So what crime did the (Boston) cartoon marketing kids commit?

[Bonobo]

In the Boston incident...

Just a simple question.

If you can't answer it, you should settle down and check yourself.

You just may be a wee bit more "influenced" by the trumped up War on Turrism than you realize.

Edited for clarity.

[DURHAM D]

1. We are not in the room with you - what are you talking about?

Never mind - I don't care.

[Bonobo]

3. OK. Bye. Thanks for the kick for those who do read.

[Redstone]

2. "Trespass to Chattels." that means that you can't use someone else's property

without their permission. In this case, the city's property.

Should someone be able to paint a billboard on the side of your house without asking you, because they think it would be a good place to advertise?

Redstone

[Bonobo]

6. Thanks. That's what they use against spammers, etc. Agreed.

But hardly rises to the level of terrorist.

[Redstone]

11. I didn't SAY they were terrorists. I said they're criminals. And stupid ones.

Redstone

[Bonobo]

13. I know YOU didn't but many here feel they should be imprisoned.

Is that where we are as a society. We now take away freedom and liberty from people for stupidity?

[Redstone]

21. No, we should take away freedom and liberty from people who BREAK THE LAW.

Which is what they did.

Redstone

[Bonobo]

25. Any law? Like littering? You're being disingenuous.

On edit: forget it...

[Redstone]

28. Oh, boy, another personal attack. thank you so much. Are there any other words

you'd like to put in my mouth?

Redstone

[Bonobo]

31. Disngenuous is a "personal attack"?

[Redstone]

38. Yup. All you have to do is to look up that word in the dictionary. And you know it.

Hide behind sematic excuses all you want, it's fine with me.

I'm trying to discuss issues, and you're making accusations about motivation.

Redstone

[Bonobo]

46. My point was that (I thought) you were overstating the case to make a point.

THAT is what I meant by disingenuos.

[Redstone]

47. Then you don't know the meaning of that word. That may be why I might have

misunderstood your intent.

"You're being disingenuous" means "you're lying." You may have thought the word means "exaggerating," but it doesn't.

Redstone

[Bonobo]

50. Wrong. I used it correctly.

Disingenuos would mean you were intentionally make a semantic argumen that even YOU did not agree with in order to make a point

[Redstone]

52. Not in this case.

Redstone

[Bonobo]

71. ...

[matt819]

45. Really, now

They were stupid. Perhaps there should be laws against that, but look to Washington and we all know that's not the case. Did they break any laws? Maybe, maybe not. I'm neither a cop nor a prosecutor. But I think the Boston Police overreacted. And now they're "compensating" for that by overreacting even further.

I read somewhere along the way that this same marketing ploy was used in a half dozen or so metropolitan cities and that the marketers informed local authorities. Maybe this has been debunked; I haven't been following it all that closely other than to shake my head at the headlines and bemoan our fate, when stupidity rises to the level of terrorist threat.

Slap their wrists, tell them to behave in the future, and get on with life.

[Hosnon]

66. I'm assuming that Trespass to Chattels is a tort and therefore a civil, not criminal

issue.

And as you know, prison is not the punishment for civil offenses.

[goodhue]

7. sorry, that's a tort

[Redstone]

12. No, it's not a tort. It's a common-law precept.

Redstone

[goodhue]

16. common law does not create crimes, statutes do

Trespass to chattels is a tort. Covered in Torts class. There may be a statutory trespass crime, but I seriously doubt that is what they were actually charged with. More likely some terroristic malarkey.

[goodhue]

18. FWIW, they were charged with "placing a hoax device" & disorderly conduct

I'm not entirely clear on how these displays were hoaxes, and of course disorderly conduct is bogus.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/3949044a12.html

Sean Stevens, 28, and Peter Berdovsky, 27, were released on a $US2500 bond each after pleading not guilty in state court to charges of placing a hoax device and disorderly conduct.

