RR Graffiti Vandals Arrested

[selector]

Although, one could add that there is much more to an education than mere book learning.  There is the vastly important, even essential, component called socialization.  Without a common set of values and a range of acceptable behaviours, we would have anarchy or the life characterized by Hobbes as, "...solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

I find that in life the things most valued are contributory, that build.  I don't think what we are discussing today is contributory.  Instead, it is borne of solipsism, nihilism, relativism, and all the egocentric Me-isms that are destructive and that create distrust.  Societies have historically been built on trust and adherence to shared values.

Think of it this way - would you expect that all rational people would support the universalizable maxim, "Do as you wish, even if it causes pain, inconvenience, embarrassment, cost, worry, and despair for others who will necessarily experience some or all of those things as a result of what you do?"  Now substitute "tagging or graffiti" and see if it improves your disposition toward the maxim.

The tagger's right to do as he wishes stops at the moment I express my non-concurrence for him to exact his craft on my property.  And that is the whole issue.  The permission is rarely sought, and hardly ever given.  Is it a form of taking, a usurpation, and it is done in the cowardly manner that we all know too well....when the person is self-assured that he/she is highly unlikely to have to apologize for it, or to pay for its undoing.  It is no different from taking an unkown child's bicycle off the front step in dark of night and using it to your own purposes.

'Nuff said.

[gardendance]

if you do cut off thier hands they can't wave to the train crews

One scary thought is that the vandals may also be railfans.

[gardendance]

When I see proof that you've vandalized your own home or your own place of business (assuming either exist, which is a stretch), then I'll be impressed.

gotta quibble with you, if one does it to one's own property it's not vandalism. Maybe you meant "someone else vandalized your own home"?

[Anonymous]

When I see proof that you've vandalized your own home or your own place of business (assuming either exist, which is a stretch), then I'll be impressed.

gotta quibble with you, if one does it to one's own property it's not vandalism. Maybe you meant "someone else vandalized your own home"?

I don't mind quibbling - what I meant was to paint-up your own home in the same manner - the same slang, put the same kind of effort into it as would be done to a freight car.  "Graffiti your own home", maybe?  The other suggestion works fine too - if someone else vandalized the very property of a jerk who has fun defacing other people's property - that would be impressive to me.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

The tagger's right to do as he wishes stops at the moment I express my non-concurrence for him to exact his craft on my property. 

[emphasis added]

Nope - the tagger has no such right, ever, or anyplace.  Your property is your property, and one of the bundle of many of your rights that goes along with the ownership of property in this country (USA) is the power and legal support to control that property.  That control inherently includes the power and right to exclude others from the property, for any reason or no reason (except for some illegal discriminatory ones).  The principle of exlcusion is so fundamental that no one can claim any right by merely being on the property (for less than many years).  And you have those rights without having to do anything to support or enforce them (again, for short periods - the doctrines in the nature of adverse possession may apply for such longer periods).  The fact that certain anti-trespassing statutes may require actual notice or constructive  notice (such as posted signs in a certain format) are requirements associated with the enforcement and penalty mechanisms and procedures - not with the fundamental right itself.

So you need not first tell the tagger to stop in order to negate any such purported right, because there isn't any such thing.  What that vandal has is merely the potential ability (mere power, without any legal right) to attempt to perpetrate the illegal act(s) without observation, interference, or clear notice that what is being done is objectionable.  To the extent that any of that is needed or relevant - such as for enforcement - then your non-concurrence would be an essential event and act.  But otherwise, no one has the right to paint your property only until you tell them to stop.  What if you were away on vacation ?  Would you really accept coming home to find your house all painted up, and just say to yourself, "Well, this happened because I wasn't here to tell the tagger to stop, so he/she had the right to continue doing it - into perpetuity ?"  To ask that question is to answer it, though that is hardly necessary.

- Paul North.

[Modelcar]

.....That certainly puts it in definite words that all should understand.

No questions should remain whether one can paint or not to paint.....

[Anonymous]

The tagger's right to do as he wishes stops at the moment I express my non-concurrence for him to exact his craft on my property. 

