|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 02 2013 09:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:09 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 09:05 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 08:59 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:41 Krohm wrote:On July 02 2013 08:35 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). how can you not approve of neighborhood watches? that seems absurd to me. I should have worded that more clearly. I am opposed to armed neighborhood watches as that suggest they will do enforcing of laws. I am not opposed to keeping an eye open and then call the police if need be. I can agree with you but at the same time you location is Denmark. I'm assuming you live there? America is a whole different type of animal when it comes to firearms. People there feel it's necessary to carry one to properly defend yourself because there is a higher chance that a potential perpetrator will be carrying one as well. It's sort like a false security blanket I guess you could say. Although you may sometimes get a neighbourhood watch member who oversteps their authority I don't think Zimmerman really qualifies as that though. He may have been a bit over-zealous and should have complied to the dispatchers suggestion but I don't feel he took the law into his own hands that night. I actually live in San Francisco and have done so for more than a year (just haven't updated as I will move back to Denmark soon, and my cultural background, which is really what you are alluding to, is Danish). I realize that there is a higher risk of the culprit wearing firearms in the states than in the land of fairytales, rainbows, and unicorns aka Denmark. I just do not think that from a moral standpoint it really provides you with an excuse and I would argue that the moral intent of a neighborhood watch changes as soon as it is armed, because why would you really need a weapon if you are simply watching? It is absolutely their right to carry a firearm if they are licensed to do so. Does that mean that if they witness a crime happening that then can go in gunzablazin and expect not to be persecuted? Hell no. But it is a legitimate means of defense if you are out alone on a stormy night and someone confronts you and threatens your life while having you pinned. Neighborhood watches aren't armed individuals are armed. I do not want to live in a neighborhood that has a "neighborhood watches" that allows its members to be armed. I pay a lot of taxes to have police trained for that job and I would like them to do it. People can look out for my safety and I appreciate it, but they can do it with the guns in their house. And to be clear, I don't think I should be able to prohibit people from having armed neighborhood watches. I just won't live there. I'm sorry, I just had to laugh out loud at the bold. Apparently you missed the whole Christopher Dorner incident and how much collateral damage occurred on the LAPD's account? I'd say police are much more trigger happy than an civilian with a license. Police are looking for action and can basically act without repercussions. Civilians on the other hand have this case to look forward to. That is one police officer out of how many? How many thousands of arrests and violent altercations take place per year that turn out just fine? I can find endless examples of idiots who never should have been handed a firearm, let alone sold one, but that doesn't mean no one should get them. The same goes for police. The majority of them do a fine job, with exception of a few idiots.
No, it wasn't one police officer. It was multiple police officers blasting multiple cars that didn't even look similar to the one the suspect was driving. My point was that those police officers can shoot up a car driven by two little Asian ladies delivering newspapers and not face criminal charges while a man can be legitimately protecting his own life and literally have his life ruined after the fact, regardless of innocence. Which do you think is more likely to shoot first and ask questions later? The trigger happy cop who peaked in high school and has an alpha attitude, or the concerned citizen who bought a gun for protection and is aware of the legal repercussions of drawing and using that weapon?
|
On July 02 2013 09:16 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:14 Chezinu wrote:On July 02 2013 09:11 Leporello wrote:On July 02 2013 08:31 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 08:19 Leporello wrote:On July 02 2013 08:03 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On July 02 2013 07:36 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:27 SKC wrote:On July 02 2013 07:25 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:15 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Tragic for the Martins but I'm kinda starting to feel bad for Zimmerman. He has a history of being sympathetic towards blacks but is having his life ruined because of perceived racism on his part. I don't feel bad for Zimmerman at all. He at least is getting his day in court, and is being tried by a court of law and his peers for his indiscretions Martin was sentenced to death by Zimmerman. It's like people are forgetting that he did technically kill a 17 year old who's only plans that night were to visit his dad. It might have been in self-defence but still. Worst. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. Assuming Zimmerman's words are true, Martin sentenced himself to death. Well, that's when it becomes a question of morals. If someone you were following turns around and beats you up, does that mean he deserves to get shot in the chest? Punishment doesn't fit the crime, IMO. George Zimmerman may be innocent, and is probably only guilty of defending himself in the heat of the moment. But personally, I don't think Trayvon deserved to die for for how he reacted. It's a pitch black night with heavy rains. You're having your head dashed against the pavement after having your nose broken. You've been yelling for help for a good 40 secs but no one comes. At what point should you stop to consider whether or not to use deadly force? Hmm, well before the fight happened GZ made a decision to bring a gun with him, when confronting a stranger with accusatory suspicions. The gun has a safety switch on it. Either the safety was off the entire time GZ was in possession of it, or he had the time and ability to switch the safety off while in the midst of (allegedly) fighting for his life. GZ had the time and luxury of ending the fight in this fatal manner. Trayvon, quite obviously, didn't. Again, we don't know what happened to start the fight, or how the fight went. The only facts we know are that GZ shot Trayvon, and that GZ had somehow sustained some injuries. We have no real witnesses as to how GZ sustained those injuries. I understand that to claim murder under such cloudy circumstances is wrong. We can't prove GZ is a murderer. But he is certainly someone who should never be allowed to