Unarmed boy shot and killed by neighborhood watch captain...

[road2freedom]

WTF does some kid flipping the bird in some pictures have to do with him being shot down like a dog by some fool who had no knowledge of those pictures, his school records, or anything else?

 

Haha... shot like a dog. There you go assuming again and adding sensationalism. If he attacked first, then yes he was shot like a raging pit bull.

 

Uh huh...and there you go again failing to answer a question that has been posed to you and being obtuse. I'm shocked.

 

I'd love to know what you guys would do if somebody followed you first in their car and then on foot. Invite them in to play Yahtzee and sip chai tea?

 

I have a cell phone so instead of chatting with my girlie, I'd call the cops. I am licensed for concealed carry and always do... so if I felt my life was in imminent danger and that deadly force was justified, I would respond appropriately. I would not hit someone or attack preemptively just because they were following me. You think I haven't been followed before? I have. I didn't turn around and start beating on them. And again, before you cramp your fingers trying to twist my words, this is all contingent upon IF TM attacked first, as stated several times above. If GZ attacked first then it's a different story.

[Islandgal]

WTF does some kid flipping the bird in some pictures have to do with him being shot down like a dog by some fool who had no knowledge of those pictures, his school records, or anything else?

 

Haha... shot like a dog. There you go assuming again and adding sensationalism. If he attacked first, then yes he was shot like a raging pit bull.

 

Uh huh...and there you go again failing to answer a question that has been posed to you and being obtuse. I'm shocked.

 

I'd love to know what you guys would do if somebody followed you first in their car and then on foot. Invite them in to play Yahtzee and sip chai tea?

 

I'd run, and if caught and/or approached, I'd fight for my life, or die trying.

 

Ditto...I'd at least be kneeing in him the Nutz, and/or at least trying to rip the Beanz off the Frank..

[blackberry74]

I have a cell phone so instead of chatting with my girlie, I'd call the cops. I am licensed for concealed carry and always do... so if I felt my life was in imminent danger and that deadly force was justified, I would respond appropriately. I would not hit someone or attack preemptively just because they were following me. You think I haven't been followed before? I have. I didn't turn around and start beating on them. And again, before you cramp your fingers trying to twist my words, this is all contingent upon IF TM attacked first, as stated several times above. If GZ attacked first then it's a different story.

 

I don't need to twist anything. You typed your words, not me. I'd suggest choosing what you type more carefully if you don't like what you see when they're repeated back to you.

 

I somehow doubt that TM had a concealed carry permit at the age of 17. And strangely enough, 17 year olds don't really have the presence of mind that we as adults do. Well, most of us. As we see from GZ's actions, some of us are still some salamanderic fools even in our 30s. Shameful.

Edited May 18, 2012 by blackberry74

[BlackWater]

LOL at some of the comments in this thread. Keep it up, I need something to laught at tonight while working. Some of the posters here seem to get it, while others don't. But I won't name any names.

 

One question though, how are you suppose to "observe and report" if you can only see certain areas from your vehicle?

[orangecrush]

LOL at some of the comments in this thread. Keep it up, I need something to laught at tonight while working. Some of the posters here seem to get it, while others don't. But I won't name any names.

 

One question though, how are you suppose to "observe and report" if you can only see certain areas from your vehicle?

 

 

Zimmerman observed Trayvon and reported him. That is pretty simple to understand. There is no need to leave a vehicle to do those things. Call the cops and let them do their job.

[Fataliya]

LOL at some of the comments in this thread. Keep it up, I need something to laught at tonight while working. Some of the posters here seem to get it, while others don't. But I won't name any names.

 

One question though, how are you suppose to "observe and report" if you can only see certain areas from your vehicle?

 

The fact that you find a thread about a 17 year old's shooting amusing (or some comments at least) frightens me, considering you are a police officer.

 

So, you are allowed to assume things, because you hold a badge, but others aren't? I hope you ain't patrolling in my town.

[BlackWater]

There is no need to leave a vehicle to do those things. Call the cops and let them do their job.

