Bike Thief PHOTO: stealing Red Specialized @ 165 N Canal 9/23

Forwarded from a friend. She wasn't able to do enough to stop him, but did get a photo of a man stealing a bike across from 165 N Canal.

Apparently, he took the tire off the bike that was locked via ulock to a pole, put a new one on and rode away.

Stray Observations:

  1. Pass this on to people you know who had a bike (or tire) stolen yesterday. Perhaps it will bring them joy, anger, closure or all of the above.
  2. PLEASE LOCK YOUR BIKE BETTER. Holy crap people. Resource: http://www.activetrans.org/commute/tricks-tips/parking
  3. He obviously stole a front tire from another bike and then helped himself which totally settles the "what the hell do these people do with one tire"question I've always had.
  4. Memorize this face and if you see him walking around with a bike part, call the police and start yelling at him so people will start looking. (Insert warning about being REALLY SURE THIS IS THE SAME PERSON - the missing front teeth and glasses are helpful.)
  5. Please don't do the chainlink troll thing and yell about my friend not chaining herself to the bike and pulling a batman on this crook. You weren't there, you don't know my friend and until you earn some sincere bike thief vigilante street cred - shut up.

Sorry if # 4 was ugly or presumptuous. I'm just tired of the non constructive discussions and honestly don't have time for it.

BOO BIKE THIEVES!

Views: 5684

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tom Dworzanski on September 25, 2013 at 3:52am

I disagree with your assumption that people will be running around pulling guns all the time. The other 49 states have concealed carry and that's simply not the case.

I won't be responding to your idiotic personal attacks. Please stick to the argument. This isn't about me.

notoriousDUG said:

You seriously think that shooting somebody, with a gun, is a viable response to minor property theft?

Seriously?

I like guns but people who think like you are exactly why I am against any kind of concealed carry laws.  I dislike the crime and violence in the city but I have no desire to see it turned into the wild west.  Think about what the city would be like with a bunch of people who think like you running around pulling a gun all the time?

Let me ask you some questions:

Do you have much experience or training handling a handgun?  Not a riffle or other long gun but an actual handgun.

Do you have a concept of just how much damage a gunshot does to a person?


 

Permalink Reply by Davo on September 25, 2013 at 3:56am

We will have to agree to disagree then. Im sure that there is more to be said about this but I feel that there are other forums for that.

Tom Dworzanski said:

Respectfully disagree.

Davo said:

I seriously doubt that the fellows who shot up that park would have thought twice if they thought others would have guns in that situation.

Permalink Reply by Michelle on September 25, 2013 at 3:57am

Haha. I think any statement on any site on the entire internet is capable of becoming a gun control debate. 


Rebecca said:

Only on the Chainlink does a friendly warning about proper bike locking and a bike theft turn into a debate about gun control.

Sad thing is we could probably make more progress than Congress.

Permalink Reply by Tom Dworzanski on September 25, 2013 at 4:00am

You know that's a fair point. I mean, I could go and link you to murder stats and gun restriction law stats but that argument would not be scientific. So I guess it's just a feeling as well on my end.

My argument was for this more limited context: a person doing evil in public in a crowded place. I am of the belief that the number of those seeking good will far outnumber those seeking evil and as such having everyone armed means good always outnumbers evil. It's pretty simplistic but I think it's accurate. Of course people generally don't get murdered for no reason; there is some other bigger issue (often drug-related) that goes beyond whether or not a citizenry is armed.

Skip Montanaro 12mi said:

Tom Dworzanski said:

People in this city steal and kill each other at chart-topping rates and it's precisely due to our chart-topping restrictions on fire-arms.

I would appreciate some proof of this assertion.

My feeling is that the people killing and being killed have guns already, so the presence of a gun in the hand of the guy who gets killed doesn't appear to be a huge deterrent to the guy doing the shooting. (And it seems they are all guys.)

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on September 25, 2013 at 4:02am

So I will just take that as an admission you know very little about gangs and the culture of violence that surrounds them.


Tom Dworzanski said:

Respectfully disagree.

Davo said:

I seriously doubt that the fellows who shot up that park would have thought twice if they thought others would have guns in that situation.

Permalink Reply by Tom Dworzanski on September 25, 2013 at 4:05am

Lol more personal attacks.


notoriousDUG said:

So I will just take that as an admission you know very little about gangs and the culture of violence that surrounds them.


Tom Dworzanski said:

Respectfully disagree.

Davo said:

I seriously doubt that the fellows who shot up that park would have thought twice if they thought others would have guns in that situation.

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on September 25, 2013 at 4:08am

Those are not personal attacks, those are very real questions that have a bearing on your position in this.