carry a gun. He certainly proved himself grossly incompetent, and that's the best that can be said about him. I really don't care about this actual trial. It's actually meaningless in a lot of ways. Trayvon is dead, and GZ -- while I do think he may be guilty of simple manslaughter, he isn't a malicious killer. I don't worry about him to the point that I think he needs to be locked up, I just don't want this idiot ever following anyone with a gun ever again. I hope everyone can agree with that, at least. @ the bold: Wat? Have you never held a gun before, or are you trying to make the safety seem like some sort of complex mechanism for the purpose of your own agenda? The safety can literally be flicked with the thumb in a millisecond. Anyone trained with firearms is trained to immediately flick the safety off AS they are drawing their weapon. Under the circumstances and given the evidence, I'd say GZ is exactly the type of person I'd want to be able to carry a gun. He screamed for help for a good 40 seconds and only fired his weapon after receiving substantial damage to his head/face while being pinned down and (allegedly) hearing a threat on his own life. Afterwards he kept his cool, waited for the police, and reported the incident to the police. You are talking as if the gun was sitting on his dash and he purposely grabbed for it before heading out while saying "I'm gonna get me a punk tonight" He was fucking wearing it as a means of protection. I've actually fired guns of all kinds, from handguns, to an M249 MG. Yes, safeties are easy to flick off, but they exist for a reason -- you have to consciously flick that safety. GZ had a hand free, and was able to shoot Trayvon. I'm glad you were there to witness it, to know that GZ was justified in shooting this guy. Seriously, have you given the police this testimony? Because the only facts I know of are that GZ followed a kid he didn't even know, and ended up shooting him. GZ has clearly demonstrated he is not the type of person to be carrying a gun. Guns are for self-defense, not for following people that wear hoodies. GZ was only defending himself IF YOU BELIEVE HIS TESTIMONY -- which you obviously do, fully. Going by the facts, GZ was defending himself against a random stranger that he decided to follow. That is not a good gun owner. A responsible gun owner would've brought a witness or some backup, not confronted somebody by himself. GZ was told to wait for the police, he didn't. He went alone, and shot an unarmed man. Yes, that's a really intelligent person. You must be a genius too. There were witnesses, see John Good for example. GZ didn't bring John Good with him. That somebody may have witnessed it is simply fortunate for GZ, not a result of his good decision-making. Again, a responsible gun-owner, would not have put themselves in this situation, let alone shot the kid. I really don't understand how anyone could justify putting a gun back into GZ's hands.
I think they are more responding to your GZ was only defending himself IF YOU BELIEVE HIS TESTIMONY when there's a bunch of other evidence suggesting the same.
|
On July 02 2013 09:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:11 Leporello wrote:On July 02 2013 08:31 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 08:19 Leporello wrote:On July 02 2013 08:03 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On July 02 2013 07:36 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:27 SKC wrote:On July 02 2013 07:25 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:15 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Tragic for the Martins but I'm kinda starting to feel bad for Zimmerman. He has a history of being sympathetic towards blacks but is having his life ruined because of perceived racism on his part. I don't feel bad for Zimmerman at all. He at least is getting his day in court, and is being tried by a court of law and his peers for his indiscretions Martin was sentenced to death by Zimmerman. It's like people are forgetting that he did technically kill a 17 year old who's only plans that night were to visit his dad. It might have been in self-defence but still. Worst. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. Assuming Zimmerman's words are true, Martin sentenced himself to death. Well, that's when it becomes a question of morals. If someone you were following turns around and beats you up, does that mean he deserves to get shot in the chest? Punishment doesn't fit the crime, IMO. George Zimmerman may be innocent, and is probably only guilty of defending himself in the heat of the moment. But personally, I don't think Trayvon deserved to die for for how he reacted. It's a pitch black night with heavy rains. You're having your head dashed against the pavement after having your nose broken. You've been yelling for help for a good 40 secs but no one comes. At what point should you stop to consider whether or not to use deadly force? Hmm, well before the fight happened GZ made a decision to bring a gun with him, when confronting a stranger with accusatory suspicions. The gun has a safety switch on it. Either the safety was off the entire time GZ was in possession of it, or he had the time and ability to switch the safety off while in the midst of (allegedly) fighting for his life. GZ had the time and luxury of ending the fight in this fatal manner. Trayvon, quite obviously, didn't. Again, we don't know what happened to start the fight, or how the fight went. The only facts we know are that GZ shot Trayvon, and that GZ had somehow sustained some injuries. We have no real witnesses as to how GZ sustained those injuries. I understand that to claim murder under such cloudy circumstances is wrong. We can't prove GZ is a murderer. But he is certainly someone who should never be allowed to carry a gun. He certainly proved himself grossly incompetent, and that's the best that can be said about him. I really don't care about this actual trial. It's actually meaningless in a lot of ways. Trayvon is dead, and GZ -- while I do think he may be guilty of simple manslaughter, he isn't a malicious killer. I don't worry about him to the point that I think he needs to be locked up, I just don't want this idiot ever following anyone with a gun ever again. I hope everyone can agree with that, at least. @ the bold: Wat? Have you never held a gun before, or are you trying to make the safety seem like some sort of complex mechanism for the purpose of your own agenda? The safety can literally be flicked with the thumb in a millisecond. Anyone trained with firearms is trained to immediately flick the safety off AS they are drawing their weapon. Under the circumstances and given the evidence, I'd say GZ is exactly the type of person I'd want to be able to carry a gun. He screamed for help for a good 40 seconds and only fired his weapon after receiving substantial damage to his head/face while being pinned down and (allegedly) hearing a threat on his own life. Afterwards he kept his cool, waited for the police, and reported the incident