I thought about this subject late into the evening and I thought of another possible reason for the perceived “unequal” application of the laws.
According to the TX penal code, misdemeanor offenses (offenses that usually result in a ticket) can only be enforced if committed in the presence of a peace officer. For instance, you can only get a speeding ticket if a cop sees you speeding. He can’t give you a ticket, after the fact, just because your neighbor told the cop you were speeding when the cop didn’t see it himself. Likewise, the cop can’t give a ticket to someone posting illegal signs unless the person is actually seen by the cop posting the signs. This guy might have just gotten caught.
This protester admitted that he was posting the anti-obama signs as a counter-protest to the pro-obama signs. If he did not do it covertly and got caught, that would be why he received the ticket. It is possible that the pro-obama people, if they violated the law also (which we don’t know for sure yet), simply were not seen by the cops so the cops can’t, under TX law, give them a ticket after the fact.
Also, since Houston PD and code enforcement are severely understaffed, I doubt they will spend the money or manpower fingerprinting the posters in order to hunt down the culprits and I doubt the pro-obama people were kind enough to leave their contact information on the posters. Even if the cops found them, it is doubtful the culprits could be prosecuted because it is a misdemeanor offense and the violation was not committed within the presence of law enforcement.
Also ,much of inner-city Houston contains liberal minorities. Cops don’t like to go to those areas of town unless necessary due to gangs. If the cops see posters in those areas they certainly won’t stop to take them down. I really doubt they would stop in any part of Houston because they have more urgent matters to deal with.
I’m sure this explanation won’t cover all of the “vandalism” concerns, but it might shed light on some of the enforcement issues, if there actually has been a violation of the law.
Now I can’t speak to the “slamming” on the hood of the car because I don’t know if it did or did not happen. The protester says it did happen, but so far nothing has backed that up. We’ll just have to wait and see.
I’m still at the office working on a project that is off the tracks on someone else’s end.
http://www.houstontx.gov/graffiti/facts.html
“The penalty for tagging in Houston can be a misdemeanor if damage is less than $500. Committing a graffiti act can also be a felony if damages are more than $500. The degree of the felony depends on the amount of damage done. A misdemeanor includes a fine or time in jail, or both. It is a city ordinance that no one under 17 may purchase “implements of graffiti.” This includes spray paint or big tipped markers. Houston treats graffiti as a crime, not a prank.”
—
The crime can be prosecuted after the fact. They can hold a trial and present evidence (especially when the artist includes the “tag” among his flickr or myspace album). Some are bold enough to ID pieces as their work in books. That would constitute an admission of guilt.
http://www.houstontx.gov/graffiti/itsacrime.html
STATE LAWS
Texas Penal Code §28.08 makes it a crime to intentionally or knowingly make markings with aerosol paint, indelible marker or an etching or engraving device on tangible property without consent of the owner. Markings can include inscriptions, slogans, drawings or paintings. Penalties are assessed based on the amount of loss suffered by the property owner and may range from fines up to $2000 and/or confinement for up to 180 days, up to fines of $10,000 and/or confinement for 5 to 99 years
—
The state code makes no reference to paste-up posters or stickers.
http://library7.municode.com/default-test/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setHitDoc&doc_hit=1
“Graffiti implement means an aerosol paint container, a permanent broad-tipped marker, a gum label, a paint stick, a graffiti stick, a graffiti cap, any etching equipment, a brush or any other device capable of scarring or leaving a visible mark on any natural or manmade surface.”
“Visual blight means any unauthorized graffiti or any other unauthorized form of painting, scratching, writing or inscription, including without limitation, initials, slogans or drawings, regardless of the content or nature of the material that has been applied to any wall, building, fence, sign, or other structure or surface and is visible from any public property or right-of-way or is visible from the private property of another person.”
Maybe “gum label” would cover stickers but it may not be broad enough to cover wheatpaste.
A BROAD interpretation of “or any other device capable of scarring or leaving a visible mark on any natural or manmade surface.” could include damage caused by pasting up (or more likely REMOVING) a pasteup.The code should be tightened to clear up this possible loophole.
Instead the main force of the legislation (locally) appears to be to force a property owner to clean it up or else face charges and fines. Blame the victim and line the city budget coffers.
“It shall be unlawful for any person to possess any graffiti implement while in or upon any public facility, building or structure owned or operated by the city or while in or within 50 feet of any underpass, bridge abutment, storm drain, or similar types of infrastructure unless otherwise authorized by the city.”
I wonder if this includes pens and markers (which are commonly used graffiti implements) even if you have no intention to use them in that manner and they do have other applicable uses.
I have my suspicions.
As I say, there are some "famous" graffiti taggers who market their work commercially. The city knows who they are and yet they continue about their tasks.
There were severally galleries in town that have had exhibitions of Shepard Fairey's work prior to the Obama posters being released (and shipped out to friendly souls across the nation).
Whereas the city may have had little interest in persuing the culprits, they should have at least done the responsible thing and taken down the illegally posted campaign propagnda that was rudely glued to public equipment. It was on city property and not the responsibility of any citizen to clean it up. In fact, attempts to remove it might have scratched the surface on those boxes leading to "graffiti charges" against a do good citizen who was trying to REMOVE the poster.