Was this heinous vandalism or an act of civil disobedience?

[AtomicKitten]

As advised by my attorney, gordontron, I am conducting a poll so I can get an accurate assessment of whether or not the browbeating I am getting is across-the-board or a simply a few vociferous critics.

Refer to the thread here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2359734&mesg_id=2359734

* points to consider *

the writing is removable
it was juvenile
Diebold had it coming
vandalism (however temporary) is WRONG
opportunity knocked, I answered

Thanks for your time.

[stillcool]

1. here's what I think...

:toast:

[GOPNotForMe]

2. No offense, but this seems like attention whoring.

You already have a post dedicated to this situation. Let the responses there speak for themselves.

[AtomicKitten]

8. OK, if you insist

[Rigby Reardon]

3. Would you like it if

Someone replace you IMPEACH BUSh sticker with a Bush/Chenney 08 Sticker.

I hate to say it, but do unto others....

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rigby Reardon]

18. What?

explain please

[Maine-ah]

56. you know, I have to agree with him

it was vandalism. I'm sorry, but it's true. Also, just because someone has a low post count is no reason to attack them. You asked for an opinion and you got it. It's like the repug's saying "yeah, well what about Kennedy?" when they can't come up with anything else.

JMHO, and that's all I've got to say.

[fudge stripe cookays]

57. It wasn't the opinion he gave...

that made me attack. I agree with him somewhat, although if tempted and pissed off I might have done the same.

Come ON. Anyone who's new to DU usually comes in, checks out the place, sets up a profile, posts some lightweight fluff in the lounge for a few weeks to make friends, then begins getting their feet wet in the heavier forums. Then, before we know it, they've become a regular.

Anyone who comes in here with nothing in their profile and with 9 posts harshly judges another poster? SURE they're on our side. :eyes:

[MercutioATC]

64. That's a really dangerous way to operate...

Everybody here had 9 posts at one time. A lot of them handled their first posts as you describe. Some just jumped in. Suggesting they're freepers, not because of what they say but because you feel they haven't been here long enough to say it, might not be a great way to handle newbies.

[fudge stripe cookays]

77. I notice he hasn't replied either.

Whatsa matter Rigby? Nothing else to say?

I'm sorry, but anybody who acts that way in their first 9 posts gets what they deserve. We've been burned WAY too badly in the past to trust this nonsense.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2012202&mesg_id=2012257

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2021314&mesg_id=2021530

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2029763#2031461 (others are skeptical too, by the way)

[catabryna]

69. That must be why I have no friends here...

not that I'm trying to make them. I don't think I've ever posted in the lounge and lurked around here for a year before I registered.

In response to the poll, I couldn't answer... the word "heinous" prohibits me from voting. Vandalism, yes. Heinous, no.

But, I can sympathize. I just spent two weeks of my vacation in the city visiting my family and I saw more than one Diebold truck. I can say that I most definitely had some rather "heinous" thoughts when I saw them!

[NanceGreggs]

4. Assuming there was no permanent damage to the vehicle ...

... what harm was done? The truck is probably washed every night any way.

Besides, this would make a GREAT court case (not that I'm hoping that happens). You were not vandalizing, you were simply correcting their advertising to reflect what they actually DO.

Let Diebold prove to a judge and jury that the statement was false, ergo you had no right to 'correct it'.

[notadmblnd]

6. You're a better woman than me

I just keep my balls taped to a piece of paper on my desk. It's obvious you take yours with you where ever you go. :toast: :headbang: :yourock:

[AtomicKitten]

7. can't we all just get along?

or something like that.

Jeez, I never expected this topic to invoke such outrage from folks here at DU. Damn.

[rzemanfl]

9. Do a poll. "If you were on a jury would you vote to convict

this woman?" Yes or No. Sure, it was vandalism.

Or, you could ask DU to allow anyone who wants to to change their screen name to AtomicKitten-sort of an "I'm Spartacus" approach.

[AtomicKitten]

12. that'll really piss off my critics

and you are one clever monkey! :)

[acmejack]

10. It was funny as hell!

I for one say "Great work Kitten!" Who would have guessed there were so many humorless folks here?