 

Why not? I didn't realize there was a law stating that you couldn't walk around your neighborhood following someone who was acting strange, afterall that is what Community Watches are for. Not to just sit in one locatino and hope the little section your watching from your vehicle doesn't get robbed while the rest of the neighborhood is left unprotected.

 

Also as stated before, following someone isn't against the law. The minute one or the other laid hands on the other person then it became assualt at which point things start in motion. Now there are factors that have to take place before deadly force can be used. FL's laws are a lot like NC's laws when it comes to self defence. The key to this case is going to be the inital interaction between the two and what started the fight and if anyone else believe's anything different then well I'm sorry for you.

[road2freedom]

I have a cell phone so instead of chatting with my girlie, I'd call the cops. I am licensed for concealed carry and always do... so if I felt my life was in imminent danger and that deadly force was justified, I would respond appropriately. I would not hit someone or attack preemptively just because they were following me. You think I haven't been followed before? I have. I didn't turn around and start beating on them. And again, before you cramp your fingers trying to twist my words, this is all contingent upon IF TM attacked first, as stated several times above. If GZ attacked first then it's a different story.

 

I don't need to twist anything. You typed your words, not me. I'd suggest choosing what you type more carefully if you don't like what you see when they're repeated back to you.

 

I somehow doubt that TM had a concealed carry permit at the age of 17. And strangely enough, 17 year olds don't really have the presence of mind that we as adults do. Well, most of us. As we see from GZ's actions, some of us are still some salamanderic fools even in our 30s. Shameful.

 

I stand by everything said in this thread. However some people choose to take snippets out of context when I am pointing out potential defense arguments as if they are my actual position. You'll note I'm not arguing one side of this like you and many others. I'm simply pointing out that there are many possibilities and some people are too thick to realize they are hanging onto assumptions.

 

Agreed - there's no way TM had a CCW. You have to be 21 in FL (for a handgun and for CCW). If TM did in fact feel threatened and decided to confront GZ, don't you think that's a little silly? I wouldn't confront someone unless I knew I had the upper hand. If we're talking about strangers and dark places, I would almost never assume that to be the case.

 

GZ a fool? Maybe... I could see that argument. We'll have to see if it was criminal though. I've yet to see anything indicating that it was yet.

[orangecrush]

 

 

Why not? I didn't realize there was a law stating that you couldn't walk around your neighborhood following someone who was acting strange, afterall that is what Community Watches are for. Not to just sit in one locatino and hope the little section your watching from your vehicle doesn't get robbed while the rest of the neighborhood is left unprotected.

 

Also as stated before, following someone isn't against the law. The minute one or the other laid hands on the other person then it became assualt at which point things start in motion. Now there are factors that have to take place before deadly force can be used. FL's laws are a lot like NC's laws when it comes to self defence. The key to this case is going to be the inital interaction between the two and what started the fight and if anyone else believe's anything different then well I'm sorry for you.

 

No one said there was a law (or at least I didn't) against following someone in your neighborhood. However, you mention the community watch aspect. As a policeman, I would think that you would know the generally accepted rules for such organizations.

 

Neighborhood watches are not for following people around in their neighborhoods. They are told to get a description and report the person. In this area (and all that I know of in Florida), they are told not to follow or confront a suspect.

Edited May 18, 2012 by orangecrush

[orangecrush]

Chris Tutko, director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs' Association, said Zimmerman broke some cardinal rules.

 

First, he approached a stranger he suspected of wrongdoing.

 

"If you see something suspicious, you report it, you step aside and you let law enforcement do their job," Tutko said. "This guy went way beyond the call of duty. At the least, he's overzealous."

 

Second, Zimmerman carried a handgun. Police departments and sheriff's offices that train volunteers advise them never to carry weapons — though Zimmerman broke no laws by doing so because he has a concealed-weapons permit.

 

"There's no reason to carry a gun," Tutko said

[road2freedom]

Why not? I didn't realize there was a law stating that you couldn't walk around your neighborhood following someone who was acting strange, afterall that is what Community Watches are for. Not to just sit in one locatino and hope the little section your watching from your vehicle doesn't get robbed while the rest of the neighborhood is left unprotected.

