Bikes Against Bush Creator Arrested
SkulkBait
Join Date: 2003-02-11 Member: 13423Members
Join Date: 2003-02-11 Member: 13423Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Without being charged with anything...</div> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bikesagainstbush creator Joshua Kinberg was arrested while taping an interview with MSNBC's Ron Reagan in Manhattan Saturday afternoon.
Kinberg was stopped by police while demonstrating the bicycle for the television interview. His bicycle is a high-tech graffiti writer, using chalk to print anti-Bush political messages sent by people via the internet. Apparently there was a question of whether or not the sprayed messages were a defacement of property.
When Kinberg showed the police sergeant how the bicycle used a non-permanent spray chalk, the sergeant seemed to agree that it wasn't defacement, at which point Kinberg asked, "am I free to go?" After conferring about it, officers decided to call superiors, then came back moments later to place Kinberg under arrest and confiscate the bicycle.
Kinberg cooperated fully with the officers as he was being handcuffed, only asking, "can I ask what I'm being arrested for?" to which no one provided an answer. As of 11:00 PM Saturday evening, he was still in custody without being charged with anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/105740/index.php
So, what do you think?
Personally I think its rather apauling that a guy can be arrested and held without being charged AT ALL. Let alone over such a petty thing as potential vandalism. Seriously, WTH? Does anyone have any more news on this? Is he being held under the PATRIOT ACT? Being held without being charged would indicate that, but if it were true I would expect this to be way more publisized than it seems to be. I mean, using an act designed to stop terrorists to hold a harmless political activist whos worst crime is that he <i>might</i> have commited vandalism? Seriously...
Kinberg was stopped by police while demonstrating the bicycle for the television interview. His bicycle is a high-tech graffiti writer, using chalk to print anti-Bush political messages sent by people via the internet. Apparently there was a question of whether or not the sprayed messages were a defacement of property.
When Kinberg showed the police sergeant how the bicycle used a non-permanent spray chalk, the sergeant seemed to agree that it wasn't defacement, at which point Kinberg asked, "am I free to go?" After conferring about it, officers decided to call superiors, then came back moments later to place Kinberg under arrest and confiscate the bicycle.
Kinberg cooperated fully with the officers as he was being handcuffed, only asking, "can I ask what I'm being arrested for?" to which no one provided an answer. As of 11:00 PM Saturday evening, he was still in custody without being charged with anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/105740/index.php
So, what do you think?
Personally I think its rather apauling that a guy can be arrested and held without being charged AT ALL. Let alone over such a petty thing as potential vandalism. Seriously, WTH? Does anyone have any more news on this? Is he being held under the PATRIOT ACT? Being held without being charged would indicate that, but if it were true I would expect this to be way more publisized than it seems to be. I mean, using an act designed to stop terrorists to hold a harmless political activist whos worst crime is that he <i>might</i> have commited vandalism? Seriously...
Comments
Even if the chalk isn't permanent, it's still enough for suspicion of vandalism / conspiracy for repeat counts of vandalism (it's a bike that sprays graffiti, if that's not intended to be used more than once, then I don't know what is)
Right now I'm getting the bittorrent of the arrest recorded. Found it <a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5850151/?#040829e' target='_blank'>here</a>
[edit]I realize the analogy I made has more holes than Spongebob Squarepants in a pin factory, but it was humorous enough to me when I first wrote it. By the way, of you're reading this, you've been banned <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm getting the bittorrent of the arrest recorded right now. Found it <a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5850151/?#040829e' target='_blank'>here</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hehe
I like that annalogy <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
however it sorta dosn't work
what he was probably arrested for (and being charged with) is illegal assemblyor what ever it is called.
he and other people were actualy part of a protest bike ride.
click the link at the top of marike's link to critical mass.
oh, I am not supproting the arrest or anytihng, just pointing out that it was very possibly valid.
Except not at all.
Graffiti is not a subject to be taken lightly in areas that already have an overabundance of such. And it's not like the police force can just allocate 1 guy to monitor all of new york against graffiti. Even if they could, that 1 guy can't just electronically delete graffiti.
I'm sure that any anti-graffiti specialists will tell you that the best anti-graffiti tactic (as in, preventing people from creating graffiti in the first place) is to keep everything clear of graffiti ALL THE TIME.
EDIT: reworded for clarity.