If you have little to no experience with handguns you may not be aware just how inaccurate they are and how much danger there is to their use in public.  

if you have no idea how much damage a bullet does you may not have any idea just how much damage shooting somebody in the leg can do or have a concept of the hazards to other people around are.

Carrying a gun makes you much more likely to be involved in a violent gun crime.

Tom Dworzanski said:

I disagree with your assumption that people will be running around pulling guns all the time. The other 49 states have concealed carry and that's simply not the case.

I won't be responding to your idiotic personal attacks. Please stick to the argument. This isn't about me.

notoriousDUG said:

You seriously think that shooting somebody, with a gun, is a viable response to minor property theft?

Seriously?

I like guns but people who think like you are exactly why I am against any kind of concealed carry laws.  I dislike the crime and violence in the city but I have no desire to see it turned into the wild west.  Think about what the city would be like with a bunch of people who think like you running around pulling a gun all the time?

Let me ask you some questions:

Do you have much experience or training handling a handgun?  Not a riffle or other long gun but an actual handgun.

Do you have a concept of just how much damage a gunshot does to a person?


 

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on September 25, 2013 at 4:09am

But what about when the outnumbered bad decides to go down shooting and takes a whole bunch of people with them?


Tom Dworzanski said:

You know that's a fair point. I mean, I could go and link you to murder stats and gun restriction law stats but that argument would not be scientific. So I guess it's just a feeling as well on my end.

My argument was for this more limited context: a person doing evil in public in a crowded place. I am of the belief that the number of those seeking good will far outnumber those seeking evil and as such having everyone armed means good always outnumbers evil. It's pretty simplistic but I think it's accurate. Of course people generally don't get murdered for no reason; there is some other bigger issue (often drug-related) that goes beyond whether or not a citizenry is armed.

Skip Montanaro 12mi said:

Tom Dworzanski said:

People in this city steal and kill each other at chart-topping rates and it's precisely due to our chart-topping restrictions on fire-arms.

I would appreciate some proof of this assertion.

My feeling is that the people killing and being killed have guns already, so the presence of a gun in the hand of the guy who gets killed doesn't appear to be a huge deterrent to the guy doing the shooting. (And it seems they are all guys.)

Permalink Reply by Tom Dworzanski on September 25, 2013 at 4:13am

Great comment. Something important to consider.

David 4.0 said:

Criminals can sue after the fact and shooting them is not a great idea.  However, spraying them with pepper spray is a much better approach then responding with a gun...IJS

Permalink Reply by Rich S on September 25, 2013 at 4:18am

These two guys were probably both "good" people but they ended up killing each other in Michigan just last week. Unfortunately good people still do bad things especially when emotional or under the influence. 

Tom Dworzanski said:

My argument was for this more limited context: a person doing evil in public in a crowded place. I am of the belief that the number of those seeking good will far outnumber those seeking evil and as such having everyone armed means good always outnumbers evil. It's pretty simplistic but I think it's accurate. Of course people generally don't get murdered for no reason; there is some other bigger issue (often drug-related) that goes beyond whether or not a citizenry is armed.


Skip Montanaro 12mi said:

Tom Dworzanski said:

People in this city steal and kill each other at chart-topping rates and it's precisely due to our chart-topping restrictions on fire-arms.

I would appreciate some proof of this assertion.

My feeling is that the people killing and being killed have guns already, so the presence of a gun in the hand of the guy who gets killed doesn't appear to be a huge deterrent to the guy doing the shooting. (And it seems they are all guys.)

Permalink Reply by Tom Dworzanski on September 25, 2013 at 4:20am

People don't really decide to "go down." Though I guess anything's possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-preservation

notoriousDUG said:

But what about when the outnumbered bad decides to go down shooting and takes a whole bunch of people with them?

Permalink Reply by Tom Dworzanski on September 25, 2013 at 4:33am

Great point and I think you're totally right. And laws like various degrees of murder totally support the idea that these sorts of situations will exist.

I wish we could live in a world with no arms. That would be the most ideal. However, I don't see that as ever being a reality and as such to me it's fruitless to only disarm the good even if situations like this sometimes exist. My hope is that rather than trying to pretend that we live in a gun-free world, we can teach people responsible gun ownership so that they have a logical framework that can balance emotional situations. It's not really a fair comparison but a lot of people get really irate when driving yet the vast majority don't break the rules of the road as a result (and even if they do it's usually to get away from someone rather than to hurt them). Gun ownership needs to have similar licensing and educational requirements (of course not such that they are prohibitive in nature like IL had) to give the good people with guns the best framework of dealing with all situations.

Again, I do respect where you're coming from and it's something important to consider.



Rich S said:

These two guys were probably both "good" people but they ended up killing each other in Michigan just last week. Unfortunately good people still do bad things especially when emotional or under the influence. 

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service