Husband does Illegal graffiti

[rameumptom]

I was explaining my credentials, because others questioned my previous statements. I have no problem with others discussing and sharing their views on this or any topic. However, if they choose to question the validity of my statements, then I have the right to explain how my experience contributes to it. If someone makes a statement that I disagree with, I also have the right to explain the issue in my own view.

To have someone who has no experience dismiss my opinions (based on experience) without giving substantial reason to do so, does not promote discussion. I see this from anti-Mormons frequently in apologetics that I work on - they dismiss LDS scholars by calling them ignoramuses, and not dealing with the argument - therefore hoping to win by ad hominem.

So, please share your opinions. However, do not dismiss mine with glib statements that I cannot understand what is going on in the head of a tagger, as I deal with such behavior all the time.

[applepansy]

It is incredibly common for family to have someone engaged in non-violent, but illegal activity, and for them to watch in frustration. My guess is that the majority of family members would not turn their loved ones in, if the crimes committed were not of a violent nature.

If you and some others are right about how serious and scary this behavior is, then another option might be separation (not divorce). It's a personal call, but if the OP feels strongly enough about it, the ultimatum would be, "I love you, want you, and need you. But this tagging is scaring me. It's effecting my emotional health because I am so worried about you. The example you are setting is, frankly, poor. I will never divorce you over this. However, neither can I live with it. So, for now, you or I need to move out."

Maybe if he sees how seriously his behavior is effecting the OP he will snap out of this selfish form of thrill-seeking.

I agree.

[alison_143]

Idea my wife suggested to someone: Encourage him to go legal. Go buy some spray paint and some 4X8 sheets of plywood. Head to a park with him. Set it up, and say "Paint me a sports car" or something like that.

Have him make up and hand out business cards

If he's resisting the idea that he might run into trouble with a gang, post some of his work here, and let me know what city you folks are in. My wife may be able to say if it resembles any particular gang style, and maybe even can give him some suggestions on how to minimize the risk of ticking off the wrong people.

I really like that idea of painting on plywood. He did something similar to that last summer, but instead of being on plywood, he stretched industrial shrink wrap around two trees in a park and painted on that. It was totally legal and it got him a lot of attention. He didn't like how temporary it was though, so maybe doing it on plywood would help that because he can keep it/sell it.

He has done business cards before. He just doesn't really know how to market himself for legal jobs.

As far as his work resembling gang art, he always does completely different styles. The only similarity in his work is the word he paints. But really, I know nothing about gangs and how they operate. But here are a couple picture. The first was done on a legal wall, the second was done on shrink wrap. The last one was done on paper.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[pam]

Do you have smaller versions of these pictures. They are too big for this site.

[alison_143]

I don't have smaller versions of the pictures. Maybe this will work??

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/40811_417874815775_662429_n.jpg

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/545432_10150867228200776_911966336_n.jpg

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/229263_10150181354580776_4407189_n.jpg

[rameumptom]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

It is incredibly common for family to have someone engaged in non-violent, but illegal activity, and for them to watch in frustration. My guess is that the majority of family members would not turn their loved ones in, if the crimes committed were not of a violent nature.

If you and some others are right about how serious and scary this behavior is, then another option might be separation (not divorce). It's a personal call, but if the OP feels strongly enough about it, the ultimatum would be, "I love you, want you, and need you. But this tagging is scaring me. It's effecting my emotional health because I am so worried about you. The example you are setting is, frankly, poor. I will never divorce you over this. However, neither can I live with it. So, for now, you or I need to move out."

Maybe if he sees how seriously his behavior is effecting the OP he will snap out of this selfish form of thrill-seeking.

One downside to this idea is that she is still liable for any of his debts. If he is sued for thousands of dollars for the repair to a building that has been painted, then she could end up holding the bag for both paying for the building and any lawyer and court costs.

[NeuroTypical]

He's a pretty talented guy, alison. My wife had this to say:

Ok, the multiple colors thing and bubble lettering is best for not being seen as gang affiliated. He should stay away from angled lettering, and basically the letters should be difficult to read without looking at it for a few minutes. Gang tagging is often in code, but that code is meant to be clear and easy to read.

He should look into painting cars, or even painting his own car as a mobile billboard. If he gets tired of the look, he can paint it again.

He can also go with spray marking chalk. It goes away after a couple rainstorms or after using a pressure washer.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[selek]

If none of us were allowed to use common sense and logic...

But you DIDN'T use "common sense and logic"- you went "all in" with no cards in your hand.

By your own admission, "<you> don't know any taggers".

As both Ram and I pointed out you dismissed his experience based solely on your own ignorance- and when it was pointed out that you missed the point, you doubled down on that ignorance.

"Common sense" and "logic" must be grounded in reality. Your dismissal of Rameumptom's observations had no such foundation- only your own assumption and presumption.