to the police. You are talking as if the gun was sitting on his dash and he purposely grabbed for it before heading out while saying "I'm gonna get me a punk tonight" He was fucking wearing it as a means of protection. I've actually fired guns of all kinds, from handguns, to an M249 MG. Yes, safeties are easy to flick off, but they exist for a reason -- you have to consciously flick that safety. GZ had a hand free, and was able to shoot Trayvon -- that is a fact. That he was actually defending himself -- that is NOT a fact. See the difference? I'm glad you were there to witness it, to know that GZ was justified in shooting this guy. Seriously, have you given the police this testimony? Because the only facts I know of are that GZ followed a kid he didn't even know, and ended up shooting him. GZ has clearly demonstrated he is not the type of person to be carrying a gun. Guns are for self-defense, not for following people that wear hoodies. GZ was only defending himself IF YOU BELIEVE HIS TESTIMONY -- which you obviously do, fully. Going by the facts, GZ was defending himself against a random stranger that he decided to follow. That is not a good gun owner. A responsible gun owner would've brought a witness or some backup, not confronted somebody by himself. GZ was told to wait for the police, he didn't. He went alone, and shot an unarmed man. GZ is NOT a responsible gun owner, which is evidenced by the fact that he finds himself IN this situation. Responsible gun owners don't shoot unarmed people without witnesses. Yes, that's a really intelligent person. You must be a genius too. Good lord. At least take the time to read up on the facts of the case and the testimony before you start posting so that you're not just shitting up the thread with baseless speculation like the above. Let's just start with the very basic fact that Zimmerman's gun does not have a safety, like pretty much every modern semi-automatic pistol.
Maybe you're enjoying playing lawyer too much. GZ did not bring a witness with him, I am correct on that. You post that a witness was there -- that's good and lucky for GZ, but my point is he didn't bring anyone. He confronted the kid by himself. GZ did not wait for police, as the dispatcher told him he should. I am not convicting the guy. I am not saying he is guilty of murder.
What I am saying is he put himself into a stupid situation, and that people who put themselves in situations like that shouldn't be carrying a gun. I'm not talking about the trial, I am not talking about gun-control, please set aside those biases of yours. I am saying that if someone shoots an unarmed man without having brought any sort of back-up -- that person should lose their gun-owning privileges
|
On July 02 2013 09:19 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:13 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 09:09 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 09:05 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 08:59 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:41 Krohm wrote:On July 02 2013 08:35 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). how can you not approve of neighborhood watches? that seems absurd to me. I should have worded that more clearly. I am opposed to armed neighborhood watches as that suggest they will do enforcing of laws. I am not opposed to keeping an eye open and then call the police if need be. I can agree with you but at the same time you location is Denmark. I'm assuming you live there? America is a whole different type of animal when it comes to firearms. People there feel it's necessary to carry one to properly defend yourself because there is a higher chance that a potential perpetrator will be carrying one as well. It's sort like a false security blanket I guess you could say. Although you may sometimes get a neighbourhood watch member who oversteps their authority I don't think Zimmerman really qualifies as that though. He may have been a bit over-zealous and should have complied to the dispatchers suggestion but I don't feel he took the law into his own hands that night. I actually live in San Francisco and have done so for more than a year (just haven't updated as I will move back to Denmark soon, and my cultural background, which is really what you are alluding to, is Danish). I realize that there is a higher risk of the culprit wearing firearms in the states than in the land of fairytales, rainbows, and unicorns aka Denmark. I just do not think that from a moral standpoint it really provides you with an excuse and I would argue that the moral intent of a neighborhood watch changes as soon as it is armed, because why would you really need a weapon if you are simply watching? It is absolutely their right to carry a firearm if they are licensed to do so. Does that mean that if they witness a crime happening that then can go in gunzablazin and expect not to be persecuted? Hell no. But it is a legitimate means of defense if you are out alone on a stormy night and someone confronts you and threatens your life while having you pinned. Neighborhood watches aren't armed individuals are armed. I do not want to live in a neighborhood that has a "neighborhood watches" that allows its members to be armed. I pay a lot of taxes to have police trained for that job and I would like them to do it. People can look out for my safety and I appreciate it, but they can do it with the guns in their house. And to be clear, I don't think I should be able to prohibit people from having armed neighborhood watches. I just won't live there. I'm sorry, I just had to laugh out loud at the bold. Apparently you missed the whole Christopher Dorner incident and how much collateral damage occurred on the LAPD's account? I'd say police are much more trigger happy than an civilian with a license. Police are looking for action and can basically act without repercussions. Civilians on the other hand have this case to look forward to. That is one police officer out of how many? How many thousands of arrests and violent altercations take place per year that turn out just fine? I can find endless examples of idiots who never should have been handed a firearm, let alone sold one, but that doesn't mean no one should get them. The same goes for police. The majority of them do a fine job, with exception of a few idiots. No, it wasn't one police officer. It was multiple police officers blasting multiple cars that didn't even look similar to the one the suspect was driving. My point was that those police officers can shoot up a car driven by two little Asian ladies delivering newspapers and not face criminal charges while a man can be legitimately protecting his own life and literally have his life ruined after the fact, regardless of innocence. Which do you think is more likely to shoot first and ask questions later? The trigger happy cop who peaked in high school and has an alpha attitude, or the concerned citizen who bought a gun for protection and is aware of the legal repercussions of drawing and using that weapon?
