The Chainlink

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: 5462

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Interesting. Seemed like it was being presented as a "slam-dunk" argument.

Well, good to hear we agree. I'd want to see a boatload more "studying" before such a potentially horrific "experiment" were unleashed on the Chicago "population."

Mark said:

The dissent of Lott's study, and further studies, say otherwise, and at best, say that not enough eveidence is available.

The law is passed. Illinois has legalized concealed carry.



h' 1.0 said:

Interesting. Seemed like it was being presented as a "slam-dunk" argument.

Well, good to hear we agree. I'd want to see a boatload more "studying" before such a potentially horrific "experiment" were unleashed on the Chicago "population."

Mark said:

The dissent of Lott's study, and further studies, say otherwise, and at best, say that not enough eveidence is available.

A big problem with concealed carry is the minimal amount of training and experience required to obtain a permit. I found this article which indicated that you don't even need to fire a gun to get a permit in Wisconsin. That's flippin nuts! You at least need to drive a car to get a driver's license. The roads are bad enough out there so just imagine if they gave licenses out without requiring you to drive a car first. 

My issue with the proliferation of guns is how easy it is for a simple argument to escalate to something deadly. Several pages back I posted a link to a story of 2 guys that shot each other over a road rage incident. If neither were packing the worst thing that would've happened would likely be a fist fight and a lot of embarrassment the next day. Yes one of them could've had a knife and stabbed the other to death but stabbing someone takes a lot more determination and guts than shooting someone. At the end of the day guns enable many cowards to become killers. 

Mark said:

The law is passed. Illinois has legalized concealed carry.




  1. Statements  that start off with "no offense" are usually meant to offend.
  2. No offense, but if you actually read AND comprehended that statement, you would have put together that MY FRIEND who is NOW DEAD was shot by his 4 year old brother. Do you really think they were playing hide and go seek with guns? No. I'll give you the full story since omitting details I thought were unnecessary to prove my point (see #3) obviously got you distracted. My friend was babysitting and playing hide and go seek. His four year old brother hid in a closet where he found his parent's loaded gun. The four year old, not old enough to understand that was not a toy gun surprised his brother by jumping out and fatally shooting him.
  3. The point is that there are a lot of unintended casualties of gun ownership due to a lack of education, lack of safety and easy accessibility. My friends were amongst those.
  4. How dare you imply that the murderer (never found) that SHOT MY FRIEND IN THE HEAD was somehow justified because of the way you think my friend may have been driving.
  5. Your sarcastic comment was distasteful. Does that mean I think someone would be justified shooting you in the face? no. But maybe you should go talk to my friends' parents and tell them how trivial and hilarious you find their children's deaths to be.


We all have an inner Beast... said:

No offense....but...who the hell plays hide-n-seek with a flippin gun ? Much less a loaded gun !
So, the guy's stupid girfriend plays with a loaded gun and shoots him...another flippin genius.
The other guy gets shot due to road rage...I guess he was not aggravating the driver that shot him? I bet he kept cutting the guy off, or speeding up to not let him get in front of him. (Granted, I don't think that is a reason to get upset...I just let people get in front of me all the time...except when I'm riding my bike, Lol !)
Either way, to those that think that pepper spray is going to stop something...think again. The thief may already have a gun (since only the criminals can carry one around these daggum parts) and just may feel that you have "assaulted" them and may just shoot to defend themselves. Or maybe the thief is allergic to the pepper spray or has some COPD/bronchial/breathing issues and dies from your pepper spray....all over a bike?
Now, as a retired military guy, I know that during my 23 yrs in 2 branches of the military, that there are people on this planet that should not be trusted to chew gum because they might swallow it and choke to death...much less be allowed ANYWHERE near a weapon of any sorts. That being said, a properly trained individual with a weapon can make a "bad guy" think twice about what they were about to do.
Now mind you, you will very rarely hear about an off-duty law enforcement officer even get involved in any issue, much less in any issue that could have him/her brandishing their weapon. So, take that into account.
So now you all can start the barrage of criticism of my comments....but remember, I never said gun when I made my suggestions, only in my sarcastic comments towards the person that grew up in TX.
A gun is just another tool that people choose to misuse. You can be killed by a bat, axe, chain saw, car, brick, kicked to death, punched in the wrong/right place, knife (kitchen, folding, hunting, box cutter, straight razor, fixed blade, survival, etc..), screwdrivers, scissors (remember not to run with them), nail gun, hammer, bottle (both broken or whole), various types of ropes or wires, and of course while riding our bikes, walking down stairs, falling out of windows or off of porches, flying in a n aircraft, on and on and on and on......
It is up to the user/operator to use common sense and some thought while using/operating the tool. (Like a wood chipper)
If you plan to do harm to someone, and are serious enough about it, you will find a way.
When you go through a firearms class, you learn to see what is around the target, what is in front of and what is behind the target. You HAVE to know what is down range BEFORE you send a round out. It's not something that everyone will be able to do. It's a huge responsibility. Not to be taken lighty.
Lethal Force is only authorized if your life or the life of someone else is at risk. Not the theft of a bicycle or even a car.
THAT is the first thing that should be going through someone's mind.
To stop this guy, I would probably have used a rolled up Redeye (the one with all the inserts...lol!)
Btw, he has done this type of stuff at other buildings in the downtown area. People please learn to secure your bicycles better, and call CPD if you see it going on. If you can get people's attention, do it ! It may stop him.

