bait…Democratic bait. This may not go as well as the government intends.
On the other side of the state there is a beautiful park at Woodard Bay in Olympia. The state spent boocoo(sp) bucks putting together concrete canoe mural and other assorted stuff in what is basically a wild life refuge.
It is riddled with ACAB and BLM graffiti. 100 yards up the road is the trail head for the Chehalis Western trail. For the 20+ years all the little Olympia anarchists would come and vandalize it up. It got so bad that at one point they were using paint trays/rollers and latex paint to do it up.
It’s about 5 miles outside of any services- but boy the homeless loved coming out there to smash in those car windows. They’d also stash their drugs in the woods.
I’d see gang bangers and
That’s Washington for you.
According to Milhouse, meh, another jurisdiction.
What he means is that it doesn’t fit into his narrative.
It’s all Bob Ferguson and Jay Inslee’s jurisdiction. Recall the eastern wa florist that they went after for daring to stand up against the LGBQT mafia.
What I want to know is whether these boys have a gofundme or givesendgo yet?
If it were a Christian symbol, the leftists would call it a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The leftists don’t mind when it’s their religious symbol.
The difference is that it’s not religious. Governments are not allowed to establish a religion. They are entitled to adopt any non-religious opinion they like, no matter how controversial.
Hard to say…. sort of like the Nazca lines. Maybe “their” gods are watching. As for non-religious…. depends if one worships humanism.
Your wrong- it’s anti- religious, which is, by definition, religious.
Progressivism is definitely faith-based, having all kinds of tenets which must be adhered to, many of which run counter to observable reality.
That’s not how religion has ever been defined
…and that’s why they get away with it.
The establishment clause of the First Amendment is very odd.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
1. So one might think that congress cannot make any law either supporting or denying an establishment of religion.
2. This applies only to the congress of the federal government. State governments are free to establish (and perhaps disestablish) religions, and in fact did until about 1860.
https://undergod.procon.org/religion-in-the-original-13-colonies/
3. Milhouse seems to think he knows a religion when he sees one. Perhaps he can grace us with a definition of religion.
Outhouse knows nothing and understands less….as always
I have a great deal of respect and appreciation for Milhouse. But apparently he is not willing to provide us with a definition of religion.
Perhaps because the USSC has been using an incoherent definition of religion for so long that many people have just gotten used to it and don’t bother thinking.
State governments were free of the entire first amendment, until the 14th was ratified.
Justice Thomas believes that of the entire first amendment, the establishment clause is not incorporated against the states, though the rest of it is. He makes a very good argument for that position, and I think I am convinced, but unfortunately he has not convinced any of his colleagues.
Milhouse, You still have not provided your definition of religion.
If it looks like a religion, smells like a religion, walks like a religion, and talks like a religion, it’s a religion.
LGBT and Climate Change are religions.
Nope. They’re not–‘or prohibiting the free expression thereof’.
They can’t put up anything that infringes on anyone’s religion.
And your asininity about how ‘religion’ has top be defined as ‘something the founders would have recognised as religion is BS– wicca (created in the 1920s and Leveyan Satanism are both recognized as religions. So is scientology.
“Prosecutors requested a $15,000 bond that would cover the approximate cost of re-painting the mural”
There’s no bloody way repairs cost $15k. I could touch it up for $1k using the same-branded coating materials.
The city is padding its expenses. And the vandals have to shoulder the purposefully bloated cost? That seems like an adjunct punitive punishment along side criminal punishment.
The city officials involved are the criminals, here. They all DO deserve to spend a decade in prison, plus a good bit of added time for having abused their governmental powers to harass and terrorize some teenagers who refused to bow to their insane, perverted derangements.
All government projects cost at least five times what they would cost any normal person. Between using union workers, and a crew whose size is dictated by the union contract rather than by how many people the job needs, plus all the paperwork required, it’s a wonder anything ever gets done.
I kinda know about that since I’m blue collar. Not everyone is unionized in smaller towns. Me and a buddy have underbid the union gimps on both city and federal works.
I was hoping you’d at least hit on fines used as a punishment.
SF is lost cause. $1.7M for public restroom.
But it’s at least it’s a brick sh*thouse.
Also been harassed by San Francisco city inspectors in league with union gimps. The union people turned me into a union hater for those repeated bits of petty harassment.
The Rainbow banner is the embodiment of albinophobia. The city should be sued for endorsing a hate crime targeting a minority. Albinophobia is a serious psychiatric condition common to the transgender spectrum disorder, progressive sects, People of Black (PoB), and the politically congruent (“=”).
Cultural Marxism IS a religion
The city could but would never paint a Cross on the road
So shouldn’t Lime be sued for “enticing” these malcontents to use their product for criminal purpose?
After all, that’s the argument to sue gun makers for criminal misuse of their products.
Just another day that ends in “Y”…another day that the Left sends the message loud and clear: we’re have the power and you don’t. We’ll shit on the things you value with impunity, and punish you if you don’t worship the things we value.
This is where we are.
Spokane, Washington – Home of the addled-headed, woke worshiping, modern fascists. Despicable idiots with no sense. Avoid at all costs.
Left coast, same CA.
Actually, Spokane is just a mid-sized city in Eastern Washington, whose economy is ag and resource based and has been largely free of the corrosive effects of progressivism.
This is really sad, in many ways.
Also, government has NO 1st amendment rights and should be denied any political or personal opinions. These are reserved to citizens.
Seattle infects all of the state. Spokane had antifa/BLM riots and protests. Some of us were hoping they headed further east but, alas . . . . .
If these hooligans had not been acting nefariously, and “revving” their electric scooters, I’m sure this would have all blown over. It’s getting harder and harder every day to take any of these people seriously.
What if a homeless bum drops a turd on such a sacred city monument? Is he “celebrated” or prosecuted?
Better still, an illegal alien: a true test of the Progressive hierarchy.
An illegal alien at a Pro-Hamas rally.
There is no way to prove malicious intent by the teens. The teens can claim the painted section gave the appearance of designated space to celebrate gay pride, and they were celebrating by riding their scooters there. If the city truly believes that tire marks are vandalism, then the city never should have painted something on the street that could be damaged by tire marks, that is entrapment by the city.
The video of them riding there reeks of setup.
Scenario: Light dirt on the street making for a slightly slippery surface; painted road surfaces a bit slick; pedestrian, not paying attention, walks out into traffic; car driver nails his brakes causing ABS to leave impressive series of all four stuttering tires on the painted surface. This happened to me years ago. The pedestrian jumped back onto the curb when he heard my tires screaming and my horn blaring, but the marks on the pavement were there for weeks.
.
Maybe the defense could come up with some interesting arguments.
.
cults vs religion
THE DNC IS IN FACT A CULT
they make religions look downright sane and peaceful
lets stop calling them “progressives”
THEY ARE COMMUNISTS
stop allowing the left to control the narratives
would guess many lgbtqiowtf
would enjoy
teens rolling over them
You should paint the US Flag right next to it and see how the city handles it.
And just as Cultural Marxism is a religion, they have unwritten blasphemy laws you have to follow.
They exempt themselves from the definition of religion just as they make themselves exempt from hate speech, disparate impact, equal protection, racist etc etc.
https://babylonbee.com/news/man-charged-with-blasphemy-for-not-removing-sandals-while-using-rainbow-crosswalk
This story reinforces my theory that the more beautiful a place it, the more it attracts crazy people. People who would paint a “Pride” flag on a city street, and then be SHOCKED! that it was defaced are crazy people.
Leave a Comment