I think both parties are equally likely to be an idiot, concerned citizen and police officer alike. The difference is that I don't live next to idiot police officers and I wouldn't. I also wouldn't live in a neighborhood with a group of "concerned citizen" who also carried fire arms to protect the neighborhood. I grew up in the country, I know how big of an idiot people can be with guns.
Just because I don't want to live there doesn't mean you can't. I don't object to them existing, I just assure that I don't exist there too.
|
On July 02 2013 09:25 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:19 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 09:11 Leporello wrote:On July 02 2013 08:31 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 08:19 Leporello wrote:On July 02 2013 08:03 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On July 02 2013 07:36 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:27 SKC wrote:On July 02 2013 07:25 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:15 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Tragic for the Martins but I'm kinda starting to feel bad for Zimmerman. He has a history of being sympathetic towards blacks but is having his life ruined because of perceived racism on his part. I don't feel bad for Zimmerman at all. He at least is getting his day in court, and is being tried by a court of law and his peers for his indiscretions Martin was sentenced to death by Zimmerman. It's like people are forgetting that he did technically kill a 17 year old who's only plans that night were to visit his dad. It might have been in self-defence but still. Worst. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. Assuming Zimmerman's words are true, Martin sentenced himself to death. Well, that's when it becomes a question of morals. If someone you were following turns around and beats you up, does that mean he deserves to get shot in the chest? Punishment doesn't fit the crime, IMO. George Zimmerman may be innocent, and is probably only guilty of defending himself in the heat of the moment. But personally, I don't think Trayvon deserved to die for for how he reacted. It's a pitch black night with heavy rains. You're having your head dashed against the pavement after having your nose broken. You've been yelling for help for a good 40 secs but no one comes. At what point should you stop to consider whether or not to use deadly force? Hmm, well before the fight happened GZ made a decision to bring a gun with him, when confronting a stranger with accusatory suspicions. The gun has a safety switch on it. Either the safety was off the entire time GZ was in possession of it, or he had the time and ability to switch the safety off while in the midst of (allegedly) fighting for his life. GZ had the time and luxury of ending the fight in this fatal manner. Trayvon, quite obviously, didn't. Again, we don't know what happened to start the fight, or how the fight went. The only facts we know are that GZ shot Trayvon, and that GZ had somehow sustained some injuries. We have no real witnesses as to how GZ sustained those injuries. I understand that to claim murder under such cloudy circumstances is wrong. We can't prove GZ is a murderer. But he is certainly someone who should never be allowed to carry a gun. He certainly proved himself grossly incompetent, and that's the best that can be said about him. I really don't care about this actual trial. It's actually meaningless in a lot of ways. Trayvon is dead, and GZ -- while I do think he may be guilty of simple manslaughter, he isn't a malicious killer. I don't worry about him to the point that I think he needs to be locked up, I just don't want this idiot ever following anyone with a gun ever again. I hope everyone can agree with that, at least. @ the bold: Wat? Have you never held a gun before, or are you trying to make the safety seem like some sort of complex mechanism for the purpose of your own agenda? The safety can literally be flicked with the thumb in a millisecond. Anyone trained with firearms is trained to immediately flick the safety off AS they are drawing their weapon. Under the circumstances and given the evidence, I'd say GZ is exactly the type of person I'd want to be able to carry a gun. He screamed for help for a good 40 seconds and only fired his weapon after receiving substantial damage to his head/face while being pinned down and (allegedly) hearing a threat on his own life. Afterwards he kept his cool, waited for the police, and reported the incident to the police. You are talking as if the gun was sitting on his dash and he purposely grabbed for it before heading out while saying "I'm gonna get me a punk tonight" He was fucking wearing it as a means of protection. I've actually fired guns of all kinds, from handguns, to an M249 MG. Yes, safeties are easy to flick off, but they exist for a reason -- you have to consciously flick that safety. GZ had a hand free, and was able to shoot Trayvon -- that is a fact. That he was actually defending himself -- that is NOT a fact. See the difference? I'm glad you were there to witness it, to know that GZ was justified in shooting this guy. Seriously, have you given the police this testimony? Because the only facts I know of are that GZ followed a kid he didn't even know, and ended up shooting him. GZ has clearly demonstrated he is not the type of person to be carrying a gun. Guns are for self-defense, not for following people that wear hoodies. GZ was only defending himself IF YOU BELIEVE HIS TESTIMONY -- which you obviously do, fully. Going by the facts, GZ was defending himself against a random stranger that he decided to follow. That is not a good gun owner. A responsible gun owner would've brought a witness or some backup, not confronted somebody by himself. GZ was told to wait for the police, he didn't. He went alone, and shot an