Alex Schaefer, L.A. Artist Behind Burning-Bank Paintings, Arrested for Chalking Outside Chase Fair or Foul?

by (▪‿▪)DoctorWhoGuru(▪‿▪) Posted 2012/07/25 10:12:33

Related Topics: Bank, Chase, Fair, Burning, Informer

Read More

24 votes
Read all 19 opinions
View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Fair	0 votes	0%
	Foul	20 votes	83%
	Undecided	4 votes	17%

Alex Schaefer L A Artist Behind Burning Bank Paintings Arrested for Chalking Outside Chase

Add a comment above

gocar 2012/07/25 13:40:35

Foul

+5
Surely this is a form of free speech? It was not permanent like spray paint, it was the same as carrying a sign on a public sidewalk. I think he should take it further -- where is the ACLU?
>> See Replies

More polls by (▪‿▪)DoctorWhoGuru(▪‿▪)

P. Sturm 2012/09/15 00:44:06

Foul

+1
There is no permanent marking taking place.

reply
ttfndude 2012/07/28 03:11:21

Foul

+1
nothing like the truth to piss those rich people off.....of course with that money it is easy to use our public police force to do their bidding

reply
mama sew,gung ho 2012/07/27 04:27:23

Foul

+1
Banks=bullies,liars,and cowards!

reply
Frannin 2012/07/26 17:59:37

Undecided

+1
This is a tough one. On the one hand, the bank has no other choice but to try and stop
this bad publicity. On the other hand, the bank and its CEO angers me. I hope the public
can see the extreme need for the regulations proposed by the Obama administration and
let their feelings be known through their congressmen (and women).

reply
bob h. 2012/07/26 17:39:39

Foul

+2
Police State LA does it again.

reply
TuringsChild 2012/07/26 05:38:48

Foul

+3
It's CHALK. Ever hear of Free Speech?

reply
lolitalovely 2012/07/26 04:23:08

Undecided

+1
He's defacing public property. If chase really wanted to they could attempt (and probably fail because the argument would be pretty weak) to argue nuisance tort or slander. I'm glad that he's standing up for his beliefs, but he broke a law to do it. The reason a kid can play hopscotch on a public sidewalk is because no one reports it. The people at Chase were obviously going to report it. He should've made a blog or something. there were much smarter ways to go about it.

reply
Alvin to lolital... 2012/07/26 12:59:33

+2
I would have a hard time being convinced that using chalk on a public sidewalk is "defacing public property"

reply
MlssCue... to Alvin 2012/07/26 13:11:39

+2
Agreed!

reply
lolital... to Alvin 2012/07/27 02:13:27

I was tired and meant to say vandalism. vandalism doesn't have to be permanent or anywhere close. Egging a car or a government building is common vandalism. It's easy to wash off, but it's still vandalism. The fact that this art was in chalk only mitigates the penalties for doing it. Although that may be false as some communities have banned chalk art on public property altogether. The city still had to pay someone to spray wash it off and I believe that most areas don't allow chalk art without a permit. I'm not up on the laws in wherever this happened though so I could be completely wrong about the laws there. They arrested him and set a bail so it’s highly likely that it isn’t legal to do this without a permit there.

reply
Christian 2012/07/26 03:17:55

Foul

+4
Come on its chalk, it comes off with water.

reply
Vinny 2012/07/25 19:15:28

Foul

+2
foul check the expression on his face lol

reply
john.keenan.792 2012/07/25 17:46:22

Foul

+1
its just sheer vandilism so yeah he should be jailed

reply
gocar 2012/07/25 13:40:35

Foul

+5
Surely this is a form of free speech? It was not permanent like spray paint, it was the same as carrying a sign on a public sidewalk. I think he should take it further -- where is the ACLU?

reply
Kat 'CARROT' 2012/07/25 12:14:43

Foul

+4
It's art leave it alone

reply
geneticmistake 2012/07/25 12:01:47

Foul

+4
They should have just washed the chalk away as he was writing. If he was spray painting that would have been another matter.

reply
beach bum 2012/07/25 11:19:40

Foul

+3
foul

reply
MlssCue =Go Blue= 2012/07/25 10:22:13 (edited)

Foul

+5
I see no problem with it. He wasn't touching anyone, he wasn't inside of their establishment, he wasn't even talking to their customers. AND it was a public sidewalk!

Also, I did not know that it's against the law. That means my kids & I are constantly breaking the law lol Why do they sell the damn stuff if its against the law?!

**Also, it's a great message....that he suggests here.

reply
Christopher Brady 2012/07/25 10:17:51

Undecided

+4
On one hand he's defacing public property (Which really isn't considering the city owns it) on the other hand, it's going to wash away with water, so what sort of harm is being done? It's not like he's lying about the bank...

reply