Chick-fil-A Graffiti Vandal Manny Castro Arrested

Castro

Manny Castro, the artist who sprayed graffiti on a Torrance, California Chick-fil-A in protest of the company's anti-gay donations, was finally arrested yesterday, after making himself known by publishing two statements in the HuffPost taking responsibility for the incident.

The L.A. Times reports:

Police are also looking for a second person who may have played a role in the incident.

Manuel Castro, 30, was arrested on suspicion of vandalism about 7 p.m. Wednesday in West Hollywood, said Torrance police Sgt. Steve Jenkinson…

…"Everybody is entitled to free speech, but it seems like for the gay tribe, this is more of an issue of equal rights — human rights," he said. "I'm against what these people stand for, what this company stands for. They're trying to take away what little rights we already have."

Investigators were aware of Castro's comments and worked to independently identify him as their suspect, Jenkinson said. Using "numerous items of evidence" discovered at the scene as well as information gathered during their investigation, detectives consulted with the Los Angeles district attorney's office before arresting Castro.

Castro posted $20,000 bail and was released from the city jail at 11:18 p.m.

Comments

  1. JohnAGJ says

    I share his dislike of the anti-gay movement, but his actions were too much. Bragging about what he did publically only compounded his foolishness. Eh, slap him on the wrist, fine him, make him pay for the clean-up and move on. Good enough for me.

  2. SteveC says

    $20,000 bail?

    For a bit of vandalism?

    That seems very high.

    I hope he pleads not guilty.

    Take it to trial where he can argue self-defence by claiming that through its actions Chick-Fil-A is financing a culture of violence and hatred against the LGBT community.

  3. sparks says

    I thought the same thing STEVEC! 20k is ridiculous for what surely can’t be more than a misdemeanor and did no bodily harm to anyone. Wonder how much bail would have been required if he had assaulted a gay person?

  4. RWG says

    It appears the DA plans on making an example of Mr Castro by meting out the harshest punishment possible. How sad and pathetic! To my eyes, this prosecution is purely political and an act of homophobic repression in itself. Since he came forward himself, and considering the very minor nature of his offense, Mr Castro should have been given a ticket and a small fine, at most. Anything more amounts to official gay- bashing by the DA.

  5. Jack says

    20k basically means he has to pay 2k to be free until trial. That’s not all that outrageous.

    @RWG: pure hogwash. You do the crime, you better be prepared to serve up to the maximum. Official gay bashing? Utter stupidity.

  6. jamal49 says

    That wasn’t “vandalism”. That was a political protest against the people and the company who wishes to inflict harm and violence on us and deny us civil equality.

    It’s amazing to read all the pissy pansies here tut-tutting this man’s courageous act of outrage on our behalf.

    Revolutions aren’t pretty, girls. They’re nasty. Get over yourselves.

    So, who’s gonna step up and provide the man counsel?

    Or, is there a white party or something this weekend and everybody will be too busy?

  7. Nate says

    @Jamal49 I agree. Sounds like the DA is making an example of him, to dissuade further protest by gays. I saw a photo of Chik-fil-a painting over this with an extra can of the same color paint the very next day. So he caused about $20 worth of property damage and made a huge political statement. What is really going on here?

  8. Byron St. James says

    Does anyone know if there will be a defense fund set up? I will gladly contribute to it. Issues such as artistic expression and freedom of speech are important in this case, as well as saying a big f**k you to the rightwing haters who have been calling for his persecution.

  9. Jack says

    Not vandalism? Are you kidding? Ok, whatever. Freedom of speech? HAH. Funny how people here are willing to toss the First Amendment out the window the second someone says something they don’t agree with, but then cry “freedom of speech” when someone commits a criminal act not protected by the First Amendment.

    Hilarious. Some of you people are really astounding in your transparent lack of principle, and in your idiocy.

  10. RWG says

    @Jack: Let’s see a review of similar “graffiti” arrests and their outcomes in court. Before you call hogwash on my assertion, show us an example of any graffiti artist who has been held with such high bail for a first time offense, rather than being given a desk appearance ticket. It’s homophobia under official cover of law. If you think otherwise you’re deluded.

  11. Jack says

    @RWG:

    Revok recently held in LA on $320,000 bail.
    A few graffiti-ers held in Utah on $50,000
    Another graffiti “artist” held on $60,000 in LA
    In MA, a guy who tagged a couple train cars was held on $20,000 in 2009.

    You were saying?

    And by the way, the onus of proof is on the person claiming homophobia. Russell’s teapot. Not that I would expect most of the commenters on here to be familiar with anything even tangentially related to logic. You guys prefer to argue based on emotion, unsurprisingly.

  12. says

    If companies are people and people vote with dollars then the destination of the restaurant’s donations are open for public debate. It very well should be an issue as to where peoples’ hard-earned money goes after the chicken goes down their gullet. This issue has made our little feathered friend the modern martyr as Chick-fil-A laughs all the way to the bank. Watch the poultry be nailed to the cross and pierced by the spear of destiny at the hands of those devious cows on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/08/holy-rollin-poultry-on-cross-chick-fil.html

  13. TRUTHTELLER says

    JACK, dear. I know you are trying to sound educated and all, but the first amendment is about protecting your right to say anything you want from the GOVERNMENT, not from other citizens! Read up on it before you make a fool out of yourself again.

    “Funny how people here are willing to toss the First Amendment out the window the second someone says something they don’t agree with, but then cry “freedom of speech” when someone commits a criminal act not protected by the First Amendment.”

  14. TRUTHTELLER says

    JAMAL49 has the the best comment on this thread so far.

    “Revolutions aren’t pretty, girls. They’re nasty. Get over yourselves.”

    Castro’s graffiti has helped to keep the spotlight on this company’s financial contribution to hate groups bent on eradicating human rights for gay people.

  15. Jack says

    @TRUTHTELLER:

    Dear, I know you thought you caught me, but in actuality you missed the boat. I was referring to people who were saying that it would be completely acceptable to deny CFA a permit based on constitutionally protected speech. So yea, I WAS talking about government action.

    Saying that CFA should be denied a permit (clearly unconstitutional), and then saying an act of vandalism (clearly not protected) is “free speech” is stupid, and wrong.

    HTH.

Leave A Reply