When "Neighborhood Watch" Gets Out of Hand

[Riot]

You may remember this story about Jean Kalonji and his wife Angelica, the purchaser of a foreclosed home in Newton County GA. While changing the locks on their new home, they were threatened and held at gunpoint by two of their white neighbors.

When the local sheriff deputies arrived they arrested the Kalonjis without checking to find out if they were the homeowners, and took no action against the men who threatened and assaulted Jean and Angelica with their firearms and held them against their will for no apparent reason other than that 61 year-old Jean Kalonji was black.

Well, it seems the Newton County Sheriff's Department has had a change of heart about the actions of these two vigilantes (though the Kalonji's lawyer's meeting with the Sheriff and the local DA on Monday may have helped clarify the situation for them).

Yesterday, Robert Canoles and his son, Branden, were taken into custody and charged with "aggravated assault, false imprisonment and criminal trespass."

Frankly I am surprised, but also grateful that the Newton County authorities reversed themselves and made the proper decision to charge these two morons.

These idiots took it upon themselves to assault a 61 year old black man and his 57 year old white spouse and cause them to fear for their lives merely for lawfully occupying their own property.

Nonetheless, shamefully, both men reacted with defiance and an utter lack of remorse at what they had done to these two innocent people.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...2nd-Amendment-

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...2nd-Amendment-

I thought you didn't like partisan news sources. You are constantly bashing Fox for being partisan but you seem to love getting news from left-wing sites. I don't get it.

With regard to this story, if this is the worst thing that ever happens in this country, I think we're in pretty good shape. I think the thousands of people getting robbed, beaten, and murdered in this country is a slightly more serious problem than what happened in this case. It was an unfortunate misunderstanding but at least nobody got hurt.

I was dog-sitting for my brother about 5 months ago. He lives about 35 miles from me. I decided to go for a run around his neighborhood. I was doing my regular run/walk when I noticed a police car following me. Then another police car came. They finally pulled in front of me and got out of their car. They said that they had gotten a couple of calls about me. They claimed that people said I appeared to be walking sort of aimlessly and it looked like I might be lost. The police wanted to know who I was, what I was doing there, etc.

I was a combination of slightly amused and slightly annoyed. Why in the world would anyone think I looked suspicious and/or menacing? I'm 5'9 and weigh 145 pounds. I guess it was just one of those things when you're in a neighborhood that you don't live. You just don't quite look like you fit in. I've never been pulled over running in my neighborhood.

Anyway, I didn't give the cops any attitude. I was extremely friendly and cooperative. I answered all their questions. I told them my name. I gave them my address. I told them what I was doing there. They thanked me and I was on my way.

I know this isn't nearly as bad as what some people go through. They didn't pull a gun on me or anything like that. But I could have still gotten mad and told them they had no right to question me. I was minding my own business. I didn't break any laws. But I didn't get mad. I figured the bottom line was that they had good intentions. They were just trying to protect the neighborhood.

I'd rather have a neighborhood where residents and police are conscientious and are looking out for the residents than a neighborhood where nobody cares.

By the way, the crimes they charged the people with in that case are a joke. They charged them with "aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and criminal trespass". Are they kidding? Those people didn't have any criminal intent. They may be stupid and they obviously don't know the law. But they had good intentions. They thought their neighbor's house was being burglarized. Why would you charge those people with the same crimes that you would charge real criminals with, who actually break into a house with criminal intent and hold people against their will? It's absurd. They should be charged with some type of simple misdemeanor related to improper brandishing of a gun. If the Kalonjis want to sue them for $25,000 for their trouble, that would be fine too. But to charge these people as if they had criminal intent is beyond absurd.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I thought you didn't like partisan news sources. You are constantly bashing Fox for being partisan but you seem to love getting news from left-wing sites. I don't get it.

With regard to this story, if this is the worst thing that ever happens in this country, I think we're in pretty good shape.

The story isn't "left wing". It's about moronic armed vigilantes who broke the law and endangered fellow citizens. Yeah. That's illegal, and no, self-appointed armed vigilantes are not good.