[AtomicKitten]

14. wow, not me.

[tularetom]

11. I didn't even read the other thread

but I can tell by some of the responses that it was the right thing to do.

[FSogol]

13. Truth in Advertising. I voted Civil Diso

But if I owned that truck, I might feel otherwise.

[mcscajun]

15. This was an act of minor vandalism

Had it been my truck vandalized by a Freeper, it would have been Heinous Vandalism. :) (Oh yeah, and I don't own a truck.)

That said, vandalism of the property of private individuals isn't civil disobedience.

Civil Disobedience is generally understood as non-violent, pre-meditated, public disobedience of government to draw attention to a cause, with the expectation of, or desire for, arrest, in protest to government actions or policies.

All the vandal did was risk a beating if caught by the truck owner. Hardly on the same scale with Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, or the Berrigan Brothers, or more recently, Cindy Sheehan and the people at Camp Casey.

[PatrioticLeftie]

16. Disobedience, but

I don't think it should happen again, we are above it

[Burried News]

17. Tea in the Harbor.

[gordontron]

19. "As advised by my attorney, gordontron"

sweet lets just hope we don't go to court, (I'm not really an attorney to anyone who didn't get the joke) but I wouldn't mind a fat check arriving in my mail if you don't mind.

:toast: seriously though don't let all these people get you down. If it was some freepers truck it would have been wrong, but since it was Diebold...please people do you really think minor vandalism compares to helping steal elections?

look at it this was, AtomicKitten committed an act of civil disobedience (or vandalism if you like), but Diebold has vandalized our election process

ah and here is further proof: when I ran this post through words spellchecker it tried to replace Diebold with Diablo.

[AZBlue]

20. Seems spell checker is...

...smarter than some of the posters on DU!

[desi]

21. Miss Kitty...

..you did write the truth on both sides of the vehicle I trust..ROFL..you go woman..

on edit:..You Rock too..

[AtomicKitten]

24. Only the side that was about 6 inches from my face

Perhaps you can understand why it had to be done; it was taunting me.

[desi]

25. I bet it was..

...were I there I would have distracted the driver so you could do the other side for maximum exposure of the true criminals..(I can't stop lol)..

[woodsprite]

22. If kids can spraypaint the side of my new car with aluminum paint and

all the cops say is "Use Fantastic and elbow grease to take it off", then I say at least you were making a point with writing a statement. BTW, since it was removable, the cops did nothing to the kids except scare them. The kids came home from school one day and found the cops sitting in their living rooms. They gave them a talking to. They did about 10-12 cars in the neighborhood that night. Thank G*D I moved!!!

[unkachuck]

23. one could argue, it was your minimum civic duty....n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

26. If it's removable, no harm done

and point well taken.

[graywarrior]

27. Bet Diebold's used to it

My bank uses Diebold's ATM machines. One of the banks has the word "sucks" written in under Diebold's name on the machine. It' been there for months.

Diebold probably hired a special crew to clean up all the negative grafitti written on their property. Part of doing the business of stealing, I guess. Another write off.

[AtomicKitten]

28. that made me laugh out loud!

I was going to say I wish more people knew about EVM fraud, and it is heartening to hear your vignette. IMO anything it takes to call attention to this serious problem because I'm sorry to say I don't see much point voting in the next election until this is addresed.

Power to the people.

[Czolgosz]

29. Should include an option "it was terrorism" or how will Cheney vote?

When environmentalists undertake property vandalism as form of protest, the Bush administration defines it as ecoterrorism.

[wiley]

30. Why did you brag about it?

I saw the post and said great, but why the confession?

[AtomicKitten]

31. Brag? I thought it was something people would be interested in.

Sometimes stupid things like that, whether it happens to me or somebody else, gets me through the day. I like hearing vignettes like that from others.

[TygrBright]

32. Well, I didn't vote...

...because there wasn't a "none of the above" category.

See, it wasn't really civil disobedience, in a technical sense, because you weren't directly disobeying a civil authority. Diebold is a private company and acts committed against them aren't acts against a civil authority, per se.