Rebecca said:

I grew up in Texas. lots of guns......I personally knew several people that died due to gun violence/mistakes. If I was a teenager in the South Side, this list would probably be a lot longer.

RIP friends

  • Thomas, 13 - shot in the head while playing hide and go seek with his 4 year old brother. He was consistently 5th chair in the trumpet section of our band.
  • Dustin, 16 - shot in the face by his girlfriend who was joking about the gun not being loaded. He was on the pep squad.
  • Jeremy, 18 - shot in a road rage incident on highway 75 when he and another car kept cutting each other off, would have gone to the funeral - but it was on 9/11. He was awesome at technical theater.

I think I'd totally be for guns if their weren't so many undeserving, unintended, innocent victims out there.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/11/guns-child-dea...

Rich S said:

A big problem with concealed carry is the minimal amount of training and experience required to obtain a permit. I found this article which indicated that you don't even need to fire a gun to get a permit in Wisconsin.

I got a reference to this blog/op-ed/article yesterday, can't remember where, maybe here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gavin-magrath/gun-control-debate_b_23...

Quoting in part:

No one would ban cars (or guns) but we do (and should) require:

  • licensing with written and practical tests;
  • frequent renewal including updated photo and medical questionnaire;
  • specialty licensing and training for specialty products;
  • product registration and mandatory liability insurance policy;
  • effective enforcement of product safety and use regulations;
  • key locks and other anti-theft devices;
  • manufacturer-funded safety research;
  • adoption by manufacturers of identified best safety features in spite of additional cost;
  • industry or publicly funded awareness and safety campaigns; and
  • restriction of high-performance, unsafe products to private courses/ranges.


We already do every single one of those things with motor vehicles.

I don't want to argue that there's no Second Amendment right to drive cars. Big f*ckin' deal. The fact is, responsible gun ownership is not something we are born with. Guns are never going away. That doesn't mean we shouldn't train people to use them properly. Rich's reference suggests that in our rush to legalize concealed carry, we haven't even taken minimal steps to make sure that people know how to handle a gun properly before we allow them to pack heat.

We put up with all sorts of regulations related to motor vehicles, none of which seem to have affected the sheer number of cars, trucks, buses and motorcycles on the road. I don't know how many of you have kids of driving age. My wife and I had to supervise my youngest son for 50 hours on-road before he could get a license. That was in addition to the usual driver's ed course and written and practical tests administered by the state. Ownership of guns and cars in the US is similar (> 800 per 1000 people). The author of the above piece indicates that gun deaths per year in the US are on pace to surpass the number of car deaths per year within the next three years (citing a piece in The Independent which itself cites some Bloomberg research). In the aggregate, guns appear to be about as lethal as cars. We do all sorts of things as a society in an attempt to make cars safer (education, safety features, special permits, etc), but do none of this for guns.

I don't think any of the points made above would cause wholesale confiscation of guns, yet that is precisely what the NRA and, by implication, its paymasters (the gun manufacturers) argue.

Before responding (in a positive or negative manner), I ask you to read the piece.

Because driving a car, is statistically more dangerous than owning a gun.  There are three times as many traffic related deaths, then homicides.

The only reason that the author can state that gun deaths are on par to surpass car deaths, is because he counts suicides, which make up more than half of gun deaths.

If we need to do anything, we need to increase our availability, and understanding of mental health issues, to avoid suicides. 

I have no issue with sane, reasonable, gun laws. I have no problem with keeping guns away from criminals, and those with mental health issues.   But that isn't what the anti gun brigade want.  They want to regulate gun ownership to death.  They do not feel you have a "right" to own a gun, and you should have to explain to their satisfaction, why you NEED one.  

