When "Neighborhood Watch" Gets Out of Hand

[Honu]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Trayvon Martin: There are other issues.


Editor, Times-Dispatch:

He may have stood his ground, we have no idea if he did or not because he is not here to tell us.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Honu

He may have stood his ground, we have no idea if he did or not because he is not here to tell us.

That is an issue in any legal case where a life is lost. It certainly has not stopped prosecutions and convictions for murder. There are ways other than testimony to prove a case.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Honu

He may have stood his ground, we have no idea if he did or not because he is not here to tell us.

The forensic evidence of how close the gunshot was to Trayvon, if Trayvon's fingerprints are on the gun, if Trayvon has evidence of a fight on his person (Zimmerman's skin under fingernails, bruising, etc.) will help clear that up.

If evidence was even processed by the police department, which I understand is a concern here (although we don't know for sure, it's sealed).

There is evidence that Trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend, worried that someone was following him and scaring him.

[bigrun]

Cosby: Trayvon Martin case about guns, not race


Actor and comedian Bill Cosby says the debate over the killing of Trayvon Martin by a neighborhood watch volunteer should be focused on guns, not race.

In an interview on CNN's "State of the Union" aired Sunday, Cosby said calling George Zimmerman a racist doesn't solve anything. Cosby says the bigger question is what Zimmerman was doing with a gun, and who taught him how to behave with it.

The shooting of the 17-year-old Martin on Feb. 26 has ignited a nationwide debate about race and self-defense.

Cosby said during the interview, which was taped Thursday afternoon, that he once owned a gun but no longer does. He says there is a need to get guns off the streets, and that people should be taught to use every possible alternative before shooting someone.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

The forensic evidence of how close the gunshot was to Trayvon, if Trayvon's fingerprints are on the gun, if Trayvon has evidence of a fight on his person (Zimmerman's skin under fingernails, bruising, etc.) will help clear that up.

If evidence was even processed by the police department, which I understand is a concern here (although we don't know for sure, it's sealed).

There is evidence that Trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend, worried that someone was following him and scaring him.

I don't think anyone denies what you are saying. Martin was obviously concerned and/or worried as to why this stranger was following him. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think anyone denies what you are saying. Martin was obviously concerned and/or worried as to why this stranger was following him. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

Two guys standing their ground, with a gun involved. Now one's dead. As Big posted, "What's the real problem here?" America?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Two guys standing their ground, with a gun involved. Now one's dead. As Big posted, "What's the real problem here?" America?

With regard to guns, I think anyone's gut instinct (myself included), would be that people carrying concealed weapons is dangerous and that this would lead to more people getting killed. That seems like a reasonable hypothesis.

However, the evidence doesn't support that hypothesis. Quite to the contrary, all the evidence I have seen shows that there is less violent crime in states after they pass laws allowing people to start carrying concealed weapons. There will obviously be some unfortunate incidents such as this case. You can't make a decision based on one incident. You have to view the overall results of what happens when a state allows people to carry concealed weapons. I think the evidence shows that the overall results are positive (there are less deaths and less violent crimes).

If you have any evidence that shows the opposite, feel free to present it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

With regard to guns, I think anyone's gut instinct (myself included), would be that people carrying concealed weapons is dangerous and that this would lead to more people getting killed. That seems like a reasonable hypothesis.

However, the evidence doesn't support that hypothesis. Quite to the contrary, all the evidence I have seen shows that there is less violent crime in states after they pass laws allowing people to start carrying concealed weapons. There will obviously be some unfortunate incidents such as this case. You can't make a decision based on one incident. You have to view the overall results of what happens when a state allows people to carry concealed weapons. I think the evidence shows that the overall results are positive (there are less deaths and less violent crimes).

If you have any evidence that shows the opposite, feel free to present it.

criminals become emboldened when there is a populace unable to defend itself. one only need look at cities with strict gun laws to know that. law-abiding citizens are just that. gun laws don't make a criminal suddenly concern himself with following the laws of the land, but he knows those of us who have no desire to ever go to jail will follow them. and all that does is give him ready victims, who have only 911 as a recourse.
you can pass a million laws or more; that won't solve the problem of the occasional dumbass like zimmerman.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

criminals become emboldened when there is a populace unable to defend itself. one only need look at cities with strict gun laws to know that. law-abiding citizens are just that. gun laws don't make a criminal suddenly concern himself with following the laws of the land, but he knows those of us who have no desire to ever go to jail will follow them. and all that does is give him ready victims, who have only 911 as a recourse.
you can pass a million laws or more; that won't solve the problem of the occasional dumbass like zimmerman.

I agree with everything you said except for the part about Zimmerman. Based on everything I have heard so far, Zimmerman had done a good job helping to watch the neighborhood and keep the neighborhood safe for several years. This was an unfortunate incident. Hindsight is 20/20. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Neighborhood watch programs (formal and informal) work. They reduce crime.

I highly doubt Zimmerman intended to get into any type of physical altercation. I think there is a good chance that he never intended to get within 50 yards of Martin. But he lost him on foot and at some point I think he turned a corner and found himself in close proximity to Martin. It was probably a fluke thing. We don't know for sure what happened after that. Zimmerman claims they had words but then the words ended and he was walking back to his car when he was attacked from behind.

Hindsight is 20/20 but as I said before, I highly doubt Zimmerman had any plans of getting into close proximity with Martin. If he was just some type of vigilante, why did he even bother calling the police? If he thought he was just some tough guy, he would have probably just pulled up to Martin in his car and rolled down his window and asked, "Who are you and what are you doing in this neighborhood?" But he didn't do this. He called the police. I think the whole thing was an unfortunate incident. I wouldn't recommend following someone on foot because if you lose them there is always the chance that you could end up face to face with them after turning a corner. I don't think Zimmerman ever dreamed that he would be jumped from behind (if that is in fact what happened).

I'm sure Zimmerman had followed people hundreds of times over the years (while doing his informal neigborhood watches) without incident. This incident was an aberration.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You have to view the overall results of what happens when a state allows people to carry concealed weapons. I think the evidence shows that the overall results are positive (there are less deaths and less violent crimes).

If you have any evidence that shows the opposite, feel free to present it.

I agree that concealed carry states have less murder and violent crime once it becomes common there. But - the evidence to the contrary is countries that do not have a handgun/assault weapons available to the public culture (say, Canada or England), and those that do (us).

We murder each other with guns in the thousands compared to less than 100. Why does a 20-bullet clip for a handgun need to be legal here? You can still have gun ownership, but with hard restrictions and responsibilities. Trouble is, in America we think that violates our freedomz. The definition of "responsible gun laws" varies widely among Americans.

[GenuineRisk]

It's not exactly true that concealed-carry states saw a drop in crime. Some did, some didn't. And some non-concealed-carry states saw a drop in crime. This is a very good, and, I think, fair look at concealed carry:

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

If it doesn't link right, a google search of the title will take you to it.