Model Railroading > Modelling Graffiti at his Max!!!

OK guys, what about modleing this one. Real one won't need paint for a while, dam complete job here..

---

---

---

I still like the BNSF hopper Grumpy had on his website a few years back, now that was a piece of art!!! I wish I had a copy of it on file.

I like how the RR patched a number over the graffiti rather then repainting it... shows a large part of freight company's mentality.

Jaanfo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like how the RR patched a number over the
> graffiti rather then repainting it... shows a
> large part of freight company's mentality.

It may not have been the owner railroad that did it. It might have been a RIP
track on another railroad.

(Very) generally speaking, freight car taggers know to leave the recording marks visible. Obviously, it they are covered, the someone has an obligation to relace them.

Indeed, it wasn't the RR that repatch the car, look closely, the tagger took the time to go around, as they know if the reporting marks are covered, the RR will then redo part of the paint job and affect their work, their goal is to have this as a rolling billboard for a while, not to have it destroyed as soon as they do it

I believe the reporting marks are left alone also because its a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor, should they hopefully get caught.

They will also need to be careful about covering the new reflectors required by law. Now they could possibly be charged with murder should someone run into a railcar with its reflectors covered by graffiti paint.

LarryG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They will also need to be careful about covering
> the new reflectors required by law. Now they
> could possibly be charged with murder should
> someone run into a railcar with its reflectors
> covered by graffiti paint.

In the above scenario, I don't think you'd get the "intent" necessary for murder, but manslaughter would be a definite possibility.

It's an impressive piece of work technique wise, but a total failure at communicating whatever the guy wanted to say. Heck I can't even read the signature! Truly a lot of work and a complete waste of time.
Clarence

toledopatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LarryG Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They will also need to be careful about
> covering
> > the new reflectors required by law. Now they
> > could possibly be charged with murder should
> > someone run into a railcar with its reflectors
> > covered by graffiti paint.
>
> In the above scenario, I don't think you'd get the
> "intent" necessary for murder, but manslaughter
> would be a definite possibility.


You don't necessarily need "intent" for a murder charge. In many states, there is a concept of law called "Felony Murder" or "Capital Murder", simplified, if someone dies in the commission of a felony, or as the result of a felony, the person or persons committing the felony can be charged with murder. An example might be that someone wrecks a train, but nobody is hurt or killed. During the clean-up operations, a cable on a winch breaks and someone is killed by the whipping cable. That would be sufficient for the capital murder charge.

However, I doubt that in a case like this, painting over the reflectors, would reach the level of conduct needed to be considered as a felony, unless the accident happened almost immediately thereafter, and you could prove a direct causation link. If the RR had the knowledge of the painting and the opportunity to fix the problem and didn't, the felony/capital murder requirements would not be present in most states.