 

Also as stated before, following someone isn't against the law. The minute one or the other laid hands on the other person then it became assualt at which point things start in motion. Now there are factors that have to take place before deadly force can be used. FL's laws are a lot like NC's laws when it comes to self defence. The key to this case is going to be the inital interaction between the two and what started the fight and if anyone else believe's anything different then well I'm sorry for you.

 

Neighborhood watches are not for following people around in their neighborhoods. They are told to get a description and report the person. In this area (and all that I know of in Florida), they are told not to follow or confront a suspect.

 

Yeah but don't forget... the watch program for this neighborhood was not formalized, nor was it a member of any major Neighborhood Watch program. These guidelines you reference are irrelevant and there are no legal requirements surrounding them.

[road2freedom]

Chris Tutko, director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs' Association, said Zimmerman broke some cardinal rules.

 

First, he approached a stranger he suspected of wrongdoing.

 

"If you see something suspicious, you report it, you step aside and you let law enforcement do their job," Tutko said. "This guy went way beyond the call of duty. At the least, he's overzealous."

 

Second, Zimmerman carried a handgun. Police departments and sheriff's offices that train volunteers advise them never to carry weapons — though Zimmerman broke no laws by doing so because he has a concealed-weapons permit.

 

"There's no reason to carry a gun," Tutko said

 

All of these are recommendations or guidelines... nothing legally binding as far as I can tell.

 

While I understand why they would urge watch groups not to carry weapons, GZ is well within his rights to carry it in any area legally permitted. Whether he uses it in a lawful manner is a decision he has to make and deal with the repercussions.

[BlackWater]

No one said there was a law (or at least I didn't) agsinst following someone in your neighborhood. However, you mention the community watch aspect. As a policeman, I would think that you would know the generally accepted rules for such organizations.

 

Neighborhood watches are not for following people around in their neighborhoods. They are told to get a description and report the person. In this area (and all that I know of in Florida), they are told not to follow or confront a suspect.

 

Well I'm glad I don't live in FL if they are telling the people who are suppose to be watching your house not to do anything other then just sit in a vehicle.

Chris Tutko, director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs' Association, said Zimmerman broke some cardinal rules.

 

First, he approached a stranger he suspected of wrongdoing.

 

"If you see something suspicious, you report it, you step aside and you let law enforcement do their job," Tutko said. "This guy went way beyond the call of duty. At the least, he's overzealous."

 

Second, Zimmerman carried a handgun. Police departments and sheriff's offices that train volunteers advise them never to carry weapons — though Zimmerman broke no laws by doing so because he has a concealed-weapons permit.

 

"There's no reason to carry a gun," Tutko said

 

As for the statement, overzealous I can see. However, with what you posted Tutko doesn't say he shouldn't have followed the person, he says and I quote " "]"If you see something suspicious, you report it, you step aside and you let law enforcement do their job," no where does it say you should't follow someone to see what/where they are going.

 

As for carrying the gun, of course they are going to say you shouldn't carry a gun, that's a liability they don't want. But he didn't break any laws by doing so either.

[Bad Doctor Frost]

No one said there was a law (or at least I didn't) agsinst following someone in your neighborhood. However, you mention the community watch aspect. As a policeman, I would think that you would know the generally accepted rules for such organizations.

 

Neighborhood watches are not for following people around in their neighborhoods. They are told to get a description and report the person. In this area (and all that I know of in Florida), they are told not to follow or confront a suspect.

 

Well I'm glad I don't live in FL if they are telling the people who are suppose to be watching your house not to do anything other then just sit in a vehicle.

Chris Tutko, director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs' Association, said Zimmerman broke some cardinal rules.

 

First, he approached a stranger he suspected of wrongdoing.

 

"If you see something suspicious, you report it, you step aside and you let law enforcement do their job," Tutko said. "This guy went way beyond the call of duty. At the least, he's overzealous."

 

Second, Zimmerman carried a handgun. Police departments and sheriff's offices that train volunteers advise them never to carry weapons — though Zimmerman broke no laws by doing so because he has a concealed-weapons permit.