No one cares about poeple writting stuff in Chalk in NYC, well not on the street, or side walks. (I live there btw)
No one cares about poeple writting stuff in Chalk in NYC, well not on the street, or side walks. (I live there btw) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
"No one cares" or "You don't care"?
Remember that law usually reflects conservatives.
Except not at all.
Graffiti is not a subject to be taken lightly in areas that already have an overabundance of such. And it's not like the police force can just allocate 1 guy to monitor all of new york against graffiti. Even if they could, that 1 guy can't just electronically delete graffiti.
I'm sure that any anti-graffiti specialists will tell you that the best anti-graffiti tactic (as in, preventing people from creating graffiti in the first place) is to keep everything clear of graffiti ALL THE TIME.
EDIT: reworded for clarity. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it was spraypaint, by all means I'd agree with you. But I can't remember the last time I heard about a kid being sent to a juvenile detention center for being politically active with his/her bucket of sidewalk chalk sticks. Unless vulgar language or images were being created, what laws prevent this? How is this different from a political activist group spreading bazillions of flyers around to litter several city blocks, or taping dozens to hundreds of them across a building wall?
[edit]To clarify, I'm not saying that just because the flyer examples are done makes either it or the bike a good thing. I really don't know what *real* question I'm trying to get towards, but this whole thing just seems off-kilter.
Yes he's really showing the GOP by riding around on a bicycle spray-chalking? anti-Bush garbage on the sidewalks.
Honestly this is what cracks me up about protesters doing things like this then trying to tell you like their the most reasonable people on the earth why you shouldn't re-elect Bush.
I read about this and in the same article I read about a woman who dyed her dog pink in protest to the war in Iraq....?
Yea she showed those dogs for war?
He should be arrested for sheer public annoyance, suppose someone is a Bush supporter in New York (I think there’s like 2 or 3) do you know how annoying that would be. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
These guys really crack me up, now they have a "reason" to scream "omg fascism, teh evil Nazi Bush is arresting all teh protestors!!!111 omg save us!!!"
What a mess.
You don't <b>have</b> to look at it. Nobody has the right to not be offended.
<span style='color:red'><b>HE WAN'T ARRESTED FOR THE CHALK THING</b></span>
they arested everyone in the gathering.
As for the chalk thing?
freedome of speech, simple enugh, it is not infringing on anyone else's rights, therefor it is ok.
People use sidewalk chalk to put out messages, to do art, etc etc all the time, there is nothing wrong with it, infact it is much more eco friendly then all the stupid flyers that people put out.
Oh, and reasa, if we go with your logic of 'anti bush is offensive to probush poeple and thefore these messages should be banned'
you are no longer alowed to talk, you anti-anti-bush messages anoy me, thus you are banned from posting them..... (note this is sarchasm)
cmon man, you obviously enugh are not familiar with NYC, chalk signs and people with flyers every block are the norm here.
you are no longer alowed to talk, you anti-anti-bush messages anoy me, thus you are banned from posting them..... (note this is sarchasm)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Umm I was making a joke, because in case you didn't catch the tone of my post, I consider these protestors to be a joke not worthy of discussion.
You think I'm alone? Look at the mayor asking people to wear "peaceful protester" buttons to get discounts at certain places. I almost choked on my Pepsi when I saw that on the Daily Show. You wanna act like children then the people in charge are going to treat you like children.
I mean she DYED HER DOG PINK TO PROTEST THE WAR IN IRAQ....
Also that statement was ended with a " <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> " which denotes it as a joke/sarcasm.
I don't put it there because I like yellow circles with tongues.
..or I could have just put a (note this is sarcasm) note after it....but that just kills the whole feel of it.
Communism isn't as far away as you think.
BTW get this Micheal Powell is the son of Bush's buddy Powell Senior. Micheal Powell runs the FCC the government branch who has a nearly unspecified amount of power of censoring or fining Media AKA Free Speech. If your wondering why you haven't heard anything about this is becuase most of the major television news know better or are in turn owned by the party.
When the canidiate were running everyone bludders were televised. Such as McCains **** catch where he got hit in the face at a major promotion which after wards he stepped out of the race. Bush makes this kinds of mistakes on a daily bases never never televised.
I'm not a conspricy theorist but come on. The only time you see Bush making mistakes is when you find it through the only free speech left the internet.
BTW get this Micheal Powell is the son of Bush's butt buddy Powell Senior. Micheal Powell runs the FCC the government branch who has a nearly unspecified amount of power of censoring or fining Media AKA Free Speech. If your wondering why you haven't heard anything about this is becuase most of the major television news know better or are in turn owned by the party.
