By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On November 23, 2025, Austin Trahan and James Houchins were arrested for defacing the former Pulse Memorial crosswalk with chalk and writing the word “Resist” nearby. A Florida Highway Patrol trooper responded to the scene after the Department of Transportation reported the incident, finding video evidence of the vandalism. Despite denying the act, the suspects were apprehended at a nearby Dunkin Donuts, matching the descriptions from the video and were taken into custody after providing their names and birthdays.
Read the original article here
‘Resist’: Two arrested after chalking former Pulse Memorial Crosswalk. The situation, as it appears, involves two individuals, Austin Trahan and James Houchins, who were taken into custody after they were observed “aggressively chalking” a crosswalk near the former Pulse nightclub memorial. The term “aggressively chalking” is, to put it mildly, raising eyebrows. It seems like the language is deliberately chosen to portray an otherwise mundane act in a dramatic, even menacing, light. The fact that the crosswalk in question had already been removed or painted over, potentially by the Florida Department of Transportation, adds a layer of absurdity to the whole scenario.
The video evidence provided to Trooper Gonzalez supposedly shows the individuals “grinding chalk” onto the crosswalk, with the word “Resist” chalked nearby. The presence of a third, unidentified individual acting as a lookout further adds to the perceived gravity of the situation. However, the use of such loaded language as “aggressively chalking” feels disproportionate. It’s hard to imagine how this seemingly harmless act could be construed as dangerous or destructive. The fact that chalk is easily washed away with rain further underlines the lack of any significant or lasting impact.
The choice of words and the context surrounding the arrests suggest an overreach of authority, or at least a misrepresentation of the situation. Some might suggest that this article, and the police report it’s based on, were slanted to make the act of writing with chalk seem dangerous. There’s a certain irony in this. Those in positions of power seem to be intentionally downplaying speech, despite its immense power, and the implications of this cannot be overlooked. Speech, after all, is a cornerstone of any free society, and the idea of criminalizing such an innocuous form of expression seems antithetical to the very freedoms that society should uphold.
One can’t help but wonder if the response would have been so severe if the message written in chalk had been different, if it had not been “Resist.” The very use of this word seems to have been the impetus for this aggressive pursuit and prosecution. The situation feels like a heavy-handed attempt to suppress dissent, to stifle voices of protest, no matter how small or ephemeral the act of protest. This feels as though the resources used here could have been better allocated to matters of genuine importance.
Given the nature of the act, the reaction seems to indicate a worrying trend of suppressing any form of expression that could be perceived as critical or challenging to the status quo. If activism leads to arrest, perhaps that is a sign that one is doing something right. It’s an indictment of the system when such a simple, non-violent act results in legal charges. It’s important to remember the right to jury nullification in this situation. It’s a fundamental aspect of the American legal system that allows a jury to disregard the law if they believe it is unjust or unfairly applied.
The use of chalk art, a temporary and non-damaging form of expression, as the basis for arrest and potential prosecution raises serious questions about the priorities and values of the authorities involved. The fact that the story is being reported with such a degree of sensationalism, emphasizing words like “aggressively chalking” and “grinding,” reveals a disturbing bias. The language used seems more appropriate for describing a violent crime, not a minor act of street art.
Perhaps we are at a point where the simple act of expressing an opinion, even through something as fleeting as chalk on a sidewalk, is considered a threat. It certainly paints a disturbing picture of the current state of freedom of expression. If the argument is that this constitutes defacement, then one could argue that every car leaving tire marks at a stoplight is also guilty of the same. The notion of “aggressive chalking” seems almost farcical, bordering on the absurd.
The context of this incident, near the former Pulse nightclub memorial, might be taken into consideration, as chalking something such as “Resist” near the memorial of the victims could be seen as a disrespectful act. However, the authorities did not reveal how close to the memorial the “Resist” was written. If we are to take what is being reported at face value, there were other factors at play, such as the fact that the memorial was no longer in its original state.
The arrest of these two individuals for “aggressively chalking” the crosswalk is a clear example of the overreach of authority and the prioritization of trivial matters over important ones. If activism is the reason these two were arrested, then they certainly made an impression. Their cause is perhaps even more compelling given the way the state has chosen to respond to it.