[emphasis added]

Nope - the tagger has no such right, ever, or anyplace.  Your property is your property, and one of the bundle of many of your rights that goes along with the ownership of property in this country (USA) is the power and legal support to control that property.  That control inherently includes the power and right to exclude others from the property, for any reason or no reason (except for some illegal discriminatory ones).  The principle of exlcusion is so fundamental that no one can claim any right by merely being on the property (for less than many years).  And you have those rights without having to do anything to support or enforce them (again, for short periods - the doctrines in the nature of adverse possession may apply for such longer periods).  The fact that certain anti-trespassing statutes may require actual notice or constructive  notice (such as posted signs in a certain format) are requirements associated with the enforcement and penalty mechanisms and procedures - not with the fundamental right itself.

So you need not first tell the tagger to stop in order to negate any such purported right, because there isn't any such thing.  What that vandal has is merely the potential ability (mere power, without any legal right) to attempt to perpetrate the illegal act(s) without observation, interference, or clear notice that what is being done is objectionable.  To the extent that any of that is needed or relevant - such as for enforcement - then your non-concurrence would be an essential event and act.  But otherwise, no one has the right to paint your property only until you tell them to stop.  What if you were away on vacation ?  Would you really accept coming home to find your house all painted up, and just say to yourself, "Well, this happened because I wasn't here to tell the tagger to stop, so he/she had the right to continue doing it - into perpetuity ?"  To ask that question is to answer it, though that is hardly necessary.

- Paul North.

Excellent.  I believe you reference in your description what's called the "squatter's law" whereby, at least in Minnesota, if someone dwells on or actively maintains land that's not deeded to them, they can go before a court and petition for ownership of that land.  I think the time-span in Minneosta is 10 years but I may be wrong.  In any event, the weirdo who lives to the east of me (couple of rich people, and the guy is some type of pseudo-genius in his technical field) tried offering me a deal where they'd maintain part of my unfinished property up that adjoins their land, and they'd sod it and mow it for me - I wouldn't have to do anything on it.  Uhhhh, no, I said - not gonna fall for that one!  Since then they (thankfully) have stayed away.

[joegreen]

.....That certainly puts it in definite words that all should understand.

No questions should remain whether one can paint or not to paint.....

There really wasnt any questions in the first place. I know graffiti is illegal, you know its illegal, and so does everyone else. Its been stated many times here and every signle time a graffiti subject comes up. That said, its not goin to stop anyone just because its a law. As long as there are rules or laws put in place, there will always be people who want to defy them.

As far as painting your own house....that may also not be "legal" when you think about it. If i tagged up my own house the neighbors would get their pantaloons in a bunch and complain to the city. The city would then tell me to repaint my house in a more "acceptable" color or else. As for that "somthing else", i have no idea what the city would actually do but im not willin to push it with my "everything must look nice" neighbors and city heads. I know in the past a few of my friends and the city went at it because of the way their property looked. Heck, you cant even let your lawn grow to a certain height without the city gettin on you about cuttin it. So in reality you cant do what you want with your own property just because its yours....there are many limitations.

 

[Anonymous]

Perhaps slightly off topic, but here is a fascinating performance in the theater of property rights.  It kind of gives me an anxiety attack watching it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HTKq6y8_QI&mode=related&search=

 

[selector]

Paul, thanks for your thoughtful reply.   If you and I are the only two people on the planet, and we can't agree on a single concept or construct, of what meaning is the word "right"?   However, once it becomes enacted by a formal government, it becomes a formal and entrenched artefact of both daily life and commerce.

Suppose you and I are on the prairies, homesteaders in a place where there is no government as yet.  I decide I'd like to paint your house for you...a kindness, you know. (I'm "thinking" like the vandals we are discussing.)  We each accord to ourselves the "right" to do as we please in view of my initiated act of painting your house for you.  You begin to load your gun as I dip my paintbrush.  In nature, we do have "rights".

The formal architecture of statute law, at least in Canada, precludes either of us from doing what I describe above.  In that sense, you are correct; there is no right to take up the paintbrush, nor the right to use lethal or maiming force to prevent it if the painting is going to happen.  What I was referring to was the right to do what the Law permits as a freedom and right.  What the Law requires both parties to do or to not do is reflected in my non-concurrence and concurrence as a duty-bound citizen.  That the painter enjoys the limits in Law imposed on me to not take up my gun means that he is also bound by that same law or set of laws, and is afforded the benefit of protection in them.  In that sense, my non-concurrence is reflected in the laws dealing with property rights, and that is where his "rights to do as he pleases" cease.

