I refer you to the reast of the thread, and to the other thread; but as a general rule, you shouldn't use one sensationalist semi-tabloid news source to confirm another.
I refer to your constant stream of rolling your eyes about discussions you don't actually enter in any sustained way. There's an awful lot of that here lately, it's lame.
Apart from my citing the relevant bits of the penal code, explaining the differences between questions of law and of fact, how California law governs responsibility for sidewalks, sure. So I'm a guy who likes having my facts straight instead of going off on an emotional tirade, shoot me.
Most of the outrage porn that gets posted to HN is very poorly founded in fact.
Oops, iPhone slipped. Any way, the city attorney office in San Diego is one of the worst. If they could execute you for jaywalking, they would, and they drag everything to trial.
I'm not at all enthused about the guy being prosecuted. But we both know that he's not facing 13 years, and that if the judge rules the first amendment isn't a valid defense in a prosecution for vandalism of private property and then tells his lawyer that he can't try that argument on the jury, it doesn't mean the Constitution is being murdered in the judge's chambers.
I'm not arguing for the prosecution here. I'm arguing for the inclusion of relevant context in news reporting, and for people to engage their critical faculties in discussions of legal issues.