Technically.

And I DO believe in respect for private property-- that is, property owned by those who can legally be called a person.

Now, again TECHNICALLY, the United States recognizes corporations as "persons" in the legal sense.

Frankly, I have issues with that. I agree that some legal status as an entity that conveys the power to do business and maintain financial integrity is necessary to maintain the economic benefits to the community that are concommitant to the existence private business.

But I think we've gone way, WAY overboard with our extension of legal rights to such entities. When we prioritize the economic benefits of big business over the well-being of human citizens, we subject ourselves to a devastating form of economic tyranny and we pay a terrible price.

So, while technically the act of defacing property owned by a corporation is regarded in the same legal sense as defacing (say, for example) my garage door, my PERSONAL beliefs do not coincide with the law in this case.

Now, I don't go around breaking every law I disagree with, and I don't advocate the wholesale disregard of law based on one's personal beliefs. I generally obey even stupid laws, based on the higher principle of respect for the rule of law.

But if I felt that a principle of equal or greater importance than the rule of law were at stake, I might, with full knowledge of what I was doing, and willingness to abide the consequences, break such a law.

The question is, what is the principle at stake here? Electoral integrity? Freedom of speech? Both? Where do they stand in relation to the principle of the rule of law?

On a moral basis, though, I can't equate the defacement of property owned by a THING (a corporation) with the defacement of property owned by a PERSON.

So while I still rate it as "vandalism," I certainly don't rate it as "heinous."

Therefore neither of the responses available is appropriate, in my opinion.

The question therefore devolves to: "Is the ethical weight of a non-heinous act of vandalism perpetrated against a THING (a corporation,) but in violation of the highly important rule of law, greater or less than the ethical weight of the exercise of free speech in defense of the highly important electoral integrity?"

The balance is actually pretty even, at this point. I would neither endorse nor condemn the act.

But I certainly enjoy the sentiment.

equivocally,
Bright

[AtomicKitten]

37. ok, let me respond

"So while I still rate it as "vandalism," I certainly don't rate it as "heinous."

Vandalism entails destruction; the ink was not permanent, therefore, I did not commit vandalism.
I defaced the logo, a temporary condition remedied by a vigorous car wash.

I'm sure Diebold will get over it. Apparently some of you stuffy sorts may not. And we all will never get over the effects of what the likes of Diebold have done to this country. My point exactly.

And I don't see how a 75%/25% split in opinion constitutes a "pretty even balance." Must be that fuzzy math we've heard about.

[bluestateguy]

33. I don't buy the CD argument

True civil disobedience would have been a little better organized than this frat boy type of silliness.

I can think of so many better ways to publicly protest Diebold than what you did, and I'm not talking about writing letters or signing e-petitions either.

[AtomicKitten]

35. well, I'm sorry a spur of the moment thing wasn't more organized

For chrissake, I pulled into a parking space, turned my head to the left, and about 6-8 inches away from my face was a Diebold truck logo. I changed their logo with a non-permanent ink pen to:
"Diebold - We Steal Elections."

No big whoop.

The poll was suggested because of the extremes in which this was viewed. In my personal view, it was neither.

[MercutioATC]

34. Well, if somebody vandalizes your car I hope you're as happy about it.

Vandalism is vandalism. Writing on trucks with a marker doesn't qualify as civil disobedience...it's just juvenile (and criminal).

[AtomicKitten]

36. ok, time to take out the dictionary.

I defaced the car, a non-permanent alteration; my actions could be construed as juvenile (some found it amusing but I have no doubt you will attach the worst possible attribute).

I did not vandalize the car which entails destruction; my actions were not criminal.

Is this so difficult for people to understand? Or are people here at DU so addicted to drama that they simply can't think in terms other than black and white?

Yikes.

[MercutioATC]

38. Fine, "defaced"...there's no legal difference.

If somebody writes "Democrats are Liars" in magic marker on your hood, I hope you'll have have the same sense of humor about it.

Actually, depending on your individual state laws, your action very well may have been criminal. Vandalism is a crime. It's usually legally defined as "Damaging, destroying or defacing any property that is not one's own".