I did not mean that he had the right to tag my property, and that my right of property trumped his right to tag it.  That doesn't make sense.  Rather, he does have a range of rights and freedoms, and putting paint, in any form or colour, on an item not owned by him is a violation, both of natural and civil/statute law.  It, in other words, is not one of his rights.  As a citizen, once again, I am deemed to support the law that restricts him..as it does me.  As a beneficiary of citizenship, the very same applies to him.  Philosophically and legally, he must be assumed to feel the same way.  So, when he takes it upon himself to breach the law, he should anticipate sanction, just as he would hope to have sanction imposed on me had I painted up his front door in a manner of which he did not approve. 

[gardendance]

There really wasnt any questions in the first place. I know graffiti is illegal, you know its illegal, and so does everyone else. Its been stated many times here and every signle time a graffiti subject comes up. That said, its not goin to stop anyone just because its a law. As long as there are rules or laws put in place, there will always be people who want to defy them.

As far as painting your own house....that may also not be "legal" when you think about it. If i tagged up my own house the neighbors would get their pantaloons in a bunch and complain to the city.

Yes, Ill admit I know waaay too much about graffiti... so much that a person with very little or no knowledge of graffiti upon hearing my statements would believe I have done graffiti

...

 This whole thread probably wouldnt even have been posted had it not been for my obvious support of graffiti on this forum

...

furthermore I will aslo deny nothing....good day.

Joe, a few posts ago in this thread I asked how you would feel if someone else tagged your property. I was using the lazyman's "you", I should have asked you, in your capacity as someone who knows "waaay too much about graffiti", how would a tagger feel if someone else tagged his home without his. But I'm also interested in how you would feel if someone else tagged your home without your permission.

You also mention "my obvious support of graffiti". Frankly I haven't read any of your posts outside of this thread. Why do you support graffiti, or can you point me to your other posts which answer why?

[joegreen]

There really wasnt any questions in the first place. I know graffiti is illegal, you know its illegal, and so does everyone else. Its been stated many times here and every signle time a graffiti subject comes up. That said, its not goin to stop anyone just because its a law. As long as there are rules or laws put in place, there will always be people who want to defy them.

As far as painting your own house....that may also not be "legal" when you think about it. If i tagged up my own house the neighbors would get their pantaloons in a bunch and complain to the city.

Yes, Ill admit I know waaay too much about graffiti... so much that a person with very little or no knowledge of graffiti upon hearing my statements would believe I have done graffiti

...

 This whole thread probably wouldnt even have been posted had it not been for my obvious support of graffiti on this forum

...

furthermore I will aslo deny nothing....good day.

Joe, a few posts ago in this thread I asked how you would feel if someone else tagged your property. I was using the lazyman's "you", I should have asked you, in your capacity as someone who knows "waaay too much about graffiti", how would a tagger feel if someone else tagged his home without his. But I'm also interested in how you would feel if someone else tagged your home without your permission.

You also mention "my obvious support of graffiti". Frankly I haven't read any of your posts outside of this thread. Why do you support graffiti, or can you point me to your other posts which answer why?

If someone tagged my house it better be some dang good stuff, if it is id approve. Then again like i said earlier my neighbors probly wouldnt approve. If someone did tag my house id know right then and there if it was a graff artist or lets say...a certain someone from an internet chat room.....just by the hand style. I wouldnt be too worried about another graff artist taggin my house cuz traditionally it doesnt happen. Its an unwritten code kinda thing in the graff world. You dont usually hit places of religion or personal homes/cars unless they are abandoned. Why would a graff artist tag my house? Im not beefin with any other artist so im clear on that.

You havnt read my other posts eh?...that might have do with the fact that i dont usually reply unless theres somethin said about graffiti. Its way to clear to me that not too many people on here know anything about graffiti.

Yeah thats right I support graffiti...til i die son. While i was growin up it was more important to me to get flix of freight train graffiti than get flix of the freight train itself(although i still did that too). Maybe i shouldnt have started watchin trains at such a young age?, what i saw was way too inappropriate for someone so young....yet i couldnt stop wanting it.

[Anonymous]

There really wasnt any questions in the first place. I know graffiti is illegal, you know its illegal, and so does everyone else. Its been stated many times here and every signle time a graffiti subject comes up. That said, its not goin to stop anyone just because its a law. As long as there are rules or laws put in place, there will always be people who want to defy them.

