When "Neighborhood Watch" Gets Out of Hand

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

People in neighborhood watch programs follow people every day. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. It saves property and lives.

On your other point, if a police officer gives you an order, you have to follow it or there is a good chance you will get arrested. When a 911 operator advises you, "We don't need you to do that", that is advice. That is not an order. A person is not compelled by law to follow that advice.

In this case, in hindsight we know that Zimmerman should have followed the advice of the 911 operator. As you said, the incident would not have happened had Zimmerman taken the advice. Hindsight is 20/20. But I'm sure there are hundreds of similar situations that happen across the country every year, where there is a different ending. The neighborhood watch person follows the suspect until the police arrive, and the suspect ends up being arrested (because they turned out to be a criminal), or released because the police determine that there was no criminal intent on the part of the suspect.

It's easy to second-guess Zimmerman in hindsight, after you know that this was the one case in a thousand, where there was a bad ending. But what about the other thousand of cases a year (where a neighborhood watch person follows a person until the police arrive), and there is a happy ending?

bullshit. it's called neighborhood WATCH. not follow, not get out of your car, not apprehend, not play cop, just watch. he was specifically told not to follow. not only did he do so, he then left his car and followed on foot. all of it against what they told him to do, all of it not what neighborhood watch is supposed to do. you see something, you all the people trained to handle it. you don't try to handle it yourself.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

bullshit. it's called neighborhood WATCH. not follow, not get out of your car, not apprehend, not play cop, just watch. he was specifically told not to follow. not only did he do so, he then left his car and followed on foot. all of it against what they told him to do, all of it not what neighborhood watch is supposed to do. you see something, you all the people trained to handle it. you don't try to handle it yourself.

Three months ago, before this incident happened, I bet that if I would have done a story about aggressive neighborhood watch programs that were cutting crime way down in their neighborhoods, I bet you would have been all for it.

If I would have told you about some neighborhoods where there was a lot of crime, that there was an aggressive neighborhood watch program where the members were armed and they followed the suspects until the police got there, and the program was really effective, I bet you would have been all for it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Three months ago, before this incident happened, I bet that if I would have done a story about aggressive neighborhood watch programs that were cutting crime way down in their neighborhoods, I bet you would have been all for it.

If I would have told you about some neighborhoods where there was a lot of crime, that there was an aggressive neighborhood watch program where the members were armed and they followed the suspects until the police got there, and the program was really effective, I bet you would have been all for it.

and i bet you'd be wrong. i'm all for people defending their home, their life-i am not for vigilantes at all. you have every right to DEFEND yourself-not go after someone like some g--d--- charles bronson character from a movie.

Originally Posted by Danzig

and i bet you'd be wrong. i'm all for people defending their home, their life-i am not for vigilantes at all. you have every right to DEFEND yourself-not go after someone like some g--d--- charles bronson character from a movie.

Huh? That is exactly what he was doing. He was defending his "village". And how do we know for sure if he was acting like Charles Bronson? That seems to me like a stretch to add oomph to your point.

He has every right to defend his property and the property of his neighbors if they allow it. That's what liberty is all about.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Huh? That is exactly what he was doing. He was defending his "village". And how do we know for sure if he was acting like Charles Bronson? That seems to me like a stretch to add oomph to your point.

He has every right to defend his property and the property of his neighbors if they allow it. That's what liberty is all about.

he wasn't defending, he actively sought a confrontation with someone who was doing nothing more than walking home from a convenience store. did zimmerman know where he'd just left? no. was martin doing anything more than walking? no. since when does someone walking through your neighborhood become something to attack? what was suspicious about him being a pedestrian? what fear was engendered? exactly what life or property was zimmerman defending? and against what? a teenager armed with skittles and a drink. there was no activity until zimmerman escalated a stranger walking down the street into an issue. there was no issue until zimmerman, and his active imagination, created an issue.


i know all of the people who live in my immediate vicinity. if i see someone who isn't a neighbor, i take note. do i grab a gun? no. do i follow? no. should i? no. if they commit an overt act i would call the police and take note of what they look like, their car, what they're wearing, perhaps get a plate number if i can. but i sure wouldn't take it upon myself to judge, based on someone walking, whether they are up to no good. nor would i go after them. that is no longer defense, that's offense.

boy, you'd think a person as skilled at neighborhood watch as zimmerman would know that martin was a guest of a resident of his village. his 'village' is not his home, not his property.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

he wasn't defending, he actively sought a confrontation with someone who was doing nothing more than walking home from a convenience store. did zimmerman know where he'd just left? no. was martin doing anything more than walking? no. since when does someone walking through your neighborhood become something to attack? what was suspicious about him being a pedestrian? what fear was engendered? exactly what life or property was zimmerman defending? and against what? a teenager armed with skittles and a drink. there was no activity until zimmerman escalated a stranger walking down the street into an issue. there was no issue until zimmerman, and his active imagination, created an issue.