 

"There's no reason to carry a gun," Tutko said

 

As for the statement, overzealous I can see. However, with what you posted Tutko doesn't say he shouldn't have followed the person, he says and I quote " "]"If you see something suspicious, you report it, you step aside and you let law enforcement do their job," no where does it say you should't follow someone to see what/where they are going.

 

As for carrying the gun, of course they are going to say you shouldn't carry a gun, that's a liability they don't want. But he didn't break any laws by doing so either.

 

 

You must have a strange definition of "step aside."

[orangecrush]

 

 

Yeah but don't forget... the watch program for this neighborhood was not formalized, nor was it a member of any major Neighborhood Watch program. These guidelines you reference are irrelevant and there are no legal requirements surrounding them.

 

 

It doesn't matter if it was formalized under national guidelines or not. Many neighborhood watches are not a part of the nation program and have the same rules. Anyway, the guidelines I referenced are not irrelevant, because this particular group was recognized by the Sandford police department and they use pretty much the same guidelines as the national organizations.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/trayvon-martin-death-spotlights-neighborhood-watch-groups.html?pagewanted=all

 

 

SANFORD, Fla. — Last August, Wendy Dorival got a call about setting up a local neighborhood watch. As the volunteer coordinator for the Police Department here, she gets such calls regularly, and the city already had at least 10 active watch groups. So she thought nothing of this call, from George Zimmerman.

 

She set up a visit for the next month at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community that had been dealing with a string of burglaries. When 25 residents showed up, a decent turnout, she had the residents introduce themselves; after all, people join the groups to look out for each other. She then gave a PowerPoint presentation and distributed a handbook. As she always does, she emphasized what a neighborhood watch is — and what it is not.

 

In every presentation, “I go through what the rules and responsibilities are,” she said Thursday. The volunteers’ role, she said, is “being the eyes and ears” for the police, “not the vigilante.” Members of a neighborhood watch “are not supposed to confront anyone,” she said. “We get paid to get into harm’s way. You don’t do that. You just call them from the safety of your home or your vehicle.”

 

Using a gun in the neighborhood watch role would be out of the question, she said in an interview.

 

Mr. Zimmerman was there, she recalled, and the local group appointed him their coordinator.

[orangecrush]

 

Well I'm glad I don't live in FL if they are telling the people who are suppose to be watching your house not to do anything other then just sit in a vehicle.

 

Neighborhood watches pretty much have the same guidelines all over the United States. Including the watches in your state. North Carolina has hundreds that are recognized by the National Sheriffs' Association.

 

 

 

As for the statement, overzealous I can see. However, with what you posted Tutko doesn't say he shouldn't have followed the person, he says and I quote " "]"If you see something suspicious, you report it, you step aside and you let law enforcement do their job," no where does it say you should't follow someone to see what/where they are going.

 

Stepping aside means just that. You cannot follow some one and be stepping aside at the same time.

 

 

As for carrying the gun, of course they are going to say you shouldn't carry a gun, that's a liability they don't want. But he didn't break any laws by doing so either.

 

 

No one said he broke any laws by carrying a gun.

[road2freedom]

Yeah but don't forget... the watch program for this neighborhood was not formalized, nor was it a member of any major Neighborhood Watch program. These guidelines you reference are irrelevant and there are no legal requirements surrounding them.

 

 

It doesn't matter if it was formalized under national guidelines or not. Many neighborhood watches are not a part of the nation program and have the same rules. Anyway, the guidelines I referenced are not irrelevant, because this particular group was recognized by the Sandford police department and they use pretty much the same guidelines as the national organizations.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

 

 

SANFORD, Fla. — Last August, Wendy Dorival got a call about setting up a local neighborhood watch. As the volunteer coordinator for the Police Department here, she gets such calls regularly, and the city already had at least 10 active watch groups. So she thought nothing of this call, from George Zimmerman.

 

She set up a visit for the next month at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community that had been dealing with a string of burglaries. When 25 residents showed up, a decent turnout, she had the residents introduce themselves; after all, people join the groups to look out for each other. She then gave a PowerPoint presentation and distributed a handbook. As she always does, she emphasized what a neighborhood watch is — and what it is not.