[AtomicKitten]

42. There is a distinct legal difference

Vandalism entails destruction. If I had scratched what I wrote into the car, that would have been vandalism. I used the word "deface" in my OP because I altered the logo, but it was not permanent.

I actually called my buddy in the SF police and inquired because of all you knuckleheads here, and it is just as I have said.

Get over it.

Seriously, some of you people at DU have absolutely no sense of humor. It's like you think you know everything about everything; you don't. It's like you choose up imaginary sides just to argue issues, inevitably going off on a tangent that is based on bullshit at best and usually nothing.

[MercutioATC]

43. Here's the California Law:

594. (a) Every person who maliciously commits any of the following
acts with respect to any real or personal property not his or her
own, in cases other than those specified by state law, is guilty of
vandalism:
(1) Defaces with graffiti or other inscribed material.
(2) Damages.
(3) Destroys.



http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=97305019957+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve


Regardless of what your friend may have told you, it's a crime in California (and everyplace else as far as I know).

[AtomicKitten]

45. ooops!

except if #2 and #3 in the code don't apply and the "graffiti" is removed/removable, no charges of a crime having been committed. Straight from the source. The key is DAMAGE.

Oh, I know that really disappoints you because it's so important that you dominate in any conversation, even in this ridiculously absurd one.

You can climb down off your high horse now. You clearly are incapable of grasping the levity of this, and as much as you try to inflict accusations of a crime being committed, the only crime here is your appalling lack of a sense of humor.

[MercutioATC]

46. Where do you see that?

Besides, we're talking about #1:

"(1) Defaces with graffiti or other inscribed material."

(I'm assuming the "source" you're speaking of is the California Penal Code)

[AtomicKitten]

47. Aaarrrgggh. I told you. I called the SF police.

OK? I live in SF. As much as you would love to see me arrested, it ain't gonna happen. Get over it.

And, for crissake get a life, or a hobby, or an argument about something that matters. People like you have done your best to turn a light-hearted thread into an annual rectal exam.

[MercutioATC]

48. Well, you're not getting good legal advice from them...

I have no interest in having you arrested, I've just seen posts where you accused people of being "retarded" for suggesting that you broke the law. Perhaps the label has been misplaced. According to California Penal Code Section 594, you DID break the law. Despite your claims that the SFPD feel otherwise, the link to the code has been posted and your action was a clear violation.

This has nothing to do with turning a "light-hearted thread" into anything. It has to do with your need to create TWO posts bragging about the incident and insulting anybody who didn't congratulate you.

Wanna talk about "get a life"?

[AtomicKitten]

51. no, just one-quarter of you.

The purpose of the poll, as suggested by another DU'er, was to ferret out the real opposition, and, as usual, it turns out to be a small percentage of people; you just have bigger mouths.

It is amazing to come across message boards that are inhabited by a tremendous group of really terrific, warm, open-minded people, and then there are people like you. In real life, we would not be having this conversation. Because I have a life; I don't think you do which is probably why you are so unpleasant. The SF police are "the source" on this issue, not you.

I have NO problem with people disagreeing with me; I do have a problem with people making outrageous accusations and judging me personally (when they don't even know me). The audacity of some people here is unbelievable.

And the bottom line is I don't have to explain myself to you, wish I had not even bothered, and will remedy that by not doing so in the future.

[MercutioATC]

61. I hope all of that works for you...

Regardless of how you justify it, the fast is that you DID commit vandalism (as defined by California law) regardless of what the SFPD may have told you. You're correct that I'm not "the source" on this issue. The California Penal Code is. Which is the more reliable source, a cop telling you what the law says or the law itself?

The illegality of vandalizing a truck aside, there are people here who don't find the practice of defacing other people's property funny. It doesn't mean that they have no sense of humor, that they don't have a life or that they're not warm and open-minded. It means that they don't feel vandalism is an appropriate way to express your feelings about Diebold.

Oh, and I think that you gave up the right to righteous anger when you started calling people who didn't see things your way "retards"...

