When "Neighborhood Watch" Gets Out of Hand

[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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

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.

Nobody is saying that it is ok to go out and kill an unarmed drug dealer. I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that it is ok to call the police on a suspicious person, and to follow that person until the police arrives. That is all I am suggesting.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman had any plans to harm Martin in any way.

There is no law against following somebody. I wouldn't like it if someone was following me. I would probably call the police if someone was following me. Martin should have probably called the police.

Zimmerman claims that Martin attacked him. So I can use all the same arguments that you guys have used. I will use a similar argument to yours: There's a reason why I'm not allowed to attack someone in my neighborhood if I think he is following me. I'm not allowed to punch him in the nose and bang his head against the pavement. Because then I'm attacking an unarmed guy for following me. The fact that he is following me doesn't change one bit of that in the end.

That is actually a good argument. I'm glad you came up with it for me.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Nobody is saying that it is ok to go out and kill an unarmed drug dealer. I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that it is ok to call the police on a suspicious person, and to follow that person until the police arrives. That is all I am suggesting.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman had any plans to harm Martin in any way.

There is no law against following somebody. I wouldn't like it if someone was following me. I would probably call the police if someone was following me. Martin should have probably called the police.

Zimmerman claims that Martin attacked him. So I can use all the same arguments that you guys have used. I will use a similar argument to yours: There's a reason why I'm not allowed to attack someone in my neighborhood if I think he is following me. I'm not allowed to punch him in the nose and bang his head against the pavement. Because then I'm attacking an unarmed guy for following me. The fact that he is following me doesn't change one bit of that in the end.

That is actually a good argument. I'm glad you came up with it for me.

Oh my god.




Uncle.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Oh my god.




Uncle.

In all seriousness, what I'm saying is true. You're not allowed to punch a guy in the nose and bang his head against the ground just because you think he's following you. You can't take the law into your own hands like that.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

In all seriousness, what I'm saying is true. You're not allowed to punch a guy in the nose and bang his head against the ground just because you think he's following you. You can't take the law into your own hands like that.

No, the point is that I am not even taking issue with your (ridiculous) idea that you think Zimmerman is a neato neighborhood watch guy just doing great justice for all of America and your false assertion that anyone is trying to talk about how Trayvon Martin is a model citizen -- whether he is or isn't matters not even the tiniest of bits.

I don't even care to have that tired argument. It's stupid.

In all seriousness, the point actually is that what Trayvon Martin did or didn't do in the years before that day are completely irrelevant to the one day that matters, because George Zimmerman had no way to know any of it, and therefore didn't consider him a threat because of those things. "Oh, but he's a bad kid" doesn't change anything about the fact that he wasn't being a bad kid that day.

His history before that is irrelevant. That's all.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

No, the point is that I am not even taking issue with your (ridiculous) idea that you think Zimmerman is a neato neighborhood watch guy just doing great justice for all of America and your false assertion that anyone is trying to talk about how Trayvon Martin is a model citizen -- whether he is or isn't matters not even the tiniest of bits.

I don't even care to have that tired argument. It's stupid.

In all seriousness, the point actually is that what Trayvon Martin did or didn't do in the years before that day are completely irrelevant to the one day that matters, because George Zimmerman had no way to know any of it, and therefore didn't consider him a threat because of those things. "Oh, but he's a bad kid" doesn't change anything about the fact that he wasn't being a bad kid that day.

His history before that is irrelevant. That's all.

I agree with you that whether Martin was a bad kid or not was irrelevant to the shooting part of the incident. I think the shooting part of the incident happened because Zimmerman was getting the crap beaten out of him by Martin.

The thing that keeps coming up in these debates is the question of why Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin in the first place. I would say there were two reasons. The first is that Zimmerman knew most people in the neighborhood and he didn't recognize Martin. The second was because Martin looked like a suspicious character to him.

You can argue that you don't think Martin is a suspicious looking character. It's just a matter of opinion. As I have said in previous posts, I think we all have come across people of all different races (white, black, hispanic, asian) that look suspicious to us. I think it's usually based on their demeanor. Age and sex are obviously factors too. Not too many of us would view a 75 year old woman as suspicious and/or dangerous.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I am suggesting that it is ok to call the police on a suspicious person, and to follow that person until the police arrives.

I agree with the first part of the sentence, but not the second. If what you suggest is ok, why then did the police dispatcher specifically say to Z that "we don't need you to do that"?

Why is every organized neighborhood watch group in my area specifically instructed to observe and report suspicious activity, but never to follow and confront?

Someone either earlier in this thread or, possibly at another website, raised the issue that "following" a person under certain circumstances may constitute the criminal act of "menacing" in some jurisdictions.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

I agree with the first part of the sentence, but not the second. If what you suggest is ok, why then did the police dispatcher specifically say to Z that "we don't need you to do that"?

Why is every organized neighborhood watch group in my area specifically instructed to observe and report suspicious activity, but never to follow and confront?

Someone either earlier in this thread or, possibly at another website, raised the issue that "following" a person under certain circumstances may constitute the criminal act of "menacing" in some jurisdictions.

It wasn't until it became apparent that Zimmerman was following Martin on foot that the dispatcher made the comment. He made the comment for obvious reasons. The police don't want people to put themselves into a dangerous situation. As I've said in previous posts, it is probably not a good idea to get out of your car and follow a person on foot.

I think it is relatively safe to follow a person in your car but even then, you should keep your distance. The police don't want you to end up in a confrontation with the suspect for the obvious reason, mainly that someone may end up getting hurt.

But the truth of the matter is, we have no evidence that Zimmerman planned to confront Trayvon. It appears that he followed him on foot simply so he wouldn't lose him. At some point, as we heard on the 911 tape, he totally lost him. Then at some point, he stumbled upon him. Once they release the interrogation interviews with Zimmerman, then we will see if I am right that Zimmerman ended up in close proximity to Martin by mistake. As I said in a previous post, I think it is likely that he never intended to get closer than within 50 yards or so but after he lost him and then went around a couple of corners, they ended up practically face to face. Now if it turns out that Zimmerman intentionally confronted Martin (purposely came up close to Martin in to engage him in a confrontation), then Zimmerman has more culpability for the incident than he would have if he stumbled upon Martin by accident, after turning a corner. With most of these laws, "intent" is very important. Even if Zimmerman did intentionally engage Martin in a verbal confrontation, if Zimmerman was attacked from behind while walking back to his car, after the verbal confrontation had ended, I think that severely lessens Zimmerman's culpability.

What you said about "menacing" may very well be true. But as you said, it is probably only under certain circumstances that it would constitute a criminal act. I highly doubt that the police are going to charge someone (who called the police) with menacing for temporarily following a person while they are waiting for the police to arrive.