Chicagoist: The Guardian Angels vs CTA Graffiti: Detain or Assault?

GL

Sun, 22 Mar 2009 22:22:31 -0600

Did Matlock even have a high speed connection? For the record, my unfounded assessment is assault.

jb008

Sun, 22 Mar 2009 18:20:42 -0600

The CEO and and Founder of Guardian Angels is Curtis Sliwa Curtis@GuardianAngels.org Similarly, the Chicago Branch of Guardian Angels is Chicago, IL - United States Chapter Leader: Miguel Fuentes Mobile Phone: 312.217.7245 Email Address: Chicago@GuardianAngels.org Drop them a line and let them know their video went viral :)

jb008

Sun, 22 Mar 2009 18:20:07 -0600

jb008

Sun, 22 Mar 2009 18:19:35 -0600

jerico

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:57:44 -0600

I was rather angry watching this. The GA seemed real excessive holding that kid down like that. I'd assume that the cops think that the situation and GA itself are a fucking joke... and actually making the cops get out of their double parked car on western to retrieve the kid with the marker, and the group of vigilantes high fiving each other for this MAJOR BUST!! Personally, I think that I would've taken the opportunity to fight my way out of that hold and get out of there, had one of those straight edge hot head fascists tried to grab me to make a fucking citizens arrest. Toss em onto the tracks for the camera and get out... you know, accidents happen when you're trying to do something that you shouldn't be doing. GA: best of luck with the Police Academy tests. Be sure to tell them that you're a Guardian Angel... your application will probably end up in the toilet.

thetwelfthstate

Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:22:33 -0600

I can't believe nobody's said this yet....but: WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN?!

Not_another_username

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:01:55 -0600

This is battery, not assault. I mean if it's anything.

Mary_Sunshine

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:52:12 -0600

Spav should know....

Navin

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:23:22 -0600

Yeah, it may not look pretty, but try watching UFC. I'd say you've watched enough already you cheesy macho jagoff.

JessNevins

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:36:37 -0600

Did you ever play Frogger as a kid? Cause your leaps in logic are fantastic. If we let taggers "get away with it" it's as good as letting rapists run wild. If someone compares the Guardian Angels to a gang (a group of young men and women who act beyond the law?) they're accusing them of drug-dealing. You're trying very hard to defend a group of vigilantes. This is not the wild west. Petty vandalism is not best answered with physical force. The fact you can't seem to differentiate between crimes against property and crimes against people doesn't speak well for your argument.

AndrewJStone

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:35:25 -0600

The commenting on this site is truly atrocious... sorry Spook, that wasn't directed at you.

AndrewJStone

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:21:37 -0600

Really, Matty? Never around when you need them? Are you sure that its not just the opposite... them being around deters the type of activity that would require you to "need" them? Look, the back and forth on the legality and morals of these guys could go on forever. I'd rather they be on my train than those they aim to bust.

Spook

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:23:11 -0600

I wish some one would tell that to the three people sleeping taking up three seperate seats on my morning train. G.A's we need you!!!! I think the last car should be the designated "sleeper car"

Oskee2001

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:38:10 -0600

sleeping on trains is illegal too.

Oskee2001

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:30:36 -0600

sleeping is illegal on trains too.

jimbo

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:14:33 -0600

To be fair, just because the GA's consider all city property to be theirs, doesn't actually make it so

Spook

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:59:48 -0600

Hummmm does this mean the mightly G.A will also go after litter bugs? I might have to change my mind and before thier new campaign to take down the quality of life crime perps! Give a hoot don't pollute

Synocrat

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 05:12:27 -0600

I'm all with draco on this one. Perhaps most Chicagoans are a bit tougher than the liberal softies on here (I'm a softie on some issues, I guess), but I appreciate someone standing up to ignorant punks wrecking things with their vandalism. Without adding a liberal or conservative, or a red and blue slant to this... people in general just don't care to stand up and be firm anymore. There have been a couple times I've personally seen things happen on the train, and I for one will always stand up and say something, and do something if warranted. Too many times I see people just try and ignore it and look down and be quiet and it just makes me sick. Like it or not, we are our brothers keepers. If everyone stood up to this kind of thing, it wouldn't happen nearly so much. Everyone who isn't a criminal should try and be a good citizen. Clean up "tagging", pick up trash on the street and in the parks, and know your neighbors. The elderly man who lives across the alley from us has saved us from being broken in to twice by sticking his head out his window and shouting, and I'm always certain to stop and chat with him for awhile when I see him taking out the trash. Anyone else have any good examples of being a good person instead of childish Ad Hominem attacks on a comments section?

