Roslindale to bike thieves: Don't mess with us

So this happened today in Roslindale, thanks to the local Nextdoor.com groups and Keep Roslindale Quirky on Facebook:

This morning, a Belgrade Avenue resident was getting her toddler inside ready for a ride on their bike - an unusual model with an extra-long frame with a child seat bolted to the back - when somebody just walked up to the bike outside and took it. She posted a photo to Nextdoor and asked people to keep an eye out. Somebody cross-posted it to the Facebook group.

Shortly after 3 p.m., a woman was walking down Belgrade Avenue when she spotted the bike - and a guy riding it:

I pretended to take photos and talk on my dead phone to police..he handed it over.

She walked the bike home and locked it in her garage while she called the owner.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

    Free tagging: 

      Comments

      Nice but now call the police

      By on

      Great news, but I hope the person who returned the bike also called the police to report the person who stole it.

      Good job, citizen.

      Good job, citizen.

      Continuing a previous discussion on this matter: In lieu of using the Second Amendment to bring justice in this matter, the citizen chose to use the ruse of actively enlisting an arm of the government that is armed and allowed to use physical violence or force to settle disputes or to bring a dispute or injustice to a proper venue.

      Either way, the choice to use a potentially violent tool is an effective tactic to achieve justice. You do not always have to go all Hiroshima on every matter, but you should always have a Fat Boy at the ready or at least a phone call away.

      Yes, but some people refuse

      Yes, but some people refuse to employ the use of violence, even through alternate or once-removed means. Have you ever been in school and someone got up in your grill about their cousin coming down to "get you". Well, that is what you are doing when you call the police. You are using the same potentially violent means to attain justice. Even if you fake the call, it is the same buy-in principle as using a Zagnut under your hoodie to rob a bank. You can't go back to your hippie friends and say "I never really was going to call the pigs, man!". Just like you cannot backpedal on the candy bar gun ruse.

      Translation

      "I defend my good ol' Cape Cod Fentanyl and Oxy Stash with a gun - don't call the cops on me mmmkay!"

      It's not a gun

      By on

      Fat Boy was the name of one of the original Atomic Bombs used to end WWII

      Let me hear you say Fat Boys!

      By on

      The bombs were called Fat Man and Little Boy. The Fat Boys were a rap group in the eighties.

      Do you live in Boston?

      By on

      I ask because as an actual Boston resident (really, I pay taxes and vote for mayor and all that stuff), I applaud efforts by my elected officials and police to reduce the number of guns on our streets - even as I applaud this creative ruse by somebody in my neighborhood.

      Of the two types of gun

      By on

      Of the two types of gun *OWNERSHIP*, the illegal type is the far bigger problem.

      There is such a thing as legal gun ownership; it's hard for many around here to deal with it.

      Why is not liking guns a bad

      By on

      Why is not liking guns a bad thing? Why are gun owners satisfied with the status quo of 30000 gun deaths per year in the US? You know who never shoots people to death? People who don't have access to guns. Any sane person would rather have very strict gun laws and only about 10 gun homicides per year like in Japan.

      OR CHICAGO!

      By on

      Riiiiiiight?

      Check out heyjackass.com

      For stricter stuff, try Venezuela.

      I work in Boston. I was a

      I work in Boston. I was a Boston resident and business owner in the past. Back in the 90s/00s, I delivered pizza in your neighborhood.

      I applaud the elected officials of Boston for using their granted powers of office to protect the inherent Second Amendment right of the citizens to keep and bear arms.

      non-violence

      By on

      When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

      That's nice that you love yourself some guns

      By on

      Perhaps you should check into the statistics that say that your fetishistic totem is 40 times as likely to kill you or someone you know and love than be used to repel an attack.

      Oh, wait. Facts. Sorry, you can't handle those.

      Odds

      I cut it short before applying hypergeometric distribution to Bayes Rule to figure out just how crappy your random stab at understanding probability is. The bottom line is that I would have to kill hundreds of people I know and love to even come close to making your numbers right. Did you just make those numbers up?

      How is using 2nd amendment bringing justice?

      By on

      If I understand what you're saying, the newly minted interpretation of 2nd amendment as equaling gun ownership somehow equals justice? Does that mean showing a gun to a person equals justice? Or that shooting a person accused (but not convicted) is justice?