Zimmerman did the same thing, played armed vigilante, and a kid, doing nothing illegal, is dead. Bending over backwards imagining blame scenarios where it's all the victims fault says alot.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

The story isn't "left wing". It's about moronic armed vigilantes who broke the law and endangered fellow citizens. Yeah. That's illegal, and no, self-appointed armed vigilantes are not good.

Zimmerman did the same thing, played armed vigilante, and a kid, doing nothing illegal, is dead. Bending over backwards imagining blame scenarios where it's all the victims fault says alot.

My comment wasn't about it being a left-wing story. My comment was that I found it interesting that you seem to always post stories from left-wing sites. You constantly knock Fox News for being a partisan news source. Yet you seem to love partisan news sources. You love them as long as they have the same ideology as you.

You said, "Bending over backwards imagining blame scenarios where it's all the victims fault says alot." My response to you is that bending over backwards imagining some type of negative intentions in order to vilify altruistic people (who were only trying to help their neighbors) says alot.

By the way, if you read the article about Zimmerman you would have noticed that his black neighbors defended him. In addition, you would have noticed that Zimmerman and a black friend of his opened up a business together. Zimmerman is such a racist that his business partner was black. LOL.

[Danzig]

911 dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:
OK.
We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

Zimmerman:
OK. [2:28]

911 dispatcher:
Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]

Zimmerman:
George. He ran.


ok. 911 says don't follow. zimmerman at that point had lost him. why didn't he just go back to his vehicle, since he'd been told not to follow? but no, he ignored what he was told, and took things into his own hands.

[Danzig]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/27/justic...ntent=My+Yahoo


hearing today regarding zimmerman criminal file and whether to unseal. however, zimmerman could well be sent back to jail as he didn't disclose the presence of over 200k in donations at the bond hearing.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/27/justic...ntent=My+Yahoo


hearing today regarding zimmerman criminal file and whether to unseal. however, zimmerman could well be sent back to jail as he didn't disclose the presence of over 200k in donations at the bond hearing.

The article doesn't say Zimmerman could be sent back to jail. He's not going to be sent back to jail. The prosecutor has not asked for him to be sent back to jail, but only for the bond to be raised. If the judge raises the bond by $100,000, then Zimmerman will have to reach into his donations and come up with some more money.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

911 dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:
OK.
We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

Zimmerman:
OK. [2:28]

911 dispatcher:
Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]

Zimmerman:
George. He ran.


ok. 911 says don't follow. zimmerman at that point had lost him. why didn't he just go back to his vehicle, since he'd been told not to follow? but no, he ignored what he was told, and took things into his own hands.

The same can be said for Martin. He shouldn't have taken the law into his own hands. If you see someone following you, you should call the police. You shouldn't punch them in the nose and start banging their head against the cement.

Who is a bigger vigilante?

A. A person who follows a person while they are waiting for the police to come.

or...

B. A person who punches someone in the nose and bangs their head against the cement in retaliation for being followed.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

My comment wasn't about it being a left-wing story.

I've tried to post stories from Big Government or World Net Daily, but I find them woefully deficient, generally, in facts

So if I can't find the original AP story, I'll post where I find it, be it Daily Beast or Daily Kos.

I figure most here are smart enough to pick out the factual parts of the story, and separate it from (and ignore if they wish) the opinion if it's there.

Zimmerman profiled a black kid and now that kid is dead because of Zimmerman, at his hand.

We'll see if the court feels there should be a punishment for that. I sure as hell hope so.

Edit: Breaking: CBS Evening News reports that Zimmerman lied to the court regarding how much money he had. They told the court the Zimmerman's couldn't raise bail, that's he's indigent, and the family couldn't make the $15,000 10% of bail.

Whoops. Turns out Zimmerman knew at that time he had over $150,000 cash in his account, raised from his "support me" website. He just wasn't telling anybody about it ... not his lawyer, not the judge.