We've already established that Allison's husband is risking a felony level conviction for vandalism. Likely consequences of this behavior that have been mentioned:

• preventing him from securing good employment with which to provide for his family.
• burden his family with court costs, legal fees, and other crushing debts (especially those incurred in restoration and repair).
• endangering his academic standing (which further degrades his prospects for good employment.
• may lead to his incarceration.
• if he crosses the wrong turf lines, may result in serious injury or even death.
• there are other, unforeseen consequences that may stretch into the future: felony convictions may further harm his ability to vote, to possess a firearm, and participate in a lot of public and private service programs.

Allison's husband is risking all of these things for the "thrill of the chase" and for the praise and adoration of his fellow taggers.

(Can you think of a better definition of the phrase "lusting after the pomp of Babylon"?)

These are risky behaviors- the very same risky behaviors which Rameumptom has observed in the prison population.

As has already been stated twice before, Rameumpton was not referring to taggers, but to the set of behaviors being demonstrated.

The pattern is there. It cannot be dismissed simply because one wants to elevate "taggers" to a special breed whose crimes can be overlooked because they're "artsy".

Tagging as the OP's husband is doing is wrong. Not sure anyone said anything different.

Thank you for the admission.

Others here, however, have been agitating for an "but it's art, so the rules don't apply" approach.

The question here is what can she do to convince her husband to stop this behaviour not who amongst us has a proper credentials to discuss it.

Except when you try to dismiss opinions you don't like out of hand.

When you cast a spray of handwavium-238 over the conversation with your airy-and erroneous- dismissal of Rameumptom's point, you made it very much a matter of the proper credentials.

Reality trumps fantasy every time it's tried (with the possible exception of the Federal budget).

When you plead "common sense" and "logic" as the basis for your pontifications, your assumptions and presumptions become fair game.

[skippy740]

Selek.... does everybody have to agree with you?

Or rather, do you have to agree with everyone who posts on a thread that you have already posted on?

It's okay to let others have a differing viewpoint and let the OP decide.

[selek]

Selek.... does everybody have to agree with you?

Of course not.

Any one and everyone has the privilege of disagreeing with me.

They must simply be prepared to vigorously defend their error.

Or rather, do you have to agree with everyone who posts on a thread that you have already posted on?

It's okay to let others have a differing viewpoint and let the OP decide.

I quite agree.

Note, however, that in Anne's case it was she- not I- who was attempting to discredit and dismiss the opinion of another (while offering no rationale basis upon which to do so).

You can hardly criticize me for engaging a dissenting opinion while simultaneously ignoring someone trying to arbitrarily dismiss such an opinion.

To my simple mind, the market place of ideas is (ideally) a Darwinian environment in which ideas survive or fail on their merits, not on how popular they are, nor upon their political correctness, nor upon whose sheltering hand has been extended over the particular orthodoxy.

I have been careful to address the quality of arguments, rather than of people, in the pursuit of wisdom and clarity. That strikes me as a wholly legitimate pursuit.

If I have failed in that regard, I apologize- and await the correction of my "betters".

Edited March 7, 2013 by selek

[skippy740]

Sometimes errors are not worth defending or arguing about.

Just a thought.

[annewandering]

Oh pft. When did I admit tagging is wrong. I never admitted it at all. That implies I was disagreeing at some point.

So the OP's husband is demonstrating the same risky behaviour the prisoners have demonstrated? Are you sure about that? He is not in a gang. He is not using drugs or dealing. He is not stealing. He is not murdering. He is not doing anything of a risky behaviour set except painting. I sincerely doubt he has seen the prisoners doing the set of behaviors the ops husband is doing. Just a very small subset of ONE. Although if he sees this set of behavior in the prisoners maybe they need a few more guards.

[annewandering]

just so you are willing to defend your 'questionable' statements and logic as well. and are prepared for your opponent to walk away from boredom.

[selek]

Oh pft. When did I admit tagging is wrong. I never admitted it at all. That implies I was disagreeing at some point.

In Post #50 (above), you said:

Tagging as the OP's husband is doing is wrong.

Your words, Anne. Your admission.

So the OP's husband is demonstrating the same risky behaviour the prisoners have demonstrated?

That he is engaged in the same sort of risky behavior was Rameumptom's observation, yes.

Allison's husband is deliberately and willfully violating the law for the thrill and for the "street cred".

He is deliberately damaging and destroying other people's property- and risking his family's safety, welfare, and his own good name- to feed his vanity and his pride.

just so you are willing to defend your 'questionable' statements and logic as well...

I am always open to being corrected by those who have the means and the wisdom to do so.

But I have a real problem with people who try to put their thumbs on the scale and then tell me 14 ounces is a full pound.

All that having been said, skippy is right.

This horse has been beaten well past rigor mortus.

Unless something new or interesting comes up, it's time to let it marinate in its own sauce.

Anybody want to join me for a meal at Burger King?

[Finrock]

Good Afternoon alison_143. I hope you are donig well! :)

I am not considering divorce or separation. Let me just make that clear. We have a great marriage with this singular, very large hiccup. It is serious in that he could be charged a felony for the amount of property he has damaged. As for being a gangster or a druggie, that is out of the question with him. Please don't judge me as naive. As blurred as his line is with graffiti, his line is quite clear with those things.