draco

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:20:07 -0600

Those who say the Angels should only step in for violent crimes, so what, they should let taggers spray in front of them? They should let someone break into a car and steal everything while they watch and call the police? What kind of deterent to crime would that be? The guy that says they're not there when you need them, what are they supposed to be your personal guardian angels? Why aren't you there for your community when it needs you? If more people joined the Angels, they'd be more patrols genius. And it doesn't cost more taxes or take away more of your rights. It's so ridiculous how people side with the criminal, it's almost like Stockholm Syndrome. People are so terrorized by criminals, they identify with them, try to appease and please them so they're not the next victim. The dude broke the law, what do you want to do throw him a party? If I spray your car, I don't expect you to be a happy camper and I incur whatever injuries when I resist your attempts to arrest me. If some dude sprayed my car, I'd just knock him out and forget trying to control him, and you know what, I'd be within the law. It's minimal force necessary to detain and if I know I can't control him one-on-one with a submission hold, I have the right to knock him out with a strike. Some guy compares these guys to gangs. Yeah, sure, they sell drugs, pimp women, and carry guns. You guys are in for a treat when unemployment increases and a crime wave ensues, and I doubt anyone will be crying for criminals anymore as more people get raped, mugged, and killed.

draco

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:55:48 -0600

First of all a legal lesson for all the braindeads. Someone tags your car. You have the right to make a citizens arrest. If they resist (which is expected) you may use minimum force to detain them. In other words, submission moves, joint locks, whatever it takes to keep them under control until police arrive. Yeah, it may not look pretty, but try watching UFC. It takes a LOT of violence to control an unwilling participant who does not want to be detained. You may think getting ankle locked is not nice just because you spray painted something, but I'd like to see what a regular citizen does when he sees someone spray paint his car. Angels view all city property as theirs as every citizen should and they will protect all citizens as their own family members. This is not Rodney King folks, only wimpy wusses probably get shocked by a little ground grappling. Seriously watch UFC some day. It's not easy controlling people without some submission moves or joint locks. Now you say, why arrest someone for spray painting? Okay, let's make it legal then. Let's make vandalism legal too. No one gets hurt right. We all just pay more for our transit passes. Let's make white collar crimes legal too since nobody gets hurt. Let's make fraud legal. Let's make libel, slander, copyright infringement legal too. Because seriously, if you have to arrest someone for fraud and they resist, god forbid we should put a wrist lock or ankle lock on them and use violence for a non-violent crime. What a bunch of sissies. And I thought Chicago folks were tougher than that. Of course, when someone tags your car, I'd love to see you criticize the dude who helps you arrest the guy, who puts an ankle lock on him to keep him from bashing your skull in. OH MY THAT ANKLE LOCK LOOKS SO VIOLENT!!!!!!!! OH MY HE PUT PRESSURE AGAINST HIS NOSE!!!!! NOT PRESSURE AGAINST THE NOSE!!!! THAT SMARTS THAT DOES!!!! I'LL SUE AND TAKE THEM TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NASAL DIGNITY!!!!

daveswagon

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:54:39 -0600

Uh, I believe if someone breaks the law, GA or otherwise, you call the police. Just because they're helping enforce the law doesn't mean they're above it.

matty

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:30:05 -0600

Did Matilda reallu turn a discussion about the guardian angels into one about herself? How is that possible?

kgvs72

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:15:25 -0600

They should be on the Red line from 47th Street to 95th. Plenty of work there. While they are at it hop on the Green Line as well.

