|
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 09:44 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.
It is more the point that the rest of the community many not have enough information on who is allowed to carry the firearms in the neighborhood watch, how they approach things and so forth. If someone does something wrong, there is no institution to blame or bring a claim against or even someone to complain to. There is no training on how to approach conflict. Neighborhood watches, are by nature, informal. There is nothign wrong with people being concerned about the concept of an armed group of people, who are not the police, taking efforts to "protect them" from crime.
|
On July 02 2013 09:49 Defacer 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. 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.
No one with a carry permit carries a firearm openly. In fact, most states require that the firearm be concealed such that people can't tell if you are carrying.
|
On July 02 2013 09:51 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:44 Dosey wrote: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!
I feel safe is saying that firearms would never have become involved in that discussion.
|
On July 02 2013 09:51 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:44 Dosey wrote: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!
he said he wasnt following him. trayvon surprised him and then asked him why he was following him. at that point, i agree, zimmerman should have identified himself as the neighborhood watch.
|
On July 02 2013 09:49 Defacer 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. 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.
Zimmerman has a concealed carry permit. Concealed weapons can be tough to spot even in daylight, let alone in the rain at night.
I doubt someone would immediately notice your gun and at the same time jump to the conclusion that simply because you were armed you were going to attack them.
|
On July 02 2013 09:46 GorbadTheGreat wrote:
Actually, it comes from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments, not the Constitution.
They may be written on separate pieces of parchment but, legally, they are part of the Constitution.
edit: wtf infested terran
|
On July 02 2013 09:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:49 Defacer wrote: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. 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. No one with a carry permit carries a firearm openly. In fact, most states require that the firearm be concealed such that people can't tell if you are carrying.
Hell, I keep forgetting how different gun culture is in America. Do most people in Florida literally just walk around with guns all the time; ex. at the movies, shopping for groceries, etc?
|
On July 02 2013 09:49 Defacer 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. 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.
This is just an absurd notion. Even if she could see your gun, a holstered gun is never a sign of aggression. Now, if you were to approach her with gun in hand waving it about, then yes she would probably assume you are going to attack her.
|
On July 02 2013 09:59 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 09:49 Defacer wrote: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. 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. No one with a carry permit carries a firearm openly. In fact, most states require that the firearm be concealed such that people can't tell if you are carrying. Hell, I keep forgetting how different gun culture is in America. Do most people in Florida literally just walk around with guns all the time; ex. at the movies, shopping for groceries, etc?
Beats me. I know people with carry permits that never leave the house without a firearm on them. At the other end of the spectrum, I have a carry permit, but I very rarely carry. The only time that I do is when I know that I am going somewhere that is a little suspect.
|
On July 02 2013 09:59 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 09:49 Defacer wrote: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. 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. No one with a carry permit carries a firearm openly. In fact, most states require that the firearm be concealed such that people can't tell if you are carrying. Hell, I keep forgetting how different gun culture is in America. Do most people in Florida literally just walk around with guns all the time; ex. at the movies, shopping for groceries, etc?
Why would that even matter? The point is you said that aproaching other people carrying a gun could be considering a threat. He was saying it's very unlikely you would be able to tell if someone aproaching you has a weapon, so there's no reason why you would feel threatened. Unless you are threatened by everyone.
|
On July 02 2013 09:40 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:36 Ghostcom wrote: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.
Admittedly I might be misunderstanding the concept, but I would argue that we treat people innocent until guilty in every single context of daily life. If we reversed the situation we would think everyone to be thiefs/liars/murderers until they had proven not to be so - which we do not. We assume people are generally friendly (or well, I do, but then again I am known to be somewhat idealistic and naive).
|
On July 02 2013 09:51 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:44 Dosey wrote: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! What, so he IS supposed to start a confrontation now?
Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
Any act of reconnaissance that goes further than pulling down the blinds and clutching his pearls to his chest must mean that he thinks he's part of the Justice League.
|
Now I'm imagining a society where everyone carries a gun. Everyone is very cordial and polite to strangers but they walk around with their butts so tightly clenched you can hear them opening and closing.
|
On July 02 2013 09:59 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 09:49 Defacer wrote: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. 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. No one with a carry permit carries a firearm openly. In fact, most states require that the firearm be concealed such that people can't tell if you are carrying. Hell, I keep forgetting how different gun culture is in America. Do most people in Florida literally just walk around with guns all the time; ex. at the movies, shopping for groceries, etc?
Not everyone has a concealed carry permit, but it shouldn't bother you whether they do or not.
On July 02 2013 10:06 Defacer wrote:
Now I'm imagining a society where everyone carries a gun. Everyone is very cordial and polite to strangers but they walk around with their butts so tightly clenched you can hear them opening and closing.
Nope, people don't generally worry that much. Just because you have a concealed carry permit doesn't mean you're paranoid of everyone around you.
Having airbags in your car doesn't mean you're paranoid of a car wreck.
|
EDIT: Nevermind, this discussion should be had in the designated thread. Not this one.
|
On July 02 2013 09:59 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 09:49 Defacer wrote: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. 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. No one with a carry permit carries a firearm openly. In fact, most states require that the firearm be concealed such that people can't tell if you are carrying. Hell, I keep forgetting how different gun culture is in America. Do most people in Florida literally just walk around with guns all the time; ex. at the movies, shopping for groceries, etc?
One of my former co-workers a few years ago would even bring her gun to work with her (in her purse) and never went anywhere without it. It really isn't that uncommon for someone to carry everywhere and you would never know who does and who doesn't. I would have never known that she was armed until she showed me.
Sidenote: it wasn't like I worked in a restaurant or strip club in a bad part of town either. This was a white collar job pulling in 60-100k/yr and she lives in a very nice neighborhood and actually has a cop for a neighbor. All types carry.
|
On July 02 2013 10:05 GorbadTheGreat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:51 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 09:44 Dosey wrote: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! What, so he IS supposed to start a confrontation now? Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Any act of reconnaissance that goes further than pulling down the blinds and clutching his pearls to his chest must mean that he thinks he's part of the Justice League.
It couldn't have hurt to idenify himself, that is for sure. It was an error in judgment not to.
|
I had a morbid thought, but I wonder what would have happened if Trayvon had a licensed, concealed gun.
We'd probably be following a trial about a young black man trying to convince people he was defending himself against an armed man that was following him, but turned out just to be the average Neighborhood Watch man.
|
On July 02 2013 10:06 Defacer wrote:
Now I'm imagining a society where everyone carries a gun. Everyone is very cordial and polite to strangers but they walk around with their butts so tightly clenched you can hear them opening and closing.
There are a couple countries were everyone has an assault rifle. I think Sweden had rules like that until at some point until 1995 when they switch to a volunteer service force. I remember my relatives joking they had a really low break in rate. But then again, they all had formal training as well.
|
On July 02 2013 10:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 10:06 Defacer wrote:
Now I'm imagining a society where everyone carries a gun. Everyone is very cordial and polite to strangers but they walk around with their butts so tightly clenched you can hear them opening and closing. There are a couple countries were everyone has an assault rifle. I think Sweden had rules like that until at some point until 1995 when they switch to a volunteer service force. I remember my relatives joking they had a really low break in rate. But then again, they all had formal training as well.
That would be Switzerland 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