unarmed man. GZ is NOT a responsible gun owner, which is evidenced by the fact that he finds himself IN this situation. Responsible gun owners don't shoot unarmed people without witnesses. Yes, that's a really intelligent person. You must be a genius too. Good lord. At least take the time to read up on the facts of the case and the testimony before you start posting so that you're not just shitting up the thread with baseless speculation like the above. Let's just start with the very basic fact that Zimmerman's gun does not have a safety, like pretty much every modern semi-automatic pistol. Maybe you're enjoying playing lawyer too much. GZ did not bring a witness with him, I am correct on that. You post that a witness was there -- that's good and lucky for GZ, but my point is he didn't bring anyone. He confronted the kid by himself. GZ did not wait for police, as the dispatcher told him he should. I am not convicting the guy. I am not saying he is guilty of murder. What I am saying is he put himself into a stupid situation, and that people who put themselves in situations like that shouldn't be carrying a gun. I'm not talking about the trial, I am not talking about gun-control, please set aside those biases of yours. I am saying that if someone shoots an unarmed man without having brought any sort of back-up -- that person should lose their gun-owning privileges
He isn't playing, he is an attorney. You might want to thumb back a few pages before people start slamming that report button.
Edit: to late. Live and learn I guess.
|
On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ?
No. It would be a tragedy, but not the fault of Zimmerman.
We presume someone Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty; the same dignity should be afforded to Martin. He has a fair expectation to be able to walk down the street.
--
There's nothing morally wrong about keeping an eye on Trayvon. Zimmerman even has the right to carry a gun. But this is exactly the kind of case that gun control advocates point to, where a gun compels people to enter dangerous situations, or escalated conflict into life or death situations. Without a gun, Zimmerman probably doesn't even get out of his car in the middle of the night to follow someone he find suspicious.
|
On July 02 2013 09:28 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? No. It would be a tragedy, but not the fault of Zimmerman. We presume someone Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty; the same dignity should be afforded to Martin. He has a fair expectation to be able to walk down the street. -- There's nothing morally wrong about keeping an eye on Trayvon. Zimmerman even has the right to carry a gun. But this is exactly the kind of case that gun control advocates point to, where a gun compels people to enter dangerous situations, or escalated conflict into life or death situations. Without a gun, Zimmerman probably doesn't even get out of his car in the middle of the night to follow someone he find suspicious.
innocent until prove guilty is a legal construct that only applies to criminal defendants.
|
On July 02 2013 09:03 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:59 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:41 Krohm wrote:On July 02 2013 08:35 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). how can you not approve of neighborhood watches? that seems absurd to me. I should have worded that more clearly. I am opposed to armed neighborhood watches as that suggest they will do enforcing of laws. I am not opposed to keeping an eye open and then call the police if need be. I can agree with you but at the same time you location is Denmark. I'm assuming you live there? America is a whole different type of animal when it comes to firearms. People there feel it's necessary to carry one to properly defend yourself because there is a higher chance that a potential perpetrator will be carrying one as well. It's sort like a false security blanket I guess you could say. Although you may sometimes get a neighbourhood watch member who oversteps their authority I don't think Zimmerman really qualifies as that though. He may have been a bit over-zealous and should have complied to the dispatchers suggestion but I don't feel he took the law into his own hands that night. I actually live in San Francisco and have done so for more than a year (just haven't updated as I will move back to Denmark soon, and my cultural background, which is really what you are alluding to, is Danish). I realize that there is a higher risk of the culprit wearing firearms in the states than in the land of fairytales, rainbows, and unicorns aka Denmark. I just do not think that from a moral standpoint it really provides you with an excuse and I would argue that the moral intent of a neighborhood watch changes as soon as it is armed, because why would you really need a weapon if you are simply watching? It is absolutely their right to carry a firearm if they are licensed to do so. Does that mean that if they witness a crime happening that then can go in gunzablazin and expect not to be persecuted? Hell no. But it is a legitimate means of defense if you are out alone on a stormy night and someone confronts you and threatens your life while having you pinned. Neighborhood watches aren't armed individuals are armed. He's saying he finds it bad to allow neighborhood watch people to be armed. So if a concerned citizen, who happens to have a license to carry, signs up for his local neighborhood watch program, we should revoke his right to carry because of some unfounded belief that it leads to vigilantism? How absurd is that?
No, a concerned citizen should be educated and realize that a neighborhood watch involves sitting in you house and monitoring your neighborhood, not following people around your neighborhood in you car with your gun, licensed or not.