The real George Zimmerman is a liar, apparently. Can we trust his story about what happened with Trayvon, when he lies to the judge at his bail hearing?

This is a big deal. He may have screwed himself with his lie.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Riot

This is a big deal. He may have screwed himself with his lie.

I honestly don't know how big of a deal it is, but it obviously shows he's deceptive at best -- this section of an article on CNN made me laugh.

O'Mara could not explain why Zimmerman didn't disclose the funds, but said he didn't think his client had meant to deceive anyone.

"If that was an oversight by him, then it was. And quite honestly, with everything he's going through for the past several weeks, if that's the only oversight he's committed, we'll deal with it, Judge Lester will deal with it," he said.

I frequently forget about the $200,000 I have sitting around when people ask me about how much money I have.

Good one.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

I've tried to post stories from Big Government or World Net Daily, but I find them woefully deficient, generally, in facts

So if I can't find the original AP story, I'll post where I find it, be it Daily Beast or Daily Kos.

I figure most here are smart enough to pick out the factual parts of the story, and separate it from (and ignore if they wish) the opinion if it's there.

Zimmerman profiled a black kid and now that kid is dead because of Zimmerman, at his hand.

We'll see if the court feels there should be a punishment for that. I sure as hell hope so.

Edit: Breaking: CBS Evening News reports that Zimmerman lied to the court regarding how much money he had. They told the court the Zimmerman's couldn't raise bail, that's he's indigent, and the family couldn't make the $15,000 10% of bail.

Whoops. Turns out Zimmerman knew at that time he had over $150,000 cash in his account, raised from his "support me" website. He just wasn't telling anybody about it ... not his lawyer, not the judge.

The real George Zimmerman is a liar, apparently. Can we trust his story about what happened with Trayvon, when he lies to the judge at his bail hearing?

This is a big deal. He may have screwed himself with his lie.

He set up a website to raise money for his defense, not a website to raise money for bail. He probably didn't think of that money as part of his net-worth. On his website, it said that any money raised would go towards his defense and for necessary living expenses.

Zimmerman probably didn't feel like he needed to disclose to the judge that money was being raised on this website. After all, what good does it do to raise money, if the judge is simply going to take all the money away (temporarily) and make you put it up for bail.

It seems like it would kind of be unfair to the donors for the judge to take away all the money they donated that was supposed to pay for Zimmerman's defense and his living expenses and make Zimmerman put it all up for bail.

Technically I guess Zimmerman should have disclosed it. I guess in the future if a guy is accused of a crime and he is going to raise money, he should wait until after the bail hearing to start raising the money. It seems pretty silly but I guess that's what you need to do. Otherwise, if you have already raised $150,000, the judge may make your bail $150,000 higher. It's better to wait until after the bail hearing to raise the money. Then you don't need to disclose it. You obviously couldn't disclose money that you hadn't made yet.

By the way, for all we know Zimmerman didn't even have access to the money at the time of the bail hearing. Was the money already in Zimmerman's bank account? We don't know the answer to this. His website went through Paypal. I don't know exactly how that works. When somebody donates money to you through Paypal, how long before you actually have your hands on that money?

Did Zimmerman have internet access in jail? When was last the time he checked his website to see how much had been raised? The bail hearing was on a Friday. Maybe Zimmerman had no internet access from jail and hadn't checked his website in several days.

No matter what, we know that Zimmerman knew his website had raised some money. He obviously should have disclosed that. But if he had no access to check the site from jail and if he hadn't checked it in several days, for all we know there might have only been $25,000 in there the last time he had checked it. The bottom line is that he should have disclosed it. But I can understand why he didn't.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

He set up a website to raise money for his defense, not a website to raise money for bail.

His website said it was for his defense and "living expenses." Bail is part of his legal fees.

Zimmerman apparently was given over $200,000 by his supporters. His bail was 10%, or $15,000. Zimmerman lied to the judge. The judge may or may not punish him for lying to the court.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Zimmerman Medical Report Released:

http://news.yahoo.com/abc-news-exclu...opstories.html