 

In every presentation, "I go through what the rules and responsibilities are," she said Thursday. The volunteers' role, she said, is "being the eyes and ears" for the police, "not the vigilante." Members of a neighborhood watch "are not supposed to confront anyone," she said. "We get paid to get into harm's way. You don't do that. You just call them from the safety of your home or your vehicle."

 

Using a gun in the neighborhood watch role would be out of the question, she said in an interview.

 

Mr. Zimmerman was there, she recalled, and the local group appointed him their coordinator.

 

Key word being guidelines. Since this is now a legal matter and a criminal case it is irrelevant in my eyes. If you want to hang onto this justifying a personal feeling that GZ was wrong, that's fine, but just an opinion. I can tell you though that if my neighborhood was bad enough to require a neighborhood watch program I wouldn't be on patrol without a concealed firearm, guideline or not. My safety is not the priority of those guidelines. Liability is.

[BlackWater]

[You must have a strange definition of "step aside."

 

I do. Once law enforcement arrives on scene you step aside and let them do their jobs.

 

The volunteers’ role, she said, is “being the eyes and ears” for the police, “not the vigilante.” Members of a neighborhood watch “are not supposed to confront anyone,” she said. “We get paid to get into harm’s way. You don’t do that. You just call them from the safety of your home or your vehicle.”

 

Once again, how are you going to "observe and report" if your setting in your vehicle? As for the "guildlines" it's just that, a guildline. That is what they would like for you to do, not what you have to do. Its there to guild people who have no clue on how to go about setting up a neighborhood watch program.

[orangecrush]

 

All of these are recommendations or guidelines... nothing legally binding as far as I can tell.

 

While I understand why they would urge watch groups not to carry weapons, GZ is well within his rights to carry it in any area legally permitted. Whether he uses it in a lawful manner is a decision he has to make and deal with the repercussions.

 

 

If a person is going to represent themselves as the 'captain' or leader of a neighborhood watch, then they in particular should follow the guidelines set by that organization. It doesn't matter if it is legally binding or not, when it comes to this case. Zimmerman's actions give the impression to many that he was overzealous and aggressive. That will probably play into his trial (if there is one).

 

Quite frankly, I think his actions are a boon for gun control advocates and that stinks. In my opinion this case isn't about gun control, but one man's actions.

[orangecrush]

 

Key word being guidelines. Since this is now a legal matter and a criminal case it is irrelevant in my eyes. If you want to hang onto this justifying a personal feeling that GZ was wrong, that's fine, but just an opinion. I can tell you though that if my neighborhood was bad enough to require a neighborhood watch program I wouldn't be on patrol without a concealed firearm, guideline or not. My safety is not the priority of those guidelines. Liability is.

 

 

You seem to be the one hanging on to stuff and then you don't like it when you are proven wrong. You claimed that his watch wasn't nationally recognized. I merely pointed out that it was a recognized watch, operating under similar guidelines as the national organization.

 

You don't know anything about my personal feelings regarding this, so don't put words in my mouth or try to project your behavior on me.

 

If you think that neighborhood watches are for bad neighborhoods, you really don't have a clue.

[road2freedom]

All of these are recommendations or guidelines... nothing legally binding as far as I can tell.

 

While I understand why they would urge watch groups not to carry weapons, GZ is well within his rights to carry it in any area legally permitted. Whether he uses it in a lawful manner is a decision he has to make and deal with the repercussions.

 

 

If a person is going to represent themselves as the 'captain' or leader of a neighborhood watch, then they in particular should follow the guidelines set by that organization. It doesn't matter if it is legally binding or not, when it comes to this case. Zimmerman's actions give the impression to many that he was overzealous and aggressive. That will probably play into his trial (if there is one).

 

Quite frankly, I think his actions are a boon for gun control advocates and that stinks. In my opinion this case isn't about gun control, but one man's actions.

 

Should, but not required. If there is no legal requirement, any notion of what should have been done is easily disregarded. There are many "shoulds" in this case.

