In the second episode of Noisey’s Chiraq, Chief Keef and his crew head to New York while we catch up with MGS and Global Gangstas Entertainment, two other rap collectives in Chicago. They, along with the Chicago Police Department, speak extensively on the social and cultural challenges faced by the community. Near the end, we’re introduced to Yung Trell, a 14-year-old rapper from Englewood who’s looking for his break.
Going to SXSW? Don’t miss Boiler Room!
So last week Young Money third-stringer Mack Maine got into some sort of tussle with Chief Keef affiliate Tadoe, who’s best known for holding guns in Keef’s videos and getting pranked on video by his fellow GBE crew members, although he’s actually a way better rapper than the perception of him as another guy’s weed carrier might suggest. This being hip-hop in 2012 the beef quickly moved onto Twitter, with Tadoe calling Mack Maine a “BITCH” and Mack Maine responding with some vague nonsense about “peasants” throwing “pebbles” at the “throne.”
Tadoe was the clear winner in the exchange despite the fact that no one who’s not obsessively deep into the Chicago drill scene knows who he is, while Mack Maine is at least a name that’s familiar to pretty much any guy on the street wearing too much heavily branded streetwear. Mack Maine lost major points by fronting like he owns a throne when in fact his overall image is closer to a guy who lives in an Extended Stay America by the airport, while Tadoe earned about a million points for referring to him as “Mack Mané,” which is probably a typo but if you pretend the accent mark is some kind of super subtle burn it’s incredible.
All in all this is a completely uninteresting story that no one outside of Tadoe and Mack Maine’s closest friends should even care about, except for one thing. In Tadoe’s tweet where he calls Mack Maine a “BITCH” he also refers to him as an “opp,” and the beef’s blog coverage was the first time I had seen the term used outside of Chicago. In fact it was one of the first times I had ever seen it appear on the Internet outside of the comments section at Fake Shore Drive and the Twitter account of drill queen Katie Got Bandz.
Katie’s not only an up and coming rapper who critics all over the world are keeping tabs on, she’s also a teenage girl from a youth culture scene on Chicago’s South Side that’s kept itself fairly impenetrable to outside eyes despite the amount of media attention that’s been directed its way this year. So basically she knows about all sorts of crazy slang that the rest of the world has no idea about. Since about three-quarters of her recent tweets have had the word “opp” in them, and since the only results from an Urban Dictionary search for it are related to Naughty By Nature’s “O.P.P.”—which come on, it includes that definition right in the song—I decided to call her up and get the info direct.
Ask a Lawyer: Is Chief Keef Going to Juvenile Hall for Violating Probation?
Chief Keef has problems. The seventeen year-old rapper might face legal consequences for a Pitchfork-produced video that features Keef—who is currently on probation for a gun charge—shooting a gun off in a gun range. Prosecutors are saying that this is 100% definitely a violation of his probation, while Keef’s people are saying he was simply following the advice of adults around him.
There are a lot of moving parts here. In the video (which has seen been taken down by Pitchfork, who also issued an apology), Keef, born Keith Cozart, can be seen signing legal documents as “Chief Keef.” Prosecutors will be calling for Keef to be sent to Juvenile Hall at his hearing on November 20th, and in an initial hearing, a Chicago judge said that Keef should be placed under house arrest again. If either such rulings were to pass, this could have serious ramifications upon Keef and his career. So, we asked a lawyer about it.
NOISEY: So you know how Pitchfork has their “Selector” series? Well, they got Chief Keef to go shoot at a gun range and then freestyle there. The police are saying that the footage of him shooting a gun is evidence of him violating his probation. But his lawyer is saying that he was essentially coerced by adults into doing it.
Is he a minor?
‘Adults’ then being Pitchfork?
And your question is…who’s right?
Who’s right and did he actually violate his probation?
I think he probably still violated his probation. Is that not what you want me to say?
Is Pitchfork under any…
Aiding and abetting a violation of his probation?
Were they aware of the fact that this could potentially be a violation?
They must have been aware! He probably signed Pitchfork release forms of some sort on top of the gun range waiver, so here’s a kid that might have not been coerced, but was certainly influenced to take those steps.
I think these are all arguments he could definitely make to a judge but I’m not sure if any of them are conclusive. They are in his favor but not quite clear cut. How old is he?
He probably knew better then, right?
It’s inconclusive. Which side would you be on? Or let me ask you a better question: What happens when you sign a pseudonym on legal documents?
You’re supposed to sign under your legal name. Modern contract law looks to the intent of the parties though. Traditional contract law was all about formalities, but modern law looks through the language of the agreement if it’s called into question, asking, “What were they trying to accomplish here?” I can’t see the documents myself but usually on a signature page you sign your name and then print it. Now, your signature can be anything, you know? Some people’s signatures can look like squiggly lines but is there’s circumstantial evidence that he actually signed the agreement, you know—had the intent to sign the agreement, then the pseudonym part is not really that strong of an argument.
Would the gun range be under any potential threat?
Probably not because I would guess that agreement would state that you’re not legally prohibited from doing things there.
But they allowed him to sign, basically, a fake name. It would be like me going in there and signing “Chuck-e-Cheese” and getting away with that.
Right. I can’t speak to it without seeing what the terms of his agreement are. If he’s presented an agreement with clear terms that states certain things and he’s signing it under a pseudonym—it’s still him, it’s not another person, it’s not ‘Chuck-e-Cheese,’ it’s a name he goes by.