Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

stork38 t1_j0zmg25 wrote

Reply to comment by mowotlarx in New York City Councilman Erik Blottcher's office, home vandalized with hate speech by mowotlarx

> is that OK because it can just be washed away?

Try reading my comment a little slower next time

−6

mowotlarx OP t1_j0znecm wrote

I read exactly what you wrote. You posed that if hate speech can be "washed away with rain" , then it's somehow not vandalism and not a criminal act. Vandalism doesn't need to be destruction, it can also be defacing.

10

stork38 t1_j0zy0p0 wrote

https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+vandalism

0

mowotlarx OP t1_j101iry wrote

The legal definition of vandalism includes defacing. It includes things that require cleaning as well as repair.

9

stork38 t1_j107xin wrote

There is no such law on the New York books called vandalism. There is a law called criminal mischief though, and it requires actual damage. If you're going to lock whoever wrote this, you'll also have to lock up little kids who play hopscotch by your twisted logic.

−1

mowotlarx OP t1_j10b9q6 wrote

You think writing hate speech and slurs outside the home of a gay politician is the same as kids drawing a hop scotch game?

6

stork38 t1_j10bvhy wrote

The message still doesn't make it vandalism. What don't you understand?

2

mowotlarx OP t1_j10easi wrote

You're being dense.

If you refuse to acknowledge that things that can be washed away are considered vandalism, feel free to look up hate crime laws in this state.

2