Brickbat: Everyone Is a Critic

Charles Oliver | 8.15.2012 6:00 AM

A Virginia judge sentenced Susan Mortensen to 50 hours of community service for vandalism after her 4-year-old daughter made chalk drawings on rocks in a Richmond park.

Brickbat Archive

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

NEXT: Incumbent, Stearns, Loses To Newcomer, Yoho

Hide Comments (65)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

Mr Whipple 13 years ago

"She's very scared of chalk for one," Mortensen told WTVR in July. "And she's very nervous around cops."

Well then, this story has a happy ending after all.
Whiterun Guard 13 years ago

I guess we should just chalk this up to a misguided judge.
Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago

During a court hearing, Officer Stacy Rogers testified that Mortensen had cursed when she was given the ticket.

It's interesting that Oliver chose to conveniently leave this part out of the story. Officer Stacy was verbally assaulted while doing his/her (I'm guessing her either way) vital public service. Hopefully Mortensen (of should I call her Mortifierson?) is subjected to curse words the entire fifty hours.
Suthenboy 13 years ago

What does 'cursed mean'?
The fact that she spoke her mind exacerbated the crime?

Some time ago we had a case here in Louisiana where a guy was convicted for saying 'fuck you' to the police. HIs conviction was overturned on appeal....it was ruled free speech ( what a revelation!).
1. Whiterun Guard 13 years ago
  
  Maybe she said something like 'May the brimstone fires of Olm rain upon you and your children and your childrens children until the Gorg is finally unleashed to turn your bones to dust!"
  1. Killazontherun 13 years ago
    
    I don't this cute little guy is hurting anyone.
2. Suthenboy 13 years ago
  
  The other side of the coin is this.
  
  Officer Stacy Rogers was no doubt specifically instructed by her superior to put a stop to chalk drawings on said rocks. She had no discretion in the matter. Possibly she had discretion to give warning rather than give a ticket, but possibly not.
  
  While Mortensen does have the right to speak her mind, cursing the police officer who does not make the laws/rules and has little discretion about enforcement, instinctively seems like an unwise strategy to me.
  
  I am in no way endorsing the court's ruling here. It was a 4 yo drawing with chalk that the first rain will wash away for fuck's sake. The real villian here, the judge, is not mentioned by name. I looked it up and Virginia's district judges are elected by the State General Assembly. That insulates the judges somewhat from accountability to the voters that they serve. Fortunately, here in La, our judges are elected directly by the voters.
  I have watched La district judges many times and find that the judges here mostly tread very carefully when hearing cases.
  1. SugarFree 13 years ago
    
    Do you know who else said they were just following orders?
    1. Rich 13 years ago
      
      The short order cook at Denny's?
    2. mr simple 13 years ago
      
      The Saints defense?
    3. Auric Demonocles 13 years ago
      
      Dunphy?
    4. Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago
      
      The warehouse?
  2. robc 13 years ago
    
    has little discretion about enforcement
    
    Not true, they have 100% discretion. It may cost them their job, but they have it.
    1. Suthenboy 13 years ago
      
      Good point.
Fluffy 13 years ago

I would think that "vandalism" would require the use of a medium that won't wash away the first time it rains.

Calling this "vandalism" is like calling it "vandalism" if I draw a smiley face with my finger in the condensation on a window.
1. Mr Whipple 13 years ago
  
  I'll have to check my Funk Wagnalls.
  1. Mr Whipple 13 years ago
    
    Squirrels eat ampersands?
    1. Almanian 1 13 years ago
      
      For breakfast, lunch and dinner.
      1. Generic Stranger 13 years ago
        
        Feeding the server squirrels ampersands instead of peanuts slashes Reason's hosting costs by 4.3%.
        
        Almanian 1 13 years ago
        
        You learn something ebby day
2. sarcasmic 13 years ago
  
  The punishment wasn't for the chalk, it was for not showing sufficient respect to the officer of the court.
  
  Rule of man, baby!
  
  Rule of man!
3. Rich 13 years ago
  
  I would think that "vandalism" would require the use of a medium that won't wash away the first time it rains.
  
  "Wash away", huh? The runoff collects in the nooks and crannies and is there *forever* even though it gets covered up by natural crud.
  
  /Nip juvenile delinquency in the bud
Bee Tagger 13 years ago

made chalk drawings on rocks in a Richmond park.