I just wanted to clarify that I did NOT think that you were considering divorce. I wasn't suggesting the things in my post, I was questioning them. I was questioning others who had made those types of comments. I was addressing responses to your OP that I considered to be hyperbole and an overreaction.

In any case, please reread my post and I think you'll notice that I am suggesting that I do NOT believe that your husband is a druggie, a gangster, a man-child, or a child because he paints illegal graffiti. Also, I was NOT suggesting that you are naive. I was suggesting that perhaps I'm missing the seriousness of illegal graffiti because I, Finrock, am naive and ignorant.

There is an immediate danger to our family as he could end up in jail and I'm stuck trying to figure out life with just me and our kid

Thank you for this idea. I suppose when I imagine a "direct and immediate" danger, I'm thinking of something like a Mack Truck that is just feet away bearing down on my family at 70mph. I don't consider a potential threat to be an immediate and direct danger.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited March 7, 2013 by Finrock
Grammar

[skippy740]

To my simple mind, the market place of ideas is (ideally) a Darwinian environment in which ideas survive or fail on their merits, not on how popular they are, nor upon their political correctness, nor upon whose sheltering hand has been extended over the particular orthodoxy.

Maybe that's where we might differ. (I'm not saying 'wrong' but differ.)

I think the marketplace of ideas is best done in a capitalistic environment - like a store: let the OP sift, soft and select the ideas that best suit them... not just the one "survival of the fittest" idea that absolutely has to win every single time.

Let them "shop" and test things out in the store. (Of course, that was Best Buy's idea... and it's not working out too well for them right now, but the idea has merit!) :)

That's my idea anyway.

I'd rather let the Darwinism happen in real life. Texting and driving and other idiotic behaviors help to weed out the stupid people from reproducing after themselves. If someone chooses "the wrong idea"... they'll know it as they begin to implement and see it through. That's part of the learning experience of this life. :)

Edited March 7, 2013 by skippy740

[skippy740]

Anybody want to join me for a meal at Burger King?

Never really liked Burger King. I prefer In-N-Out burger myself.

Care to debate it?

[prisonchaplain]

One downside to this idea is that she is still liable for any of his debts. If he is sued for thousands of dollars for the repair to a building that has been painted, then she could end up holding the bag for both paying for the building and any lawyer and court costs.

Since she's not considering either divorce or separation, the point is mute. Liability wise, you are right. However, I don't believe having a spouse engaged in illegal activity of this nature is grounds for divorce. On the other hand, the behavior is indeed illegal, does pose liability, and promises nothing good to come for the family. So, by staging and "individual intervention," by threatening (or carrying out) a separation, the whole situation might be salvaged.

[NoxNullaEgetDeumPerfectum]

Your husband being involved in an activity that can land him in jail is crazy. He needs to be reminded he has a family he has commited too.

I do know what he is doing is not exactly grafitti, but it is still considered by law ilegal if not permitted. Such as painting a mural under certain circumstances is legal. Murals can also be painted with spray cans(like gang grafiti) but into art. You do not have to be in a gang to do street grafiti(or art). Some people do it for many reasons. Grafiti can be for a gang or someones street art.

Its just dangerous to be doing what your husband is doing. He needs to get his artistic side out under legal grounds.

[mnn727]

Didn't read the entire thread.

Your husband needs to grow up and realize that what he is doing is both illegal and wrong, his behavior is unbecoming of a person that holds the Priesthood and who has taken upon him the name of Christ.

[mnn727]

Perhaps I'm more libertarian than many here, but I don't automatically consider any illegal activity to also be immoral activity. In fact, there have been, there are, and there will continue to be cases where acting legally is immoral and I hope to have the courage to always act morally, regardless of the law of the land.

If he's painting public property then my tax dollars built it and my tax dollars have to clean it.

If he's painting private property, then the properties owner both paid for it and has to clean it.

A true libertarian would know that your rights stop where mine starts.

[Bini]

Didn't read entire thread.

OP, you had said that your husband isn't involved in gang activity but you're a bit naive if you believe that his activity won't at some point flag the attention of an existing gang. In my BIL's neck of the woods, a kid got stabbed and almost killed for tagging in an area that was already gang claimed, this kid apparently was un-affiliated with a gang, too. That didn't matter, though, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and unfortunate doing something wrong, as well. Your husband could be putting his safety at risk and also your family. The last thing you want is him to be hurt or killed, or tailed back home to you (and your children). Think about that.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon mnn727. I hope your doing good. :-)

If he's painting public property then my tax dollars built it and my tax dollars have to clean it.

If he's painting private property, then the properties owner both paid for it and has to clean it.

A true libertarian would know that your rights stop where mine starts.

I agree.

Regards,

Finrock

[Praetorian_Brow]

I go 20 km/h average over the limit. Does that mean I need to see the bishop or am about to become a monster that is worthy of e-judgement?

[MorningStar]

I go 20 km/h average over the limit. Does that mean I need to see the bishop or am about to become a monster that is worthy of e-judgement?

Would you feel judgmental if someone tagged your house or your car that you paid for?