Zimmerman is not trained or paid law enforcement. He's not even a security guard. If he wants to patrol with a gun, he should become a cop.
|
On July 02 2013 09:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:19 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 09:13 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 09:09 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 09:05 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 08:59 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:41 Krohm wrote:On July 02 2013 08:35 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
how can you not approve of neighborhood watches? that seems absurd to me. I should have worded that more clearly. I am opposed to armed neighborhood watches as that suggest they will do enforcing of laws. I am not opposed to keeping an eye open and then call the police if need be. I can agree with you but at the same time you location is Denmark. I'm assuming you live there? America is a whole different type of animal when it comes to firearms. People there feel it's necessary to carry one to properly defend yourself because there is a higher chance that a potential perpetrator will be carrying one as well. It's sort like a false security blanket I guess you could say. Although you may sometimes get a neighbourhood watch member who oversteps their authority I don't think Zimmerman really qualifies as that though. He may have been a bit over-zealous and should have complied to the dispatchers suggestion but I don't feel he took the law into his own hands that night. I actually live in San Francisco and have done so for more than a year (just haven't updated as I will move back to Denmark soon, and my cultural background, which is really what you are alluding to, is Danish). I realize that there is a higher risk of the culprit wearing firearms in the states than in the land of fairytales, rainbows, and unicorns aka Denmark. I just do not think that from a moral standpoint it really provides you with an excuse and I would argue that the moral intent of a neighborhood watch changes as soon as it is armed, because why would you really need a weapon if you are simply watching? It is absolutely their right to carry a firearm if they are licensed to do so. Does that mean that if they witness a crime happening that then can go in gunzablazin and expect not to be persecuted? Hell no. But it is a legitimate means of defense if you are out alone on a stormy night and someone confronts you and threatens your life while having you pinned. Neighborhood watches aren't armed individuals are armed. I do not want to live in a neighborhood that has a "neighborhood watches" that allows its members to be armed. I pay a lot of taxes to have police trained for that job and I would like them to do it. People can look out for my safety and I appreciate it, but they can do it with the guns in their house. And to be clear, I don't think I should be able to prohibit people from having armed neighborhood watches. I just won't live there. I'm sorry, I just had to laugh out loud at the bold. Apparently you missed the whole Christopher Dorner incident and how much collateral damage occurred on the LAPD's account? I'd say police are much more trigger happy than an civilian with a license. Police are looking for action and can basically act without repercussions. Civilians on the other hand have this case to look forward to. That is one police officer out of how many? How many thousands of arrests and violent altercations take place per year that turn out just fine? I can find endless examples of idiots who never should have been handed a firearm, let alone sold one, but that doesn't mean no one should get them. The same goes for police. The majority of them do a fine job, with exception of a few idiots. No, it wasn't one police officer. It was multiple police officers blasting multiple cars that didn't even look similar to the one the suspect was driving. My point was that those police officers can shoot up a car driven by two little Asian ladies delivering newspapers and not face criminal charges while a man can be legitimately protecting his own life and literally have his life ruined after the fact, regardless of innocence. Which do you think is more likely to shoot first and ask questions later? The trigger happy cop who peaked in high school and has an alpha attitude, or the concerned citizen who bought a gun for protection and is aware of the legal repercussions of drawing and using that weapon? I think both parties are equally likely to be an idiot, concerned citizen and police officer alike. The difference is that I don't live next to idiot police officers and I wouldn't. I also wouldn't live in a neighborhood with a group of "concerned citizen" who also carried fire arms to protect the neighborhood. I grew up in the country, I know how big of an idiot people can be with guns. Just because I don't want to live there doesn't mean you can't. I don't object to them existing, I just assure that I don't exist there too.
Eh, to each their own. I just misinterpreted it as you saying they shouldn't exist.
|
On July 02 2013 08:29 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). Just curious, what do you have against neighborhood watches?
I live in Gastown, which borders the Downtown Eastside in Vancouver, the poorest and most dangerous postal code in Canada. Our buildng has a neighborhood watch, but there were was a lot of pushback among some of the tenants that work for non-profits, claiming that neighborhood watches tend to unfairly discriminate against 'outsiders', ie poor people and minorities.
I'm not that liberal. There's a lot of partiers and drunks in our neighborhood on the weekends, so neighborhood watches make the streets safer for everybody, including the people with low-incomes. We make a very conscious effort to not discriminate against 'poor' people, but to discriminate against noise and overt acts of general stupidity. We definitely don't go beyond engaging in or creating unnecessary conflict, or approaching strangers while armed.
|
On July 02 2013 09:31 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:28 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? No. It would be a tragedy, but not the fault of Zimmerman. We presume someone Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty; the same dignity should be afforded to Martin. He has a fair expectation to be able to walk down the street. -- There's nothing morally wrong about keeping an eye on Trayvon. Zimmerman even has the right to carry a gun. But this is exactly the kind of case that gun control advocates point to, where a gun compels people to enter dangerous situations, or escalated conflict into life or death situations. Without a gun, Zimmerman probably doesn't even get out of his car in the middle of the night to follow someone he find suspicious. innocent until prove guilty is a legal construct that only applies to criminal defendants.