They're cutting cocaine with chalk, now?
1. Mr Whipple 13 years ago
  
  No, no. Chalk isn't water soluble.
Mr Whipple 13 years ago
1. Mr Whipple 13 years ago
  
  Yup. Squirrels eat ampersands.
  1. Whiterun Guard 13 years ago
    
    Also greater than / less than signs.
    1. Mr Whipple 13 years ago
      
      Good to know!
Stormy Dragon 13 years ago

The "park" isn't a traditional city park; it's a nature preserve. People don't go to nature preserves to see things all scribbled over with grafitti, even if it's temporary.

The punishment may have been over the top, but on the other hand the reaction in certain quarters has been just has ridiculous. People shouldn't be allowed to just scribble all over public property whenever they feel like it.
1. mr simple 13 years ago
  
  That's right; she's trampling all over your right to not be offended!
2. Bee Tagger 13 years ago
  
  People don't go to nature preserves to see things all scribbled over with grafitti, even if it's temporary.
  
  Using this rationale, how is this any different than arresting a person because they are at the nature preserve wearing clothing that some people find unattractive?
  
  Also, some (I would hope most) people may look at chalk drawings on rocks and have positive and nostalgic feelings because they recognize that a child most likely had fun there.
3. Fluffy 13 years ago
  
  The impermanent nature of the marks still argue against it being vandalism.
  
  It's like saying I'm "littering" if I'm drinking a bottled water there and some drops of the water spill on the sidewalk. Sure, people shouldn't be able to just dump stuff on the sidewalk, but it's still more than a little ridiculous.
  
  People don't go to nature preserves to see things all scribbled over with grafitti
  
  You'd have to be an uptight asshole to freak out about a child's drawing on a rock at a nature preserve. Ever walk over a chalk hopscotch board some kids have drawn on a sidewalk? Did you think to yourself, "Aw, that's cute" or did you think to yourself, "This child's hopscotch board has destroyed my morning by making my walking experience different from my expectations!" I submit that if you think the latter, you're a dick.
  
  MAYBE if they told her to stop and leave and she refused, it could be trespass. And if you did it to someone's private property, you could MAYBE call it harassment if it caused the property owner some distress. But vandalism? That should require damage, which should require the marks to be less ephemeral than this.
  1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
    
    The mother argued with the police officer. That's what it is all about.
    
    Had she unquestioningly submitted to the officer and obeyed orders, nothing further would have happened.
    
    But she didn't. She had the temerity to talk back to authority, and now she is being punished.
    
    This isn't about vandalism, it's about a serf getting all uppity to a knight, and a member of the nobility putting her in her place.
  2. Stormy Dragon 13 years ago
    
    And if you did it to someone's private property, you could MAYBE call it harassment if it caused the property owner some distress.
    
    So now you're saying I have a right to go onto anyone's property and start doing chalk drawings on anything I like as long as it's not permanent?
    1. Fluffy 13 years ago
      
      No, douche, I'm saying it's not VANDALISM.
      
      That would, as I said in the very post you're replying to, be trespass. And possibly harassment.
      
      If some jokers were coming on to my property every night and moving my garbage cans from the left side of my shed to the right side, they would be breaking the law, but not committing the specific crime of VANDALISM.
    2. Bee Tagger 13 years ago
      
      Sounds like trespassing is the problem here.
      1. Killazontherun 13 years ago
        
        How can you trespass on property that you own?
        
        Bee Tagger 13 years ago
        
        I was responding to Stormy's hypothetical:
        
        So now you're saying I have a right to go onto anyone's property and start doing chalk drawings on anything I like as long as it's not permanent?
      2. RBS 13 years ago
        
        Sounds more like Stormy can't contain her ignorance.
    3. Paul. 13 years ago
      
      So now you're saying I have a right to go onto anyone's property and start doing chalk drawings on anything I like as long as it's not permanent?
      
      The property belonged to the mother and child in the story.
4. Suthenboy 13 years ago
  
  I bet you are a laugh a minute to spend time with!
  
  Just kidding Stormy, I am sure you are a one-person party.
  1. RBS 13 years ago
    
    Just as long as that party isn't at Chik-fil-A.
5. Killazontherun 13 years ago
  
  People shouldn't be allowed to just scribble all over public property whenever they feel like it.
  