JessNevins

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:05:01 -0600

Oh my god. You're a crazy person! I love it. You're actually offended by me mentioning the name of a fictional character. Are you like this with people offline? Three posts here on this thread and you've been nothing but insufferable. Did you really just pick every word I posted over? What are you, the Hannibal Lecter of Craigslist. That's a character from a book and a movie since you apparently live in a cave. With internet access. And have worked in retail. No one cares as much as you're pretending to. In fact, no one cares what you have to say at all. This is what I get for feeding the troll. Sorry everyone.

Ingrid

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:03:45 -0600

Matilda, I know you have a thing about using pop culture in a debate...but seriously...what's wrong with it? If it can frame an argument in a memorable way, and I find those types of references useful. Ever see the movie "Clueless" when Cher gives a speech using pop culture? It starts out sounding insane, but when she makes her point, it's actually brilliant. Not everything has to be ancient to be sagacious.

matilda

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:56:55 -0600

One more thing, Jess: I guess I was too stupid to know who Paul Blart was without looking it up. Can't make an argument without using pop culture, can we? In case you don't realize it, Paul Bart, according to my Google source, is make-believe. That is, he does not really exist. Not sure what this character has to do with a policy discussion that involves the real world.

JessNevins

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:54:57 -0600

Sorry. I don't want to fight with people online. That's just a waste of time and energy. But dissembling and attempts to change the topic by feigning insult are just ridiculous. Don't we get enough of that on cable news and talk radio?

matilda

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:53:41 -0600

Let's review, shall we: You make an insanely general statement that you feel (notice the word, "feel," not "know") to be true based on your own limited personal experience. You have no outside facts or insight or analysis to back up a rather superficial and intellectually sloppy attack on a large class of workers. You use this "reasoning" to advance an argument on an issue of the day. You use stupidity in an attempt to be insightful. Then you defend yourself by saying, in effect, that I simply like to argue, rather than deal with your own shortcomings in logic and factual reality (or lack thereof). Then, just because, the site's resident mascot of action-less revolution and hip behavior, Spook, chimes in with some outdated political/marketing label whose meaning he/she probably doesn't even know. Jess: Try better next time. Yeah, that's about it.

DaleyGrind

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:47:34 -0600

I'd say I agree with you but I'm afraid someone will attack me over it ;)

BlueFairlane

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:44:50 -0600

Wow, this all seems familiar. Too familiar. An albanyparkour by any other name, I suppose ...

Spook

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:38:48 -0600

yea Jess Matilda is pretty much the voice of the "Reagan Demo-rats" She thinks they need a greater voice! Especially now that Obama is president

JessNevins

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:15:57 -0600

Matilda, I gather from this and other comments on here you enjoy taking umbrage for yourself and others. Protecting the Paul Blart's of the world from insult? I'm not interested in participating in your pathology. And "making broad brush statements" is slaughtering a perfectly good idiom in an attempt at being clever.

matilda

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:59:07 -0600

Funny: You insult me, yet you don't know the stupidity of making broad-brush statements about people, which you then you use to make some BS broadbrush statement about the GAs. Do you have any, you know, specific examples that don't involve your personal biases? No? Then you should drop it. "But the profession tends to attract wanna be cops who can't make the force. That's an assessment I made from working in retail and seeing the pretty low bar set for that gig." I worked in a retail for a while, too. And believe it or not, I've known some good people who work security, which is about as value-less as your own observations. Get over yourself. You have nothing on this issue beyond your own narrow experience/memory. Drop it and move on.

JessNevins

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:59:04 -0600

It's really unnecessary and ignorant to play judge and jury with the GA's in this case without the training to do so. We'll stop playing judge and jury when they stop playing pretend police officer, ok? Three grown men in berets holding down some kid with a spray can. They're a bad joke.

jimbo

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:49:07 -0600

Stealth, it's easy to come up with a hypo that could support your desire to live out some kind of Matlock fantasy. It's really unnecessary and ignorant to play judge and jury with the GA's in this case without the training to do so. I don't know enough about the GA's (see how it's alright to admit that you're uneducated on something?), so I don't know what their mission/reason for being on the cta/etc. (and really, nor do I care) - but I know that there's a slew of defenses and justifications that are applicable in assault/battery/false imprisonment situations. I'm not going to play judge and jury with the GA's here though.

