Lets break it down logically. I think most people would agree this guy should be found guilty if he had used spraypaint to deface sidewalks 13 times. Spraypaint, like chalk, is removable too, it just requires more effort and cost. Removing the chalk, according to BoA, cost a few thousand dollars. (Probably because they had to hire someone come with a power washer, and weren't going to ask their employees to do it.)
I guess my question is, why is chalk different than spraypaint in the eyes of the law? Is it because the rain will wash it away, or because the relative cost to washing it away with a hose is low compared to more permanent media? What if there is no hose access to the sidewalk in an area where there is no rain for weeks at a time? Where is the line drawn?
Other people have discussed and refuted your various arguments. I want to tackle something else.
You are dismissing elements of the case as if they aren't important.
> Lets break it down logically.
Logic dictates that you look at the case at hand, not at all the possible permutations.
It's not as if you can say simply that killing someone is a crime and deserves X punishment, regardless of the details, and driving over the speed limit isn't an instant ticket if seen by a cop.
So, then you ask:
> why is chalk different than spraypaint in the eyes of the law?
First, because they are different. They aren't the same. Not all cases of vandalism are the same, and they shouldn't be treated the same.
We see what happens in cases like that when people use zero-tolerance as an excuse to come down hard on someone who was clearly not doing anything harmful.
> What if there is no hose access to the sidewalk in an area where there is no rain for weeks at a time?
And what if it was raining at the time? The person drawing while the rain immediately washed it away. One could argue then that the act of vandalism still occurred in both cases. One just happened to happen while it rained.
Your paint comparison is plainly erroneous. Paint poses practical safety and environmental problems and is therefore not comparable to chalk.
The rest of your comment appears based on an equally faulty premise -- that I would think the messages need to be washed away (naturally or otherwise) at all. Why on earth would I invite massive use of chalk on sidewalks for virtually any purpose if I would be bothered by its presence?
In my view, it was BoA's choice to waste their money on an overpriced erasure of a message they dislike. My opinion on the use of chalk on sidewalks changes not one whit whether they make that choice or not.
Chalk messages could remain on sidewalks until universal thermodynamic equilibrium is achieved, I really couldn't care less.
> Removing the chalk, according to BoA, cost a few thousand dollars.
When I was a kid I used to wash cars for $8-10. A few thousand dollars? Pay 10 year old me a few hundred and I'd wash it every weekend. Forget the car washing business.
I guess my question is, why is chalk different than spraypaint in the eyes of the law? Is it because the rain will wash it away, or because the relative cost to washing it away with a hose is low compared to more permanent media? What if there is no hose access to the sidewalk in an area where there is no rain for weeks at a time? Where is the line drawn?