When the canidiate were running everyone bludders were televised. Such as McCains **** catch where he got hit in the face at a major promotion which after wards he stepped out of the race. Bush makes this kinds of mistakes on a daily bases never never televised.
I'm not a conspricy theorist but come on. The only time you see Bush making mistakes is when you find it through the only free speech left the internet. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea...because this has so much to with communism?
As far as not hearing about "this" on TV, I'll assume you mean what this topic is about, I heard about this stroy on MSNBC this evening...I guess they let one slip through the crac...<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/28/rnc.bike.protest/index.html' target='_blank'>Oh wait it's on CNN too...</a>
Yea the Republicans really own the media...
I hate to have to do this...
but reasa is right.
thats all conspiracy theory junk, this goes under the 'stop your making my side look bad' line.
Most of the large media sources have a liberal slant, not much of one (well not the good ones) but still deffinatly there.
as for NYPD Brutality acusations...
the NYPD is rather good actualy. If you want a bad police force, go look at what the LAPD used to be like (I think they have cleaned up their act recently).
Yah there are a few cases every so often of something sipicable, but they are always all over the media as soon as they happen.
BTW get this Micheal Powell is the son of Bush's butt buddy Powell Senior. Micheal Powell runs the FCC the government branch who has a nearly unspecified amount of power of censoring or fining Media AKA Free Speech. If your wondering why you haven't heard anything about this is becuase most of the major television news know better or are in turn owned by the party.
When the canidiate were running everyone bludders were televised. Such as McCains **** catch where he got hit in the face at a major promotion which after wards he stepped out of the race. Bush makes this kinds of mistakes on a daily bases never never televised.
I'm not a conspricy theorist but come on. The only time you see Bush making mistakes is when you find it through the only free speech left the internet. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea...because this has so much to with communism?
As far as not hearing about "this" on TV, I'll assume you mean what this topic is about, I heard about this stroy on MSNBC this evening...I guess they let one slip through the crac...<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/28/rnc.bike.protest/index.html' target='_blank'>Oh wait it's on CNN too...</a>
Yea the Republicans really own the media... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://ratherbiased.com/news/content/view/145/' target='_blank'>#1</a>
<a href='http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/sources.html' target='_blank'>#2</a>
The fact is that Major market outlets, both print and electronic, are concentrating under fewer owners each year--with ownership being overwhelmingly corporate and not at all Liberal.
The overt bias may be Liberal, but what doesn't get reported shapes public opinion every bit as much as what does.
A lot of important stories get spiked or are underreported until the internet or the alternative press circulates them too widely to ignore.
It might not be permanent but it still needs to be removed. The cost of removal + delay due to blocking the road is why he could be arrested.
While I feel he should have been cited and released, he did build his bike with the implicit intention to cause a crime. Therefore it has been legally confiscated.
Is all of this an overreaction? Yes. But I would be **** if someone went spraying slogans on my sidewalk.
It might not be permanent but it still needs to be removed. The cost of removal + delay due to blocking the road is why he could be arrested.
While I feel he should have been cited and released, he did build his bike with the implicit intention to cause a crime. Therefore it has been legally confiscated.
Is all of this an overreaction? Yes. But I would be **** if someone went spraying slogans on my sidewalk. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. Its freakin chalk, are you going to arrest a little girl for trying to put some hopscotch on the sidewalk?
2. Its free speech, if you don't like free speech then you can leave this country because this is what it was founded upon.
Personally who cares if he wants to ride around and chalk anti bush messages, they will go away in a day or two and you don't even have to look at them.
if he is held over 72 hours without being charged then I think it's something giving a long hard look at.
It might not be permanent but it still needs to be removed. The cost of removal + delay due to blocking the road is why he could be arrested.
While I feel he should have been cited and released, he did build his bike with the implicit intention to cause a crime. Therefore it has been legally confiscated.
Is all of this an overreaction? Yes. But I would be **** if someone went spraying slogans on my sidewalk. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. Its freakin chalk, are you going to arrest a little girl for trying to put some hopscotch on the sidewalk?
2. Its free speech, if you don't like free speech then you can leave this country because this is what it was founded upon. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If he's willing to admit he's a little girl that wanted to play hopscotch, then let him go.
But last time I checked, a grown man was kept to a higher legal standard than a little girl.
