Stout, Stout, Get it Worked Out!
'Kick a Ginger Day' Spawned At Least 5 Attacks on Redheaded Kids
Cool, Crafy, Community Event: Unique LA's Holiday Show
7 Reasons to Love L.A.
Canter's & Ice Cream Sandwich Could Live in Perfect Harmony
A controversial new proposal by City Attorney Carmen Trutanich would give law enforcement the okay to arrest taggers without actually seeing them tag--just the act of "hanging out" together on the street would be enough to haul them in. But those objecting include the ACLU, who call the idea "unquestionably unconstitutional," according to the LA Times. Police, too, aren't sold on the idea, and many other critics wonder if putting more youth into the criminal system--particularly without an actual crime--will do more long-term damage than good, particularly because there aren't enough programs in place to help these kids better their lives.
Trutanich argues that the tagging crews that mar public property all over Los Angeles are participating in a "criminal enterprise" and should be treated as such. He's using civil injunctions as a model for the plan: "The tagging injunctions would focus on neighborhoods where graffiti is a particularly acute problem, such as the Harbor Gateway area, the San Fernando Valley and, especially, South L.A." Injunctions work to prohibit certain criminal "behavior," such as "wearing certain clothes, making certain hand signs, going to certain parks," and makes "it illegal for two alleged gang members to associate in public -- an arrestable offense even if no other crime is being committed."
For Trutanich, though, his bottom line is basically that a gang is a gang, and must be policed no matter what in order to keep communities safe. The City Attorney calls this his "end-of-days scenario" for the taggers: "If you want to tag, be prepared to go to jail. And I don't have to catch you tagging. I can just catch you . . . with your homeboys."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
A gang is a gang. It's a criminal cartel, created for the purpose of intimidation and subversion of the law.
The city SHOULD put up or designate art walls where muralists can practice their art. A tagger isn't an artist. He's Pacman, trying to eat up all the wall space he can get to. Here's the difference: you put a muralist in an art gallery and he or she will just stand there in awe, absorbing the style and making it their own. You put a tagger in there and he'll just start pi$$ing all over the walls with his spray can or markers.
We do this all the time with people when we want to save them: we make it difficult to do the things we don't want them to do. Don't want jewel thieves to go after your stuff? You put in an alarm, you put up lights and you get a dog...and the thieves go away. You arrest taggers for hanging out with the very people who are the catalyst for the tagging...and they'll start actually reading the financial-aid brochure from art school, they'll find out who Monet and Degas were and they might live a lot longer.
pretty dumb idea mr. Trutanich. better go back to the drawing board and try again.
Has anybody mentioned that whole Constitutionally protected Freedom of Assembly thing to Trutanich? If that's not a problem, then maybe he can start locking up politicians and business people who hang out with others suspected criminal activity.
This idea is a FAIL..
if you know of politicians or business people who have a habit of committing crimes and hanging out with criminals, wouldn't it make sense to look at them?
Where in the city do you live?
Do you own your home? Do you own a vehicle? If so, how do you feel when someone comes along and sprays their own name on your property?
(For the record: yes and yes and it's never happened to me, so I don't know)
If this idea is a fail, what would work? Or are you one of those health-plan Republicans who think ignoring a problem will make it invisible?
I just don't like people romanticizing the idea of the brave tagger, threading his way through the dark night of the big bad city. As a personal strategy for success in life, it's a proven mistake (unless you're Banksy) (and any tagger you know...ain't Banksy). Injunctions can be a mistake, used the wrong way- what's better? Otherwise, it's that health-plan thing, isn't it.
I'm not against taggers getting busted for real vandalism. I am against locking people up because of who they are "hanging out" with. History has shown this is a Bad Thing.
This comment is a win.
As a person who was not only a victim of taggers messing up his residence as well as being assaulted by said tagger when I went outside to chase them away, I can say that even if you arrest them, there's not much you're going to do than spend money on the system that will just crank them out with probation. The cops got the guys who tagged and smashed in my window and all the DA could do in this open and shut case was give them time served and probation.
Do we have room in an already crowded jail system to even fit these guilty by association gatherers? How about more funding for local programs to discourage or channel this need for attention.
This is all kinds of terrible. Guilt by association is a flawed and slippery slope to a total police state. If the technology were available I bet Trutanich would make having thoughts of illegal activity a crime too. Why don't we just nip the problem in the bud and just lock up those kids with the socio-demographic factors most likely to produce gang members and tagging later in life. They didn't commit a crime, but they could, you know sometime in the future, just like the people who could be locked up under this plan.
this is the mosr stereotype proposition i have heard. what are you going to arrest someone who is waiting for the bus with their friend yet you think thei taggers. if this proposition passes the american will have less freedom .mr trutanich how will you like to get arrested for wearing a tuxedo and hanging out in the corner....this is america we have freedom dont destroy this mantra you idiot