We do not (yet) have a thought-police and as such it really applies to everyone.
|
On July 02 2013 09:25 Leporello wrote:
Maybe you're enjoying playing lawyer too much. GZ did not bring a witness with him, I am correct on that. You post that a witness was there -- that's good and lucky for GZ, but my point is he didn't bring anyone. He confronted the kid by himself. GZ did not wait for police, as the dispatcher told him he should. You're wrong about that. He denies confronting Martin and says Martin started the confrontation.
This point is completely central to the case. Don't obscure it.
|
On July 02 2013 09:25 Leporello wrote:
Maybe you're enjoying playing lawyer too much. GZ did not bring a witness with him, I am correct on that. You post that a witness was there -- that's good and lucky for GZ, but my point is he didn't bring anyone. He confronted the kid by himself. GZ did not wait for police, as the dispatcher told him he should. I am not convicting the guy. I am not saying he is guilty of murder.
What I am saying is he put himself into a stupid situation, and that people who put themselves in situations like that shouldn't be carrying a gun. I'm not talking about the trial, I am not talking about gun-control, please set aside those biases of yours. I am saying that if someone shoots an unarmed man without having brought any sort of back-up -- that person should lose their gun-owning privileges
This assertion is as baseless and unreasonable as your previous ones. There is no such legal requirement, and there never will be one for good reason. It would basically defeat the whole purpose of firearm ownership -- individual self-defense.
Let's be honest, your biases are clearly interfering with your ability to fairly perceive and assess this case. You can claim all you want that you're "not talking about gun control," but clearly you are.
|
On July 02 2013 09:32 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:03 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 09:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:59 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:41 Krohm wrote:On July 02 2013 08:35 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). how can you not approve of neighborhood watches? that seems absurd to me. I should have worded that more clearly. I am opposed to armed neighborhood watches as that suggest they will do enforcing of laws. I am not opposed to keeping an eye open and then call the police if need be. I can agree with you but at the same time you location is Denmark. I'm assuming you live there? America is a whole different type of animal when it comes to firearms. People there feel it's necessary to carry one to properly defend yourself because there is a higher chance that a potential perpetrator will be carrying one as well. It's sort like a false security blanket I guess you could say. Although you may sometimes get a neighbourhood watch member who oversteps their authority I don't think Zimmerman really qualifies as that though. He may have been a bit over-zealous and should have complied to the dispatchers suggestion but I don't feel he took the law into his own hands that night. I actually live in San Francisco and have done so for more than a year (just haven't updated as I will move back to Denmark soon, and my cultural background, which is really what you are alluding to, is Danish). I realize that there is a higher risk of the culprit wearing firearms in the states than in the land of fairytales, rainbows, and unicorns aka Denmark. I just do not think that from a moral standpoint it really provides you with an excuse and I would argue that the moral intent of a neighborhood watch changes as soon as it is armed, because why would you really need a weapon if you are simply watching? It is absolutely their right to carry a firearm if they are licensed to do so. Does that mean that if they witness a crime happening that then can go in gunzablazin and expect not to be persecuted? Hell no. But it is a legitimate means of defense if you are out alone on a stormy night and someone confronts you and threatens your life while having you pinned. Neighborhood watches aren't armed individuals are armed. He's saying he finds it bad to allow neighborhood watch people to be armed. So if a concerned citizen, who happens to have a license to carry, signs up for his local neighborhood watch program, we should revoke his right to carry because of some unfounded belief that it leads to vigilantism? How absurd is that? No, a concerned citizen should be educated and realize that a neighborhood watch involves sitting in you house and monitoring your neighborhood, not following people around your neighborhood in you car with your gun, licensed or not. Zimmerman is not trained or paid law enforcement. He's not even a security guard. If he wants to patrol with a gun, he should become a cop.
So everyone who walks around with a concealed should become a cop? That's pretty stupid. I have a CWP and have absolutely no desire to either A) shoot someone or B) become a cop. That doesn't stop me from carrying nor would it stop me from shooting someone dead if they attempted something.
Honestly this is all speculation, we can either assume Zimmerman was honestly just thinking the kid was going to rob a house and he was going to see what was up. The other belief is that he was racially profililng and just wanted to shoot the kid. Either way unless he does an OJ and writes a book nobody will ever know the truth except him.
|
On July 02 2013 09:36 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 09:28 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? No. It would be a tragedy, but not the fault of Zimmerman. We presume someone Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty; the same dignity should be afforded to Martin. He has a fair expectation to be able to walk down the street. -- There's nothing morally wrong about keeping an eye on Trayvon. Zimmerman even has the right to carry a gun. But this is exactly the kind of case that gun control advocates point to, where a gun compels people to enter dangerous situations, or escalated conflict into life or death situations. Without a gun, Zimmerman probably doesn't even get out of his car in the middle of the night to follow someone he find suspicious. innocent until prove guilty is a legal construct that only applies to criminal defendants. We do not (yet) have a thought-police and as such it really applies to everyone.
if you apply it outside a legal setting then you are saying that no one is ever guilty of anything because proof requires a legal system. it makes no sense. its just people using catch phrases without understanding the theory behind them. people arent actually innocent; we just treat them that way because the people who wrote the constitution decided to. if the constitution said guilty until proven innocent, would you blindly follow that rule as well? of course not.