[Vidar]

39. "You done good"

[DainBramaged]

40. What about an heroic act?

[Neil Lisst]

41. I cannot tell a lie.

Oh, who I am kidding? Sure I can.

So I'll tell a whopper.

I've never done anything like that, AtomicKitten.
========================================================

The statute of limitations have all run on my similar hi-jinx. Discretion compels me not to mention them, but I'm a prick of the first order. I've done worse, lots worse.

[AtomicKitten]

44. Me neither, seriously.

It was quite a surprise to me too. I'm an adult, well-educated woman living in SF. But it just happened like any other normal natural sequence of events. It was almost as if I couldn't not do it, like I was putting something back into place. Very strange experience.

[Neil Lisst]

50. Next time ...

Tell the story without yourself as the actor.

You SAW someone do it. Better story that way, and you're in the clear.

[AtomicKitten]

53. Well, it would certainly have been more pleasant.

I am stunned at the humorless, insufferable people inhabiting DU. Thanks god they constitute only about one-quarter.

I can hardly wait until the primaries. * sarcasm *

[Neil Lisst]

55. Tell me about it. Humorless people are so ... unfun.

I thought the pukes had the market cornered on people born without a funny bone. Apparently not.

I catch hell at once a week here about one of my cartoons because it doesn't fit someone's paradigm of perfectly Democratic or Progressive.

You can't make an omelet without aborting a few chickens.

[Behind the Aegis]

49. neither

It was not "heinous," nor was it an "act of civil disobedience." Simply, it was childish. 'Heinous' would have been if you burned the truck to the ground. An "act of civil disobedience" would have been if you prevented it from bringing machines into a voting district, after other machines "died."

We all have our childish moments. Some ignore them, some don't. I am not claiming any superiority here, I have certainly done childish things.

Your points to consider:

the writing is removable So is spray-painting "ABORTION IS MURDER" on the side of a woman's clinic or "Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks!" on the side of gay bar. (Yes, I have seen both.)

it was juvenile No argument there.

Diebold had it coming Those 'baby-killers' or 'faggots' had it coming. Does that hold water for you? I bet it doesn't.

vandalism (however temporary) is WRONG I would agree. I may not trust Diebold and many other things, and I might even laugh if I saw what you did, it still is wrong. I bet there are people who would laugh if they saw, on the side of a gay bar, "GAY = Got AIDS yet?"

opportunity knocked, I answered Did you really? Or, did you simply see an opportunity to make "a point?" Opportunity would be if Diebold was making a bid for your town's voting system, and you staged a protest.

So, I didn't vote, but, since you asked, what you did was childish and not admirable. It may be true, and even funny, but it was not "civil disobedience." Had you not given your seat up for a white man because you were Black, that would be admirable and civil disobedience.

[AtomicKitten]

52. Wow, you are clearly superior and a way better person than I.

But since only about one-quarter of those partaking in his poll agree with you, consider my above statement one-quarter sarcasm, the rest indifference. It was never a big deal to begin with and certainly not worthy of the dissertation you wrote on it.

[Behind the Aegis]

54. What poor reading skills you have.

I said;" I am not claiming any superiority here, I have certainly done childish things." I get it tough...because so many support your act, it must be OK! Good logic on your part! :eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

65. one sentence alone, an island in a sea of self-admiration

Yeah, I can read. You, however, are in denial about your self-promotion.

[Behind the Aegis]

79. I don't think it is me who is...

...in denial about self-promotion.

[rinsd]

59. You clearly have need for attention.....

If it wasn't a big deal(to you at least) to begin with, why the poll to validate yourself?

[AtomicKitten]

66. um, because it was suggested by another DU'er that I do it

[rinsd]

68. Because you couldn't figure it out from a 190 post thread?

C'mon now you're just being coy.

I'm not crazy about vandalism or validation of it as a tactic.

But what you did was not a big deal, not the crime of the century or anything like that.

[AtomicKitten]

70. whatever.

thanks very much for your snide comments about me needing attention.

I posted this vignette as a moment of levity. What I did was NOT vandalism; I actually asked a friend (SF police). But that point seems to escape those intent on lecturing.