Stealth

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:32:39 -0600

There's nothing wrong with commenting on whether you agree or disagree with what the GA's did, kids putting their "artwork" on taxpayer property, or whether the GA's should be spending their time doing better things. According to you there is something wrong, because to do so would involve a legal discussion among non-legal people. "I think it's wrong what the GA's did" "Why do you think it's wrong?" And here we go into legal territory... "I'm glad the GA's did what they did. They were in their right to detain him." "No they weren't, they had no right." And once again, into legal territory... Unless you're trained to give a legal opinion, your legal opinion is in fact ignorant. You're veering off course. No one said the comments couldn't be or weren't "ignorant". The point was that people are free to offer them here. Even if they're not the legal experts you'd prefer to hear from.

JessNevins

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:32:04 -0600

Are you serious? From what I've read on here this is your game, which I'm not going to play. You're extrapolating offense and insult and demanding evidence for an individual opinions. That's ridiculous. You're a troll on a message board, I could care less if you take me seriously. Grow up. Are there mall cops who are professional and act in strict accordance with the law? Assuredly. But the profession tends to attract wanna be cops who can't make the force. That's an assessment I made from working in retail and seeing the pretty low bar set for that gig.

jimbo

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:19:00 -0600

It could of course just be presented without opinion, like the pieces covering the cps kids that shoot each other. There's nothing wrong with commenting on whether you agree or disagree with what the GA's did, kids putting their "artwork" on taxpayer property, or whether the GA's should be spending their time doing better things. Unless you're trained to give a legal opinion, your legal opinion is in fact ignorant.

Stealth

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:10:40 -0600

First of all, Marcus explained the use of the terms at the top of the article. It was a cut and paste from the Tattler. As it stands now, "detain" and "assult" are relevant terms in this case. The use of the word "or" means they're not making a judgement. As for "ignorant" comments, 1) that's an opinion (yours) and 2) people are allowed to make ignorant comments. So how would you have people comment on this article, without venturing into legal territory? Perhaps it shouldn't have bene posted at all, in your opinion.

matilda

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:58:52 -0600

Nice of you to paint all mall cops and security guards with the brush. They all like "hurting people"? Really? You 100% sure about this? Call me crazy, but I bet there are some security guards/mall cops out there who try to do a decent job and are not motivated by wanted to appear tough. A person who makes such sweeping statements does not deserve to be taken seriously on this issue. As for accountability, the legal system provides various avenues, civil and criminal, for those GAs who have overstepped the law. Certainly you don't think the fine citizens of Chicago are not willing to sue if they think they have been abused, do you?

jimbo

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:55:46 -0600

It's irresponsible for Marcus (and the Tattler for that matter) to publish comments as such, and it's ignorant for commenters to pass off assertions that it's "assault," "battery," or whatever else they picked up from law & order.

JessNevins

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:50:25 -0600

That's disgusting. The Guardian Angels are a pack to thugs and louts who like pushing people around without all that confining accountability of being an actual police officers. They're in the same class as mall cops and other private security types. They like hurting people and feeling like big men. Look at how they talk about "applying pressure points" and "hurting him so bad". They get off on it. All this over some petty property damage? I hope they get arrested and sued.

matilda

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:38:20 -0600

I don't like mob action, either, but in theory there is a world of difference, legally and morally, between a citizen's arrest and associated self-defense, and outright mob action. I don't know enough of the facts here--sorry, but one video that probably was edited in a self-interested manner doesn't do it for me--but just want to note the potential difference.

Navin

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:32:14 -0600

Nicholas, My point is that however distasteful we might find taggers it's not anything approaching a violent crime. Unfortunately because he was a tagger this brings out peoples *emotions* about *that* rather than the unecessary actions of this group of people.

happyfunball

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:29:40 -0600

I know this is just anecdotal, but I did see a GA catch a guy flashing his junk to a group of girls. While that may seem stupid too, I always get really sickened by stories like that because that's essentially sexual assault and just one step before graduating to rape. But that said, if a cop decides to detain me because I match a description of a suspect or if the CTA security cuffs me and drags me off a train for being drunk or something, I know who to call to file a complaint or how to fight this in court. If the GA's do it, I have no idea who their oversight is. This is same logic I would use if Batman really existed: Who the hell gave you the right to decide right and wrong for the city?