  Why not? Are they not the owners?
  1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
    
    Nope. Public property means it is owned by everyone but any one individual.
    Similarly individuals are to submit to public servants, since "the public" means "everyone but you".
    1. Killazontherun 13 years ago
      
      Private property is just an irrational myth created by selfish people. Public property, however, is based on a proven scientific rational that the submission to the collective by will lead to social evolution necessary to the species continued survival. It's as simple as that.
      1. Killazontherun 13 years ago
        
        A chunk got erased. I'll simplify that a bit.
        
        that the submission submitting to the collective by will lead to the social evolution of the species necessary to the species our continued survival
      2. Stormy Dragon 13 years ago
        
        Oh yeah, because "Don't deface the nature preserve" == "There should be no private property"
        
        Killazontherun 13 years ago
        
        There is no underlying rationale for public property. It falls apart with even the simplest arguments much less more complex ones involving solid economic theory. That is what I'm trying to show you, you blind dunderhead.
        
        Stormy Dragon 13 years ago
        
        Then sell the park. But as long as it is public property, that doesn't mean people should feel free to deface natural features. I'd prefer the Smitsonian was a private museum too, that doesn't mean I'd be okay with someone going in and letting their four year old scribble on the paintings.
  2. Stormy Dragon 13 years ago
    
    Well I-95 is public property. Can I have a picnic in the middle of it? I mean I do own it, so I should be able to do whatever I like, right?
    1. Killazontherun 13 years ago
      
      You wont ever catch me stopping you, so it's a terrible analogy.
    2. Rich 13 years ago
      
      No problemo, Stormy. Just remember to park your car on the fast-lane shoulder with the hood up.
    3. RBS 13 years ago
      
      Are you trying to be retarded or does it just come naturally?
      1. Stormy Dragon 13 years ago
        
        Yes, I am trying to be retarded. It's called "reducio ad absurdum". The point is that just because something is public property doesn't mean any individual member of the public is free to use it however they like. I can't picnic on the highway, I can't take a nap ontop of the judge's bench at the country courthouse, I can't have a parade at the Fort Indiantown Gap firing range, and I can't draw all over the rocks at the local nature preserve.
        
        RBS 13 years ago
        
        I know what you were trying to do. I was insulting you because not only are you a moron but you are tiresome as well.
    4. Kaptious Kristen 13 years ago
      
      Can I have a picnic in the middle of it?
      
      I would encourage this. I might even pay for your spread. Even something fancy like Zabar's or Balducci's.
      1. Copernicus 13 years ago
        
        This is the same reason why I support legalizing all drugs. I can open Copernicus OD service.
6. Robert 13 years ago
  
  Don't people blaze trails in nature preserves?
  
  I'd've simply denied the girl was my daughter.
Almanian 1 13 years ago

I feel like Cartmen when nothing was funny any more. The daily authoritah and stupid has gotten SO great that nothing enrages me, nothing surprises me. I expect shit like this any more. I just read it and think, "Well, of COURSE they're trampling someone's rights and privileges. What did you expect? The Spanish Inquisition?"

Sad, I am :*(
1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
  
  You'll love this, then.
  
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....okers.html
  
  NYC cop shoots homeless man's dog after it growls at him in reaction to the officer kicking the dog's owner.
  1. Rich 13 years ago
    
    "I talked to the cop afterwards. He was very shaken up. He's a dog lover and it ruined his week, if not his year."
    
    Disability retirement in 3, 2, 1, ....
    1. Auric Demonocles 13 years ago
      
      As a dog lover, I frequently kick them.
  2. Almanian 1 13 years ago
    
    *waits*
    
    Nope - nothin'.
    
    WEIRD!
Auric Demonocles 13 years ago

I wish the article was more thorough. I want to be outraged, but I can't be sure. Since when are parents charged with children's crimes?
1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
  
  Since they talked back to a cop.
2. Stormy Dragon 13 years ago
  
  Tell your five year old into a store and bring something back out to you without paying and see what happens to you.
  1. Almanian 1 13 years ago
    
    "Sir, your son stole that."
    
    "Here's your gum back - I'll addres Mr. Stickyhands....thank you."
    
    No? I'm dreaming that? Probably...
  2. Auric Demonocles 13 years ago
    
    Then you'd be an accomplish. Or involved in a conspiracy to commit theft.
    1. Auric Demonocles 13 years ago
      
      Also, possible an accomplice. Where's the damn edit button?

Please log in to post comments

Brickbat: Everyone Is a Critic

Latest

The Supreme Court Said States Can't Discriminate in Alcohol Sales. They're Doing It Anyway.

Cocaine Hippos, Monkey Copyrights, and a Horse Named Justice: The Debate Over Animal Personhood

Harvard's Best Protection Is To Get Off the Federal Teat

Trump's Mass Cancellation of Student Visas Illustrates the Lawlessness of His Immigration Crackdown

Come July, Keys Will Be De Facto Illegal In Minnesota

Recommended

Login Form