      Or, if a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is applied, do you mean that if the person was part of a well regulated militia, which is what provides for a right to keep and bear arms which shall not be infringed, then that membership somehow transmits justice? Not sure how that transmission has much effect.

      In any case I infer that you are supporting vigilante justice.

      which is what provides for a right to

      what provides for a right to keep and bear arms

      Nothing provides for the right.

      The right is inherent.

      I infer that you are supporting vigilante justice.

      I support justice as provided by law. Occasionally an instance of vigilante justice impresses me. In such instances, it is very important that the vigilante is 100 percent resigned to face subsequent justice themselves.

      Inherent? No.

      By on

      That is an interesting concept. But as an absolute it fails to prove that there is a right to own guns.

      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      Obviously the first phrase refers to a well regulated militia. While Scalia et al. demonstrated impressive gymnastic ability in twisting logic to fit their foregone conclusion, they could not change the fundamental language. To follow Scalia's philosophy of paying attention to the original language one must connect the two statements.

      It seems to me that the plain meaning is that the 2nd Amendment is about a right that exists only in the context of maintaining a well regulated militia. In other words it is not an inherent right.

      If the belief that there exists an inherent right bear and keep firearms then the Amendment should be modified. Scalia himself said that we can not read into the Constitution what is not there. If we want an idea to be added to the Constitution then there is a process for doing so.

      There is an ironic other side to the coin today however. Given the state of the Federal Executive branch and the apparent willingness of the current majorities of both houses of Congress to ignore the elephant in the living room, perhaps it is best for individuals who believe in democracy to equip their homes with firearms. On the other hand given the state of firearm technology I doubt if there are any firearms which could be owned which would stand up to what a professional army can wield.

      To bring the back to the question of whether the 2nd Amendment provides a right for an individual, void of military context, to bear and keep firearms? No. If it did the Amendment would only say, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

      Words have meaning. If words are part of a phrase, especially as significant as one establishing a government, then every word is significant. Can't separate one phrase from the other.

      Governments do not have

      Governments do not have rights.

      Governments have powers granted to them.

      Rights are inherent. Rights are not granted.

      Bill of Rights - Not Bill of Powers.

      Holy Hell did we get off topic

      By on

      Aaaannyway: Great job by neighbors and bike advocates in the area to keep an eye out for it. I guess stealing a very distinct-looking bike in the dead of winter when only the hardiest are riding isn't a great idea.

      It was heartening to see that many people work together for a small win.

      Have you seen this bike?

      By on

      If it's the one I'm thinking of, it is quite distinctive. They're very much a cycling family (if it is the family I am thinking of) and I've even seen mom pedaling away all by herself on that heavy thing in Franklin Park.

      But yeah, score one for the neighborhood looking out for one another.

      Distinctive bike

      There can't be more than a few dozen (and it wouldn't surprise me if there are less than a dozen) of these bikes in the Boston area. And perhaps combined with the color it might be unique in the Boston area. I am guessing the guy who stole it was thinking "why did I steal a such an easy to identify bike? I am an idiot".

      I'm just amazed...

      By on

      ...that a post clearly involving a bike wasn't vexed with another biker vs. driver vs. pedestrian arguments FOR ONCE....

      ::pops champagne::

      ...and yet somehow/instead devolved into gun rights in a situation where there was. no. gun.

      ::tries in vain to recork champagne, while also realizing it's 9:30AM::

      its fine

      By on

      we all need a drink.

      so, pass it around would you?

      and yet somehow/instead

      and yet somehow/instead devolved into gun rights in a situation where there was. no. gun.

      The hero citizen pretended to call in people with guns to the scene.

      "...there was. no. gun."

      "...there was. no. gun."

      Guns are so effective, that sometimes even pretending to have one on the way to the scene of an injustice is enough to make things right.

      A bike thief is probably one of the lowest ranking criminals to exist in terms of overall intelligence. Pretending to call in people with guns works fine in most cases.

      In the case of rapists, carjackers or military coupers, I would advise to really call in people with guns if you left yours at home.

      To someone with a hammer, every problem is a nail

      By on

      What some of us see is an interesting story with may subplots- the unique bicycle (trust me, if it is the bike I think it is, it's pretty darned special), the fact that someone thought they could just up and steal the bicycle and get away with it, the quick use of social media to spread the word of said missing bike, and its recovery. But sure, the most important thing about this story was the nonexistent gun.

      It's a good thing that the story didn't note that the owner sometimes uses the bike as a space saver.