Nicholas

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:26:20 -0600

I, for one, do care that he was a tagger. I'm not happy about the GA's response -- there are a dozen ways they could have reacted to this situation that don't involve harming the man. But, I'm not willing to give taggers a pass on this either. But, your point is well raised -- where do we draw the line. If we tolerate such mob action, where does it stop? Of course, the City could outlaw the GA's. On the other hand, if the GA's decide to enforce the law, then they must be prepared for the consequences, namely a civil lawsuit. The tagger is entitled to his day in court and can sue.

happyfunball

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:21:28 -0600

+1 to slaphappy

Navin

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:06:02 -0600

Oh and if using mob force to protect riders in gentrified areas from harmless taggers in necessary maybe they should just go down one stop to Wicker Park and smack down people who are publically intoxicated or smoking to close to bar's front doors.

Navin

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:59:44 -0600

Who gives a fuck if he is a tagger? Doesn't really matter if he is or isn't. This is street mob vigilante justice, and cowardly at that. There are plenty of train cars where there's real intimidation going on but I reckon if going after harmless taggers is their thing then they probably get off before the train crosses over into actually sketchy parts of town.

Stealth

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:48:08 -0600

Oh, and if you haven't noticed, this isn't the Supreme Court but a "lousy" website (Sorry Chicagoist, I don't mean lousy in the sense of quality, but you know what I mean). I think it's OK to express non-professional legal opinions here.

Stealth

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:45:57 -0600

Sorry, not gonna happen no matter how much you want it. In fact, I now encourage everyone here to express their legal opinion, level of legal training be damned. Who the fuck are you to tell someone what and what not to say? And that's my legal opinion on free speech...

Nicholas

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:43:20 -0600

There is absolutely no suggestion in this story that the guy in question was NOT a tagger. So, no. If the guy was not a tagger, I'm certain the story would have been reported quite differently (GA's attack subway rider). Of course, I do not know for sure, I wasn't there. But, I don't think the GA's go around harassing riders.

jimbo

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:41:20 -0600

No apparent reason? If you're not trained to give legal opinions, don't. It's that simple.

Stealth

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:26:22 -0600

Well, only in the sense that the GA's aren't official anythings so basically what we have are a bunch of regular schmoes detaining and applying painful pressure to another regular schmoe for no apparent reason. The GA's own words above never say anything about the tagger threatening them, attacking them, etc. Even if he threatened them AFTER they confronted him, he could claim he lashed out at them in self-defense, that he felt threatened. Bottom line: no, we don't know exactly how this went down, but other than a direct threat made to them or someone else by the tagger, they had no right to wrestle him to the ground (based on their own words). I'm no lawyer either, but unless the GA's change their story ("We told him to stop and he approached up in a menacing way with a knife/gun/his fists.") they could be in a bit of trouble.

matty

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:16:59 -0600

Have you ever considered that they guy might be innocent? TRAINED police get the wrong guy all the time. What makes these guys any better and catching real criminals? Oh that's right, nothing/

jimbo

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:41:14 -0600

So far artillery and marcus are legal experts. Does anybody else want to try and convict the GA's on this site?

DROOO

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:40:07 -0600

yep, i'm at that station on occasion as well. it's not a good situation. be safe out there, people!

Nicholas

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:38:36 -0600

I'm not saying that the acts of a tagger justify the response by the GA's (if my writing implied that, I wish to correct). But, you know what? I wish that guy would not tag the CTA trains and most buildings around my neighborhood. Do taggers ever give a moment's thought to that? So, any concern I may have for the tagger is tempered by the annoyance at his behavior.