This place is such a drag sometimes.

I hope you feel better insulting me when all I ever did was try to inject a bit of levity in this fucked-up world. I hope that makes you feel superior or whatever you were going for.

[rinsd]

72. Oh boy now comes the martyr complex....

If only on the internet you could dramatically slam a door on your way out.

Again, this wasn't a big deal. You wanted to make it a big deal.

[AtomicKitten]

75. you can't make that assessment because you don't know me

but that never stopped pseudo-analysts before!

Have a great day. :)

[rinsd]

58. So why add the hyperbole of heinous?

Even people who though it was vandalism on the other thread for the most part did not make a huge deal about it.

Other than waving your arms yelling "look at me", what is the point of this threaad?

[Claymore]

60. Just curious...

...what the reaction would be if some freeper asshole used a marker (temporary or otherwise) to "engage in civil disobedience" on the side of a Sara Lee truck...or a Costco truck...hmmm...I wonder how that would play out....

[RebelOne]

62. Right on! Just because we are Dems doesn't justify the action. n/t

[MercutioATC]

63. You're suggesting there may be a double standard here at DU?!?!?

I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I tell you!

That's the saddest part...many of the people who supported vandalizing a Diebold truck would be completely outraged if a freeper wrote "Dems are Liars" on a Costco truck.

[AtomicKitten]

67. It was sarcasm

as some people were apoplectic (I did nothing a car wash couldn't remedy), making quite the "big deal" of which you speak.

Another DU'er suggested I do the poll to get an accurate accounting, but what it has turned out to be is a personality contest because of the level of immaturity here.

Some people are bereft of a sense of humor.

DU is inhabited by a handful of people who think being a jerk is besting an argument, the only problem is they almost always pick a fight that exists only in their own mind.

That is precisely why the IGNORE function was invented.

[RebelOne]

71. Well, why don't you just put all of us who disagree with you on ignore?

[AtomicKitten]

73. why don't you just give it a rest.

I don't care whether you agree with me or not. But you aren't just not agreeing with me, are you?

Some people (you and a handful of others) seem to think being rude and unpleasant and insulting people gives them the upper-hand. In fact, they generate discord because they seem to only exist in that mode, and moving in packs seems to edify that twisted view of human interaction.

I just tried to inject some levity here. I'm sorry that didn't fit in with your agenda.

But I am not moved nor impressed by your insults and your snottiness. It really only reflects badly on you.

Have a wonderful day. :)

[RebelOne]

74. Me snotty and insulting??? Speak for yourself.

Please put me on ignore so that you don't have to reply to me.

[MercutioATC]

76. "Rude and unpleasant"?

Like calling people who point out that you broke the law "retards" and suggesting that they "get a life"?

Look, you didn't realize you were committing a crime. I'll give you that. However, according to the California Penal Code (which I've linked to a couple of times here) you DID commit vandalism. Some friend with the SFPD saying otherwise doesn't change that fact. If you can show me where in the law it says that what you did wasn't illegal, I'll listen. Otherwise, you're just getting bad legal advice. However, denying that what you did fits the legal definition of vandalism is just silly.

[Claymore]

78. This is beyond having no sense of humor...

...this gets into feeding a negative stereotype, one that you so graciously furthered. There are those who feed on cross-posting threads like yours onto RW blogs and so forth, using it as a way to bash progressives as "angry, juvenile, law-breakers" or God knows what else. And while I'm certain there will be cries of "I don't give a f*ck what they think.", when you're sitting there trying to debate freepers from a point on the moral high ground, it doesn't help things when they whip out a thread from here discussing at length how much fun it was "defacing" the side of a stupid truck.

I also find it insteresting that someone who believes vandalism is okay (if practiced with the best of intentions mind you) would lecture others on maturity. If I didn't know for a fact that you were serious, I'd be laughing my ass off.

[guidod]

80. It was vandalism...

It was not your property. Would you want that done to your property? You said your son was with you, are you sure that's the lesson you want to teach him?

[rasputin1952]

81. Locking

This is an extension of a previously locked thread.

Thank you for your understanding.