 

I agree that gun owners are getting undue bad press from this incident. Even if it is determined that GZ acted entirely legally and is acquitted it will be an sticking point for years to come for not only gun control, but also the stand your ground law here.

[road2freedom]

Key word being guidelines. Since this is now a legal matter and a criminal case it is irrelevant in my eyes. If you want to hang onto this justifying a personal feeling that GZ was wrong, that's fine, but just an opinion. I can tell you though that if my neighborhood was bad enough to require a neighborhood watch program I wouldn't be on patrol without a concealed firearm, guideline or not. My safety is not the priority of those guidelines. Liability is.

 

 

You seem to be the one hanging on to stuff and then you don't like it when you are proven wrong. You claimed that his watch wasn't nationally recognized. I merely pointed out that it was a recognized watch, operating under similar guidelines as the national organization.

 

You don't know anything about my personal feelings regarding this, so don't put words in my mouth or try to project your behavior on me.

 

If you think that neighborhood watches are for bad neighborhoods, you really don't have a clue.

 

Where have I been proven wrong? This "watch program" was not operating under any known guidelines, nor was it under the influence or part of a membership of any national organization. Again, even if it was, it doesn't matter. They have no jurisdiction to tell you not to carry on a watch.

 

No one is putting words into your mouth. I'm simply countering your notion that guidelines must be followed just because they are guidelines. Don't take offense if you are running out of traction.

 

And yes, watch programs are typically formed out of necessity. I've lived in neighborhoods with and without. My neighborhood adopted one years ago because kids keep breaking into cars. It didn't exist before that became a recurring problem and I'm one of the original homeowners of this neighborhood.

[sirrowan]

You don't have to actually strike someone to be guilty of assault. Any threat of violence is assault, for example pointing a gun at someone even though you don't fire it. Following someone, running, closing the gap, with apparent hostile intent, is assault.

Well then, aside from the pointing of gun, I am guilty of assaulting my kids on a weekly basis.

 

If what you say is true, then that's just stupid. Seriously....

[orangecrush]

 

 

Should, but not required. If there is no legal requirement, any notion of what should have been done is easily disregarded. There are many "shoulds" in this case.

 

I agree that gun owners are getting undue bad press from this incident. Even if it is determined that GZ acted entirely legally and is acquitted it will be an sticking point for years to come for not only gun control, but also the stand your ground law here.

 

 

 

I don't think Zimmerman's getting out of the car and disobeying guidelines will be easily disregarded. An officer says in his report that the entire thing could have been avoided if he had stayed in the car. If that officer is called as a witness (I am sure he will be). That officer's opinion could easily find a foothold with the jury. It may not matter to them if the guidelines are legally binding. What may matter to them, is what Zimmerman could have done to avoid a confrontation.

 

ETA: I have a feeling that the Stand Your Ground law is going to get some serious revision and not for the better.

Edited May 18, 2012 by orangecrush

[orangecrush]

 

Where have I been proven wrong? This "watch program" was not operating under any known guidelines, nor was it under the influence or part of a membership of any national organization. Again, even if it was, it doesn't matter. They have no jurisdiction to tell you not to carry on a watch.

 

No one is putting words into your mouth. I'm simply countering your notion that guidelines must be followed just because they are guidelines. Don't take offense if you are running out of traction.

 

And yes, watch programs are typically formed out of necessity. I've lived in neighborhoods with and without. My neighborhood adopted one years ago because kids keep breaking into cars. It didn't exist before that became a recurring problem and I'm one of the original homeowners of this neighborhood.

 

You are wrong, because the watch was operating under known guidelines.

 

Once again you are putting words in my mouth. Show me where I have said that guidelines must be followed, just because they are guidelines. What I said is that Zimmerman could have stayed in his car and reported Trayvon. That has nothing to do with any guidelines. That is just common sense in most instances. If someone was robbing Zimmerman's house, then he should have gotten out and started busting caps.

 

I also said that Zimmerman should be more apt to follow the guidelines, because he was the leader.

 

Nearly every brand new subdivision in this area forms some sort of neighborhood watch. Most of them have never had a crime. They are not formed out of necessity. They are formed in the hopes of prevention.