Stealth

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:34:28 -0600

And if you go to their website it says "WHO WE ARE: The Guardian Angels are volunteers who provide public safety and education in our neighborhood streets our schools and cyberspace. " So it's not like they HAVE to limit themselves to the subways. When I see them helping to straighten out the mess on Howard Street, THEN I'll be impressed and applaud. Ain't no guy with a marker or spray can ever posed a threat to me. Guardian Angels

DaleyGrind

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:21:48 -0600

They stick to the trains because the trains are relatively safe already. Would love to see how long they'd last in, say...a housing project in South Austin. Won't happen though.

artillery606

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:11:44 -0600

i second what DROOO said. There is no need to take it that far. This is battery, plain and simple. They should all be sued. Why dont they actually walk the streets in the neighborhoods, rather than stick to the trains. Do a lot more good that way.

Navin

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:11:21 -0600

Actually, it's funny I saw cops all around the Western stop when I drove past this weekend, I guess this was what it was?

Spook

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:10:16 -0600

Hey Droo we are still having sexual assults at the Logan Square stop

Navin

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0600

Yeah I thought this was about creating a presence to deter violent crimes or stop them. If this means goon squads living out their comic book fantasies, uh...no thanks.

Spook

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:08:02 -0600

"they're 6 deep for a fucking tagger." Hel larious! I agree! The G.A's look silly enough, now they have added tag patrole to their resume?! And what's up with the 1980 leather belts with the silver studs on them? Are those to administer spankings?

DROOO

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:06:54 -0600

this may be a reach, but i find this similar to the kid impersonating police recently. i always thought the angels were out to protect against VIOLENT crimes. you know, like rapes that occurred at this same station less than a month ago. Nicholas's remark about a tagger getting struck by a red line is a joke. you say that as though you're concerned for the tagger therefore justifying the acts of these "angels" otherwise another tagger may have been struck by another train in this instance. if not for these angels this kid wouldn't have been in danger of falling onto the tracks. this shouldn't be an argument on graffiti and it's legalities. the issue here is that these citizens who wear red beret's, and call themselves guardian angels, seem to think they're entitled to act as police. i respect protecting the community from violent crimes, but this was no such thing. just a poor decision on the part of the guardian angels, and therefore tarnishing their reputation as good people.

Flaco

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:00:21 -0600

Damn the GA is still around. I wonder how deep they are?

Streets

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:52:19 -0600

In Illinois, assault is the threat of physical harm, so this would be battery.

Navin

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:45:51 -0600

^ +1 Astute for Matty.

DaleyGrind

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:39:03 -0600

They're never around when you need them and then they're 6 deep for a fucking tagger. So true. The angle/starting point of the video doesn't clarify things a whole lot but it does all seem bit much.

matty

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:33:44 -0600

"I am a liberal, but I have a hard time feeling any sympathy for this guy. " In the socialist totalitarian sense of the word, yes, you might be a liberal.

Nicholas

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:25:01 -0600

My liberal sensibilities tell me to be upset and angry at the GA's for this, but you know what? I'm not. I'm sick of the taggers and mess on the CTA. They have no right to tag and do so at their own risk (last year, a tagger was killed when struck by a Red Line Train in Rogers Park). So, the guy got roughed up a bit but is otherwise not really worse for wear. I know it might not end like that next time, but I do not feel I need to hassle the GA's for this. There is enough real crime in the city and on the CTA to be upset about. I am a liberal, but I have a hard time feeling any sympathy for this guy.

matty

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:19:34 -0600

Fuck these guys. They're never around when you need them and then they're 6 deep for a fucking tagger. And yeah that looks totally unprofessional to me. If anything happened to that kid they should sue the angels.

heyrocc

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:12:36 -0600

seems a bit much just for a guy taggin

Marcus Gilmer

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:10:30 -0600

That was a bad copy/paste from the Tattler's piece and the post published before it got corrected.

Slaphappy

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:07:28 -0600

Give me a fucking break, Marcus. Assault? This is why anyone left of center gets branded a soft fluffy pussy.

jimbo

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:04:45 -0600

their "detainment" looks close to crossing the line into "assault" territory I'm sure that Chicagoist sought a legal opinion before writing this....