[Redstone]

19. So it's OK for them to use property that doesn't belong to them without permission.

I just give up.

Redstone

[goodhue]

22. I didn't say it was okay, I said it was not a crime they are charged with

Folks generally are NOT criminals for disobeying post no bills directives

[goodhue]

26. But, in truth, I feel it was A-okay

[Redstone]

30. So, if they painted a billboard on the side of your house without asking you,

that would be OK with you?

Redstone

[goodhue]

33. sounds like a violation of property damage & graffiti statutes

sorry, I don't see similar harm here

[Redstone]

37. Well, if you don't see that, you don't see it.

Redstone

[Hosnon]

68. No, I would sue for damages. But the defendant would not go to jail. nt.

[Hosnon]

67. No it is not OK. But you don't go to jail for committing a tort. Jail is for criminal violations. nt

[uppityperson]

9. So should they go after everyone who puts signs up on utility poles too?

[Redstone]

17. You bet your ass they should. Remember all those "Work From Home" signs that you

used to see everywhere? You don't see them anymore, do you? Did you LIKE seeing them littering your town? I'll bet you did not. They're gone because some of us take pride in our communities, and are willing to make an effort to keep our towns clean.

But if you'd rather see all the utility poles in your town infested with a dozen signs each (WORK FROM HOME! WE BUY HOUSES! LOSE 30 POUNDS IN 30 DAYS! POOLS AND SPAS, 30% OFF!), that's your right.

I care about the town I live in. That doesn't mean that you have to. It's OK with me, and I won't criticize you for it.

Redstone

[uppityperson]

23. No, I don't litter or these signs, even "dog missing" ones, but don't think

everyone who puts one up should be criminally prosecuted.

That is the question. What crime did they commit, not do you like litter and not care about your town.

Redstone, is that really your response to my question (So should they go after everyone who puts signs up on utility poles too?), to attack me, to tell me strongly how you feel and that if I don't feel the same, it is ok with you but imply that I like my community trashed?

[Redstone]

51. I did not attack you. You asked a question, and I answered. Listen to me:

"everyone who puts signs up on utility poles" includes lost-kitty notices, which are just fine with me.

Remember that "everyone who puts signs up on utility poles" includes the sign spammers who have plagued our towns for a long time. Looking for a lost kitty is one thing; trashing my town because you think you deserve free advertising is quite another thing.

What crime did they commit? Using other people's property without permission, that's what. The bridges and the train stations do not belong to them, therefore they have NO rght to use such places for advertising.

Why is that so hard to understand? I'm genuinely perplexed that so many people at DU don't understand that concept.

Redstone

[calzone]

60. While I understand what you're saying......

....I consider the issue you bring up more complex than it appears.
First, I think the idea that the two guys commited a crime by scaring folks into mistaking a sign for a bomb is insane. Just crazy. It's pure madness.
But if you want to discuss the appropriateness of hanging small, removable signs from public property, the issue gets complicated. For instance, if it's a lost pet sign, or a garage sale sign I don't see the problem.
We aren't talking about someone's home, that's different.
If it's grafitti, I actually don't have a problem with that as long as it's good art. I like good art, and some grafitti is art. I admire paintings on public property, and trains etc decorated with skillfull art, and I don't think it should be a crime if it reaches a certain level of skill and effort. We need more color in life IMO.
But since I'm not a fan of unregulated capitalism, signs for businesses shouldn't get a free ride on public property, and there should even be strict regs on the proliferation of biz signs. But in this instance we're talking about signs that are small, easily removed, and non-specific in their content. On top of that, since the signs aren't registered and claimed, they're essentially public property. I could climb up and take one for my own. I like that idea, I'd love to have one of those things in my livingroom, and i'll bet that one of them would bring me as much as $400 bucks on EBAY, mebbe more.
And if I decide not to keep it or sell it, I can use it for parts. The LEDS would be useful for a project, the power supply also, and the battery would find use. The plexiglass face could be used as a substrate for one of my homemade solar panels.
Another problem with making it a crime to put signs on public property is when the signs are to bring attention to social issues like AIDS or tolerance, or when someone hangs an "impeach Bush" sign on an overpass or bridge. I wouldn't want to deter that.
You see what I mean when say it's a complex issue?