As far as painting your own house....that may also not be "legal" when you think about it. If i tagged up my own house the neighbors would get their pantaloons in a bunch and complain to the city.

Yes, Ill admit I know waaay too much about graffiti... so much that a person with very little or no knowledge of graffiti upon hearing my statements would believe I have done graffiti

...

 This whole thread probably wouldnt even have been posted had it not been for my obvious support of graffiti on this forum

...

furthermore I will aslo deny nothing....good day.

Joe, a few posts ago in this thread I asked how you would feel if someone else tagged your property. I was using the lazyman's "you", I should have asked you, in your capacity as someone who knows "waaay too much about graffiti", how would a tagger feel if someone else tagged his home without his. But I'm also interested in how you would feel if someone else tagged your home without your permission.

You also mention "my obvious support of graffiti". Frankly I haven't read any of your posts outside of this thread. Why do you support graffiti, or can you point me to your other posts which answer why?

 Its an unwritten code kinda thing in the graff world. You dont usually hit places of religion or personal homes/cars unless they are abandoned.

If graff artists have an unwritten code to not hit certain places, what is different about the places they do hit?  Why are those places OK to hit?

[gardendance]

Yeah thats right I support graffiti...til i die son. While i was growin up it was more important to me to get flix of freight train graffiti than get flix of the freight train itself(although i still did that too).

Joe, I'd appreciate it if you not call me "son".

I asked 2 questions. You only answered 1 of them.

You didn't say why do you support graffiti? Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing. Graffiti is marking property that's not yours without permission. I'm not talking about making a drawing in graffiti style. If Picasso paints a rock in the middle of Yellowstone Park, that's graffiti. If Chewy or Kool Earl get a commision to mark up a bunch of subway cars that's not graffiti.

By that definition looking good or bad has nothing to do with whether it's graffiti or not. Maybe you have some other definition, but since you refer to "freight train graffiti" I feel pretty confident you're referring to the same thing I am.

Also I'm going to question if you do actually know so much about graffiti. I have certainly seen enough cases where someone's hit places of religion and personal homes to doubt that there's any such unwritten code, or if there is then it's local to your area, not mine.

[joegreen]

Yeah thats right I support graffiti...til i die son. While i was growin up it was more important to me to get flix of freight train graffiti than get flix of the freight train itself(although i still did that too).

Joe, I'd appreciate it if you not call me "son".

I asked 2 questions. You only answered 1 of them.

You didn't say why do you support graffiti? Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing. Graffiti is marking property that's not yours without permission. I'm not talking about making a drawing in graffiti style. If Picasso paints a rock in the middle of Yellowstone Park, that's graffiti. If Chewy or Kool Earl get a commision to mark up a bunch of subway cars that's not graffiti.

By that definition looking good or bad has nothing to do with whether it's graffiti or not. Maybe you have some other definition, but since you refer to "freight train graffiti" I feel pretty confident you're referring to the same thing I am.

Also I'm going to question if you do actually know so much about graffiti. I have certainly seen enough cases where someone's hit places of religion and personal homes to doubt that there's any such unwritten code, or if there is then it's local to your area, not mine.

I didnt feel the need to answer your 2nd question. I just support it. Like i said before, growin up i paid more attention to the graffiti on trains. Its a matter of what i was exposed to. I had more of a positive additude on what ive seen then yall did and still do.

......can this thread go on any longer....

[marknewton]

In case anybody misunderstands, I am not defending tagging.  I hate what it does to that honest, drab look of a freight train.  I don't like rolling stock that looks like it has been to a party.  It's just that when I see it churned out by the trainload, I begin to wonder what motivates such a concerted effort.

It's the same motivation that makes dogs lift their hind leg and piddle to mark their "territory".

And if much of the motive is ego and trying to outdo each other, why does so much of it look the same? 

Why does one splash of urine look the same as another?

Cheers,

Mark.

[marknewton]

Its way to clear to me that not too many people on here know anything about graffiti.

It should should be equally clear to you that not too many people here care about graffiti, either.

Mark.

[Modelcar]

....The only way I "care" anything about graffiti is how it disgusts me when I see it.  Trash to the n'th degree....!  Making it that way, knowing how it got there and with such trashy motives. And of course applying it to units owned by someone other than the "trasher".

[marknewton]

.The only way I "care" anything about graffiti is how it disgusts me when I see it...