I NEED one, because the police, and the government, can NOT protect me and my family.  PERIOD. Furthermore, my RIGHT to own and carry a gun, according to our constitution, reaffirmed by SCOTUS, is god given, inalienable right.

That statement struck a nerve with me as to why we can't get any meaningful gun regulation passed in this country. There is an underlying paranoia to the pro gun brigade that assumes any type of regulation, no matter how beneficial to everyone, has the intent of "taking your guns away." I consider myself an anti-gun person although certainly not part of any brigade. I'm anti gun because of my life's experiences which include losing friends to gun violence, being held up at gunpoint, and being shot at for passing through the wrong neighborhood.

That being said I have always been opposed to Chicago's law that banned law abiding citizens from owning a handgun in their home. I have no problem with a responsible person owning guns. I would never keep a gun in my home but that doesn't mean I think others don't have the right to keep one. But I will add that I would be uncomfortable being in someone else's home if I knew they owned guns unless I was confident in their responsible storage and ownership. So essentially I'm an anti gun person that was also opposed to Chicago's law banning handguns. Waddya know!

I do have a big problem with concealed carry. Especially with the lack of regulation and ease of which a permit can be obtained. It should be 10 times more difficult to get a gun (let alone a conceal carry permit) than to get a driver's license however the opposite is true. And this is mainly because of the pro gun lobby's hardline stance that any gun regulation, no matter how small, is an attempt to revoke the 2nd amendment. 

Mark I do agree with you that the police really aren't effective at protecting people. Unless they're there at the moment something happens all they're gonna do is write the report. Serious enough there will be an investigation but that's still after the fact. However I strongly feel that allowing people to pack heat in public spaces is not the solution to society's problems. I feel that proliferation of guns in public will only make our city a more violent place. 

Mark said:

I have no issue with sane, reasonable, gun laws. I have no problem with keeping guns away from criminals, and those with mental health issues.   But that isn't what the anti gun brigade want.  They want to regulate gun ownership to death.  They do not feel you have a "right" to own a gun, and you should have to explain to their satisfaction, why you NEED one.  

Agreed!

I consider myself "antigun" in regards to the political bs. I own guns... several of them and I intend to buy more in the future. I don't currently carry a gun nor do I feel the need; if I had a different job that placed me in an unsafe area, I'd reconsider concealed carry. I'm all for tighter restrictions and record keeping and I can't stand the NRA (most of the time) or the "they're coming to take (my guns) away" crowd. 

Also, I wish this thread was about bike thieves, I hate the gun talk. *sigh*

Rich S said:

That statement struck a nerve with me as to why we can't get any meaningful gun regulation passed in this country. There is an underlying paranoia to the pro gun brigade that assumes any type of regulation, no matter how beneficial to everyone, has the intent of "taking your guns away." I consider myself an anti-gun person although certainly not part of any brigade. 

Ah. Seven pages of bullshit.

With all do respect, the norm is CC. We are were the experiment.


h' 1.0 said:

I'd want to see a boatload more "studying" before such a potentially horrific "experiment" were unleashed on the Chicago "population."

Do you know what the Illinois requirements for concealed carry are?

Tip: They won't be on the Huffington Joke.

Skip Montanaro 12mi said:

Rich's reference suggests that in our rush to legalize concealed carry, we haven't even taken minimal steps to make sure that people know how to handle a gun properly before we allow them to pack heat.

We put up with all sorts of regulations related to motor vehicles, none of which seem to have affected the sheer number of cars, trucks, buses and motorcycles on the road. I don't know how many of you have kids of driving age. My wife and I had to supervise my youngest son for 50 hours on-road before he could get a license. That was in addition to the usual driver's ed course and written and practical tests administered by the state. Ownership of guns and cars in the US is similar (> 800 per 1000 people). The author of the above piece indicates that gun deaths per year in the US are on pace to surpass the number of car deaths per year within the next three years (citing a piece in The Independent which itself cites some Bloomberg research). In the aggregate, guns appear to be about as lethal as cars. We do all sorts of things as a society in an attempt to make cars safer (education, safety features, special permits, etc), but do none of this for guns.

I donate to the NRA every time a I hear a push to ban guns. I don't own a gun and don't intend to ever own a gun. But I intend to keep my freedom. I guess I am a "paymaster," nice to meet you.

I don't think any of the points made above would cause wholesale confiscation of guns, yet that is precisely what the NRA and, by implication, its paymasters (the gun manufacturers) argue.

I use my right to bare arms everyday whenever it is really hot outside.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service