[Redstone]

61. Sorry, but no, it's NOT complex at all. Public spaces belong to EVERYBODY as a group, but

belong to NOBODY as an individual.

It's just that simple.

Redstone

[calzone]

69. I don't see how placing a sign or painting an image...

...constitute individual ownership. No one is taking possesion of the areas for their exclusive use. In fact, they're offering it up for public consumption. I believe I made my point quite well.
"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." Wilde.

[GOTV]

72. I'm with you. Plus I think even the supreme court distinguishes....

... between personal and commercial speech.

There's a big difference in my mind between "Lost Kitty" and "Work From Home" regardless of what the law may say.

[Richard Steele]

10. That's the one! I couldn't remember that darn phrase-THX, Redstone. nm

[TomInTib]

54. Boston will have a hard time hanging that on Turner.

The City will be laughed out of court.

Too bad there isn't a law regarding "Hysterical Chickenshit Overreaction on the part of Municipal Authoritees".

We have become Chickenshit Nation.

[Redstone]

59. Tom. My friend. What part of "Thou Shalt Not Use That Which Belongs To Another,

Even Though That May Be Thine Own City," don't you understand?

You've BEEN there, for Christ's sake. Do you REALLY want to be accusing the cops in the Bomb Squad of the Boston Police of being chickenshit?

I don't think you do. I really don't.

Redstone

[TomInTib]

62. I just think that the reaction was somewhat hysterical.

Nothing against the police - they just did what they were ordered to do.

We have just become Chickenshit Nation.

And we have become way too easy to shake.

We looked like the Keystone Kops on this one. Fucking embarrassing.

I will guarantee you that I could take 20-30 guys and raise total hell. Actually, I have been thinking about this for years.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=96474&mesg_id=96474

[Redstone]

63. Yeah, you could do that. I have NO doubt about that.

But you, with your experience, could you maybe put yourself in the place of a Boston Bomb Squad cop?

I bet you could. And tell me, how did you treat a string across the path?

These things were a string across the path for those Boston cops.

Redstone

[GOTV]

73. We all use city property all the time...

... and someone putting up a "Impeach Bush" or "Lost Kitty" sign in no way prevents me from walking down the public sidewalk.

The law may be on your side, but I can choose for myself what I think is right and wrong.

As long as your use of the commons doesn't interfere with my use of the commons, I'm fine with it.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

65. Question for ya...

Shouldn't DHS be out hunting for all the perps in all 10 locations?

Or is Boston a special case?

[LisaL]

4. Maybe it would help if we knew what you were actually talking

about. Who are they?

[goodhue]

5. the hair styles were criminal

having been born in the 70s, they should know better





be serious

[uppityperson]

8. They scared me and they should pay. I was scared.

So it has to be someone's fault, and since I can't say it was the authorities (police or city people) or the media I'll hate them because it is all their fault.


:sarcasm:

[LisaL]

14. I do not think they committed any crime.

I guess we have to wait and see, but I think they will be let go.

[rgbecker]

24. What really scarred you?

Was it the Bombs? Not likely as there were none.
Was it the news reports of the Bombs? Probably.
Was it the fact they were there, about to blow you to smitherings, for two weeks before the Police even noticed?
Surely.

Its time people started looking more closely at the terrorists scare business. Is terrorism really something we need to be worried about, or is this just about fear and paying off those who say they are protecting you? Sort of like the business the Mafia is in.

[Nutmegger]

32. Welcome to DU.

[ToolTex]

41. Thank you Nutmegger we needed to see that frightening thing.

[Nutmegger]

42. Yes I'll never forget where I was on 01.31.2007.

It's something that one just can't forget.