Yes, and I rather think that view is shared by the majority on this forum.

Cheers,

Mark.

[gardendance]

I didnt feel the need to answer your 2nd question.

...

I had more of a positive additude on what ive seen then yall did and still do.

......can this thread go on any longer....

I object to your opinion but I uphold your right to have and express that opinion in speech and in fora like this, yadda yadda... Perhaps it's not just that you don't feel the need to answer "Why do you support graffiti?" but also that you don't feel the need to try to figure out a SUFFICIENT reason why you SHOULD support graffiti. You probably know that stealing is bad, you probably know that marking up someone else's property probably reduces its value, you suport graffiti, which is marking up someone else's property, so you support taking something of value from someone, so you support stealing.

I'm not saying you actually have stolen yourself, I'm not saying you actually have vandalized yourself. But you support graffiti, are there any other crimes that you support?

This thread, like any other, can go on as long as someone feels like adding to it and as long as the moderators feel they want to let it. I'd like it to go on as long as somebody's got something new to add, but I'm also willing to put up with a bunch of repetition. I'm also willing to put up with a bunch of repetition.

[zardoz]

..... I know graffiti is illegal.....its not goin to stop anyone just because its a law

Spoken like a true loser.

[Anonymous]

 
I know graffiti is illegal,

 

 Its an unwritten code kinda thing in the graff world. You dont usually hit places of religion or personal homes/cars unless they are abandoned.

If graff artists have an unwritten code to not hit certain places, what is different about the places they do hit?  Why are those places OK to hit?

I am still waiting for an answer to this question. 

[Ted Marshall]

I'm also willing to put up with a bunch of repetition. I'm also willing to put up with a bunch of repetition.

That's a good one. That's a good one.

You might remember, I posted a reply (which was deleted, BTW) in a previous thread that I support the idea of "rehab programs for pathological vandals (graffiti addicts), who will go nameless" (clearing my throat) and who admit they have a problem and seek help. I am offering the benefit of the doubt that their condition is a disease vs. a conscious decision to deface someone elses property. I also support prosecuting those who insist that there is no problem and that graffiti is a victimless crime that somehow deserves recognition for its 'artistic' value should they be caught. 

This thread has run its course and will be locked soon. I just wanted to get my in before that happened. 

[SW 1200]

Yes, Ill admit I know waaay too much about graffiti...  As a matter of fact I remember the person that first accused me of doing graffiti just because I "knew too much"........the phrase "one knows what youll be doing in the yard tonight, joe" comes to mind. Thats where it started ...

furthermore I will aslo deny nothing....good day.

That phrase (mis-quoted) didn't start anything.  Your own posted words started it.

The quote was:

"It doesn't take a huge leap of imagination for a reasonable person

to guess what you are going to do in the railyard tonight." 

Heavy emphasis on the word reasonable. 

That quote didn't start anything, it finished it. 

TonyM.

 

[Anonymous]

Well since I get no answer from joegreen to my question about why it is OK to tag private property unless it is a place of religion or a personal home or car, I will answer it myself.

A large part of the graffiti motive is to lash out at material success, wealth, achievement and authority---the so-called power structure.  So the resentment is focused on commercial or public buildings, infrastructure, trains, or any large surface owned by what they see as the power structure.

At the same time they exempt ordinary individuals and their private property from their attack because it is not seen as part of the material excesses of the power structure.  In fact, they see themselves engaged in a kind of moral crusade against the wealthy establishment on behalf of the little guy, so naturally they spare the little guys' houses from their outrage.

Taggers see honor in this self-righteous mission and feel that they occupy the moral high ground.  Hence their willingness to refrain from littering with empty paint cans while doing thousands of dollars worth of damage to rich people.

It is similar to the rationalization that it is OK to burn down "McMansions" in the name of protecting the environment when the real motive is class envy, and a hatred of capitalism, material success, and rich people.

Here is a very interesting link to a rather highbrow analysis and rationalization of graffiti culture:  http://www.graffiti.org/faq/werwath/werwath.html

It is laced with references to this contempt for authority motive.  In a nutshell, the graffiti is a painted message that can express this contempt in words and graphics.  And the damage done to private property in the process is a continuation of the expression of that contempt.

[selector]

And on that enlightned note, let's move along.  Have a good one, folks.

-Crandell