i know all of the people who live in my immediate vicinity. if i see someone who isn't a neighbor, i take note. do i grab a gun? no. do i follow? no. should i? no. if they commit an overt act i would call the police and take note of what they look like, their car, what they're wearing, perhaps get a plate number if i can. but i sure wouldn't take it upon myself to judge, based on someone walking, whether they are up to no good. nor would i go after them. that is no longer defense, that's offense.

boy, you'd think a person as skilled at neighborhood watch as zimmerman would know that martin was a guest of a resident of his village. his 'village' is not his home, not his property.

I think Zimmerman was quite skilled at neighborhood watch. He thought Martin looked suspicious. Was he right?:

"In October, a school police investigator said he saw Trayvon on the school surveillance camera in an unauthorized area “hiding and being suspicious.” Then he said he saw Trayvon mark up a door with “W.T.F” — an acronym for “what the f—.” The officer said he found Trayvon the next day and went through his book bag in search of the graffiti marker.

Instead the officer reported he found women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that he described as a “burglary tool,” according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald. Word of the incident came as the family’s lawyer acknowledged that the boy was suspended in February for getting caught with an empty bag with traces of marijuana, which he called “irrelevant” and an attempt to demonize a victim.

Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds."

I'm sure the jewelry belonged to Trayvon. It definitely wasn't stolen. LOL. (He admitted it wasn't his but wouldn't say where he got it.)

http://exposethemedia.com/2012/04/21...nds-at-school/

It is a joke that you guys want to vilify Zimmerman and portray Martin as a model citizen. Here is a little more on Martin:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/th...artins-tweets/

[Danzig]

you're kidding, right? what, did martin walk differently because of what happened back in october? are you suggesting zimmerman intrinsically knew that martin was some sort of bad seed because of how he moved going down the sidewalk?? lol


i tell you what, rupe. you go ahead and keep your opinion, and i'll keep mine. you obviously feel nothing untoward occurred, and there isn't a thing i could put up that would change that, so have at it.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think Zimmerman was quite skilled at neighborhood watch. He thought Martin looked suspicious. Was he right?:

"In October, a school police investigator said he saw Trayvon on the school surveillance camera in an unauthorized area “hiding and being suspicious.” Then he said he saw Trayvon mark up a door with “W.T.F” — an acronym for “what the f—.” The officer said he found Trayvon the next day and went through his book bag in search of the graffiti marker.

Instead the officer reported he found women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that he described as a “burglary tool,” according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald. Word of the incident came as the family’s lawyer acknowledged that the boy was suspended in February for getting caught with an empty bag with traces of marijuana, which he called “irrelevant” and an attempt to demonize a victim.

Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds."

I'm sure the jewelry belonged to Trayvon. It definitely wasn't stolen. LOL. (He admitted it wasn't his but wouldn't say where he got it.)

http://exposethemedia.com/2012/04/21...nds-at-school/

It is a joke that you guys want to vilify Zimmerman and portray Martin as a model citizen. Here is a little more on Martin:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/th...artins-tweets/

You surely have to understand that nothing above matters one bit, because Zimmerman didn't know he was following a kid who had done these things. He was following a person walking. Not a kid who had been suspended, not a kid who had been caught with weed, just a black kid. Period.

And even if in some magical world he did know all of those things, it still wouldn't matter one bit, because he was not stealing things, dealing drugs, or doing anything at that moment. There's a reason that I'm not allowed to go out and confront and kill the person in my neighborhood who I know is dealing drugs while he's walking to take out his garbage. Because then I'm killing an unarmed guy taking out his garbage -- the fact that he's a drug dealer doesn't change one bit of that in the end and it's just revisionist garbage to suggest otherwise.

The fact that Trayvon Martin had been caught doing whatever (being a teenager, mostly) changes nothing, and it's pathetic to say it does. If you think the kid was a menace and you're glad he's dead, just say it, because that's the only way that ANY of the information above is at all relevant to the topic at hand -- that someone shot him dead while he was walking home.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Huh? That is exactly what he was doing. He was defending his "village". And how do we know for sure if he was acting like Charles Bronson? That seems to me like a stretch to add oomph to your point.

He has every right to defend his property and the property of his neighbors if they allow it. That's what liberty is all about.

of course he does have that right.

He does not have the right to follow someone who is not commiting a crime and kill that person.