[rgbecker]

58. TV News tonight very scary...

Apparently people in Boston were very and are very upset and think all that hair in the courthouse showed some real disrespect. I hope these guys get a decent lawyer. Meanwhile Mayor Menino says he wants $1,000,000 from the "big" guys at Turner. He feels very, very put out. The question still remains, was the disruption caused by the "terrorists" or the cops? Maybe we should just return to the discussion of hair styles of the 70's (if only we could).

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

39. I'm really hoping that this whole incident makes people start to look around at the country, media

etc. and say "what the FUCK has happened to America under these people (shrubco)?"

[TheCowsCameHome]

15. They were dupes - Paid a measly $300 to make millions for Turner

Naturally they'll take the heat, but they're handling it well.

[marmar]

20. Boston officials made absolute fools of themselves with the overreaction...

Regardless of how somewhat might feel about the publicity stunt, I don't think that there's a law against tackiness. If there were, there would be no SuperBowl. How come this extreme reaction didn't take place in the other cities?

[Ian David]

27. Trespassing. Littering. Creating a public disturbance. Fornicating.

I'm sure all this notoriety is going to get them laid.

So yeah.

Charge them with fornication, too.

[Liberal In Texas]

48. I'm thinking probably just littering.

They were places accessable to the public, so it's not trespass. The press and the cops created the public disturbance. And I sure hope fornicating isn't against the law, yet.
:-)

So, the cops will pull out, "The 27 8x10 glossies with a paragraph on the back of each one..."

[Ian David]

57. Improper disposal of toxic material?

Did they use Lithium batteries?

[nam78_two]

64. Don't forget the dreadlocks...

That hippie had it coming :yoiks:...

[Wickerman]

29. They embarassed the City, State, and Feds

so that HAS to be a crime. :eyes:

I, however, give at least one them bonus points for the hair.

[Richard D]

44. Exactly!

Their crime was embarrassing the city government.

[ToolTex]

34. Surely no one wants to indict them for their expressive hair styles.

Lighten up! Boston over reacted. Many other cities didn't. Boston authorities were just silly.

Remember Massachusetts has a Republiker governor and I think that is where the buck should stop.

High comedy at its finest ranking almost with the jesters running the bush administration.

[GrumpyGreg]

55. We have a Democrat as governor in Massachusetts and he was mad too !

[goodhue]

35. Seriously, disorderly conduct & placing a hoax device

Those are the alleged crimes for which they have been charged.

[uppityperson]

36. What was the hoax? promoting a bad tv show, making people think it'd be fun?

[goodhue]

40. Indeed, I too fail to see the alleged hoax

But that is apparently what they have been charged with . .

http://www.stuff.co.nz/3949044a12.html

Sean Stevens, 28, and Peter Berdovsky, 27, were released on a $US2500 bond each after pleading not guilty in state court to charges of placing a hoax device and disorderly conduct.

[ToolTex]

53. Pitch the magistrate into Boston Harbor.

This stupid over-reaction is emboldening our enemies in the mideast. (As well as our lack of strategy and lack of any reason at all for being there and also bombing and killing their children and homes and other stuff). (Killing their homes is probably the very worst emboldener).

[LisaL]

43. I doubt it will stick-the prosecution would need to show intent, I

believe.

[slingsam]

49. Has Osama won? Damn...they've got us worrying....about Obama

You have to admit.....these clowns are funny......

What a schtick! What a brilliant protest.......

[Kingshakabobo]

56. I'm sure they'll think of something.

The "placing a hoax" charge will never stick and the judge pretty much said so.

If I had to guess, they'll dig up some statute about using the public transportation facilities for commerce or purposes other than yadda yadda. etc. etc. $150 fine and on their way.

[Rex]

70. They broke the unwritten law; not everyone has a sense of humor.

And looking around I can see some people here don't either.