Let's run the example in a different scenario...
A grown man spends a couple minutes trying to open a car door in a parking lot. A police officer sees this, questions the man, and arrests him on suspicion of attempted car theft because the car is found out not to be his.
Now, a little girl is found in the same scenario, the police officer questions her and discovers that she's looking for her parent's car but forgot which one it is. I don't think a cop would arrest a girl for that either.
And if even half of the population agreed that this was free speech, then there wouldn't be anti-graffiti laws, now would there? It's either that or the all encompassing double standard.
Just because you want it to be legal doesn't make it legal.
The school maintains the roads/sidewalks. It isn't free speech it is public (or in this case private) property. In addition, the school was obligated to remove the messages because it might appear that they support that position. There are bulletin boards for such messages.
Would you like it if I wrote my political beliefs on your sidewalk?
[...]
I realize the analogy I made has more holes than Spongebob Squarepants in a pin factory, but it was humorous enough to me when I first wrote it. By the way, of you're reading this, you've been banned <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*sigh* like...
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=78427&st=16' target='_blank'>Nemesis Zero:</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Once B5 is out of the door, I'll have a nice few days putting a lot of people into the restricted member group. Until then, it might be a good idea not to troll in here if you want to retain your posting privileges.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In other words "I can and will black list as many of you insignifigant mortals as I want." Ok...but please don't. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Censorship worries me, it really does. I still recommend that everyone look arround at the media. I love the BBC because they are not in the conflict and so give a far less biased point of view.
*anyways I will try to avoid talking politics*
[following reply inserted by Marik to avoid interrupting the overall discussion with an off-topic post about a page later:
Both the analogy and the "if you're...you've been banned" sentence were for comedy purposes only. I don't see myself going ban-happy anytime soon, and if I do, either I'd better have a darn good reason, or I'd expect and even <i>want</i> one of my fellow mods/admins to give me a reality check.
<img src='http://prayerfoundation.org/luther2.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
However, in this case.
1. He was a member of the church
2. <b>At the time, Church doors were the bulletin boards of today</b>
3. He didn't scrawl them on the public streets of Germany.
[edit]
I still want to see a picture of the actual bike <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[/edit]
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bingo
[edit]
I still want to see a picture of the actual bike <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes; sure why not
It might not be permanent but it still needs to be removed. The cost of removal + delay due to blocking the road is why he could be arrested.
While I feel he should have been cited and released, he did build his bike with the implicit intention to cause a crime. Therefore it has been legally confiscated.
Is all of this an overreaction? Yes. But I would be **** if someone went spraying slogans on my sidewalk. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. Its freakin chalk, are you going to arrest a little girl for trying to put some hopscotch on the sidewalk?
2. Its free speech, if you don't like free speech then you can leave this country because this is what it was founded upon. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If he's willing to admit he's a little girl that wanted to play hopscotch, then let him go.
But last time I checked, a grown man was kept to a higher legal standard than a little girl.
Let's run the example in a different scenario...
A grown man spends a couple minutes trying to open a car door in a parking lot. A police officer sees this, questions the man, and arrests him on suspicion of attempted car theft because the car is found out not to be his.
Now, a little girl is found in the same scenario, the police officer questions her and discovers that she's looking for her parent's car but forgot which one it is. I don't think a cop would arrest a girl for that either.
And if even half of the population agreed that this was free speech, then there wouldn't be anti-graffiti laws, now would there? It's either that or the all encompassing double standard.
Just because you want it to be legal doesn't make it legal. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
ITS FREAKIN CHALK! You can't even remotely compare this to someone stealing a car, it doesn't even remotely fit a good analogy to this situation. Yes if he was using maybe umm SPRAYPAINT then that would most definately be illegal.
ITS FREAKIN CHALK! You can't even remotely compare this to someone stealing a car, it doesn't even remotely fit a good analogy to this situation. Yes if he was using maybe umm SPRAYPAINT then that would most definately be illegal. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But who cleans it up? Who pays to clean it up. Just because it normally doesn't last long does not make it legal.
If it doesn't rain then it will never go away. Even if it does, most chalk drawings must be powerwashed to get it all off.
Damnit man, I'm not comparing the crime against stealing a car. I'm saying that a little girl wouldn't get arrested even in that bad of a situation.
If you can't see that the ONLY purpose of that scenario was to counter your "little girl" argument, then I'm done acknowledging you as a person.