|
On July 02 2013 09:35 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:29 nihlon wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). Just curious, what do you have against neighborhood watches? I live in Gastown, which borders the Downtown Eastside in Vancouver, the poorest and most dangerous postal code in Canada. Our buildng has a neighborhood watch, but there were was a lot of pushback among some of the tenants that work for non-profits, claiming that neighborhood watches tend to unfairly discriminate against 'outsiders', ie poor people and minorities. I'm not that liberal. There's a lot of partiers and drunks in our neighborhood on the weekends, so neighborhood watches make the streets safer for everybody, including the people with low-incomes. We make a very conscious effort to not discriminate against 'poor' people, but to discriminate against noise and overt acts of general stupidity. We definitely don't go beyond engaging in or creating unnecessary conflict, or approaching strangers while armed.
I still don't understand how being armed somehow makes approaching strangers incriminating.
|
On July 02 2013 09:41 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:35 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 08:29 nihlon wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). Just curious, what do you have against neighborhood watches? I live in Gastown, which borders the Downtown Eastside in Vancouver, the poorest and most dangerous postal code in Canada. Our buildng has a neighborhood watch, but there were was a lot of pushback among some of the tenants that work for non-profits, claiming that neighborhood watches tend to unfairly discriminate against 'outsiders', ie poor people and minorities. I'm not that liberal. There's a lot of partiers and drunks in our neighborhood on the weekends, so neighborhood watches make the streets safer for everybody, including the people with low-incomes. We make a very conscious effort to not discriminate against 'poor' people, but to discriminate against noise and overt acts of general stupidity. We definitely don't go beyond engaging in or creating unnecessary conflict, or approaching strangers while armed. I still don't understand how being armed somehow makes approaching strangers incriminating.
I guess we should always assume that strangers are criminals and that approaching them would cause a confrontation that would only escalate and end in death because at least one of us is armed.
Shit, I guess I'm never going to make new friends if I can't approach strangers.
|
On July 02 2013 09:40 dAPhREAk wrote:
if you apply it outside a legal setting then you are saying that no one is ever guilty of anything because proof requires a legal system. it makes no sense. its just people using catch phrases without understanding the theory behind them. people arent actually innocent; we just treat them that way because the people who wrote the constitution decided to. if the constitution said guilty until proven innocent, would you blindly follow that rule as well? of course not. Actually, it comes from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments, not the Constitution.
The only people in this thread who come across as not understanding the theory behind the presumption of innocence are the ones who think the burden of proof falls squarely on the defense. And there's quite a few of them, as far as I can tell.
P.S. Anybody who hasn't watched "12 Angry Men" should go check it out right now.
|
On July 02 2013 09:41 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:35 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 08:29 nihlon wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). Just curious, what do you have against neighborhood watches? I live in Gastown, which borders the Downtown Eastside in Vancouver, the poorest and most dangerous postal code in Canada. Our buildng has a neighborhood watch, but there were was a lot of pushback among some of the tenants that work for non-profits, claiming that neighborhood watches tend to unfairly discriminate against 'outsiders', ie poor people and minorities. I'm not that liberal. There's a lot of partiers and drunks in our neighborhood on the weekends, so neighborhood watches make the streets safer for everybody, including the people with low-incomes. We make a very conscious effort to not discriminate against 'poor' people, but to discriminate against noise and overt acts of general stupidity. We definitely don't go beyond engaging in or creating unnecessary conflict, or approaching strangers while armed. I still don't understand how being armed somehow makes approaching strangers incriminating.
It doesn't. I'm not sure if incriminating is word you mean.
If you approached a stranger while armed, it could certainly be interpreted that you're a threat to their life, depending on how you handled it. If I approached a woman at night with a gun on holster in my neighborhood, she would probably assume I was going to attack her.
But hey, maybe Florida is different.
|
On July 02 2013 09:44 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:41 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 09:35 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 08:29 nihlon wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). Just curious, what do you have against neighborhood watches? I live in Gastown, which borders the Downtown Eastside in Vancouver, the poorest and most dangerous postal code in Canada. Our buildng has a neighborhood watch, but there were was a lot of pushback among some of the tenants that work for non-profits, claiming that neighborhood watches tend to unfairly discriminate against 'outsiders', ie poor people and minorities. I'm not that liberal. There's a lot of partiers and drunks in our neighborhood on the weekends, so neighborhood watches make the streets safer for everybody, including the people with low-incomes. We make a very conscious effort to not discriminate against 'poor' people, but to discriminate against noise and overt acts of general stupidity. We definitely don't go beyond engaging in or creating unnecessary conflict, or approaching strangers while armed. I still don't understand how being armed somehow makes approaching strangers incriminating. I guess we should always assume that strangers are criminals and that approaching them would cause a confrontation that would only escalate and end in death because at least one of us is armed. Shit, I guess I'm never going to make new friends if I can't approach strangers.
Maybe instead of following someone silently George Zimmerman could have tried another tactic. Like saying 'HELLO! You there! Do you live here?'
Mind=blown!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
