17 year old kid shot dead by Neighborhood Watch "Captain"

[printcraft]

So.... have the incidents of break ins in GZ's neighborhood slowed down any?

 

[dross]

What does the statute or ordinance say about identifying one's self as neighborhood watch?

You must respect the supreme overlord.

Serious question. You buy a house in a neighborhood and they want a neighborhood watch after the fact. Do I as a homeowner have a say in it? I'm not respecting a Blart wanna be when I didn't want it in the first place.

Seriously though, does he have to announce himself as "Neighborhood Watch" or wear a t-shirt or something?

How do I know neighborhood watch from some creepy dude in a truck?

I don't see how the neighborhood watch (or for that matter, "stand your ground") is relevant to what we know about the incident.

If I'm in an NW organization, I don't have any more power to harass than does an ordinary citizen. As an ordinary citizen, I can follow anyone I want to follow, as long as I stay back a certain distance.

I've never understood what NW, or following the guy has to do with anything other than discussing whether it's a tactically good idea.

As to the Watch, so what if you don't want it? If me and other people want it, we put up a sign and we watch. Big deal. Is there some responsibility or action they're requiring of everyone? As far as you're concerned it's a private organization you don't belong to. If part of that is that we stare at your house and make notes about the comings and goings of your guests, yes, that's creepy and annoying, but perfectly legal.

I can't tell from what's been reported if Zimmerman even did anything a reasonable person would find threatening or annoying. I suspect what he did annoyed at least ONE person, based on what we know, but it still boils down to who assaulted first, and whether the assault continued after one of them surrendered. After everything I see and have read, those are the only two important facts in question.

Whether Zimmerman had reason to fear for his life isn't a fact, it's a judgment. The only fact, is that Zimmerman said he feared for his life, and said why.

So far, every fact to come out has supported Zimmerman.

On one side you have a coherent story that matches the facts as we know them. On the other side you have conjecture, speculation and manipulation of every unknown element to support the other side.

I still don't know if Zimmerman did anything legally, morally, ethically, or even tactically wrong.

Yet, it's still possible that Zimmerman was the one who started the confrontation, and it's possible Zimmerman got the upper hand and it was Trayvon who was screaming for help, and Zimmerman just executed him. That's possible.

Which one takes the bigger leap from facts to conclusions?

 

[griffin]

AFAIK, neighborhood watch groups aren't limited to just HOA's. If I own a home that isn't in an HOA and the neighbors decide to institute one, am I bound by it? Do I have to cooperate with Blart or am I forced to move to get away from it?

You don't have to cooperate, you don't have to participate, you don't have to answer their questions.

But you already knew that.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I don't see how the neighborhood watch (or for that matter, "stand your ground") is relevant to what we know about the incident.

If I'm in an NW organization, I don't have any more power to harass than does an ordinary citizen. As an ordinary citizen, I can follow anyone I want to follow, as long as I stay back a certain distance.

I've never understood what NW, or following the guy has to do with anything other than discussing whether it's a tactically good idea.

As to the Watch, so what if you don't want it? If me and other people want it, we put up a sign and we watch. Big deal. Is there some responsibility or action they're requiring of everyone? As far as you're concerned it's a private organization you don't belong to. If part of that is that we stare at your house and make notes about the comings and goings of your guests, yes, that's creepy and annoying, but perfectly legal.

I can't tell from what's been reported if Zimmerman even did anything a reasonable person would find threatening or annoying. I suspect what he did annoyed at least ONE person, based on what we know, but it still boils down to who assaulted first, and whether the assault continued after one of them surrendered. After everything I see and have read, those are the only two important facts in question.

Whether Zimmerman had reason to fear for his life isn't a fact, it's a judgment. The only fact, is that Zimmerman said he feared for his life, and said why.

So far, every fact to come out has supported Zimmerman.

On one side you have a coherent story that matches the facts as we know them. On the other side you have conjecture, speculation and manipulation of every unknown element to support the other side.

I still don't know if Zimmerman did anything legally, morally, ethically, or even tactically wrong.

Yet, it's still possible that Zimmerman was the one who started the confrontation, and it's possible Zimmerman got the upper hand and it was Trayvon who was screaming for help, and Zimmerman just executed him. That's possible.

Which one takes the bigger leap from facts to conclusions?

Yeah, but if you're acting suspicious by watching me and then following me, I'm going to be a little edgy. I may even feel the need to pre-emptively defend myself.

If you tell me that you're with the NW, it would go a long way to alleviating some of my anxiety.

I still stand by my assertion that this was a tactical fail, since Zimmerman was on his home ground, in a fortified position (his truck), out-gunned the assailant, and had reinforcements on the way.

How you end up getting your ass kicked when you have every tactical advantage is a giant fail.

 

[griffin]

What the Trayvon evidence doesn't show - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

Evidence released so far does not show Zimmerman acted with malice.

 

[hornadylnl]

I don't see how the neighborhood watch (or for that matter, "stand your ground") is relevant to what we know about the incident.

If I'm in an NW organization, I don't have any more power to harass than does an ordinary citizen. As an ordinary citizen, I can follow anyone I want to follow, as long as I stay back a certain distance.

I've never understood what NW, or following the guy has to do with anything other than discussing whether it's a tactically good idea.

As to the Watch, so what if you don't want it? If me and other people want it, we put up a sign and we watch. Big deal. Is there some responsibility or action they're requiring of everyone? As far as you're concerned it's a private organization you don't belong to. If part of that is that we stare at your house and make notes about the comings and goings of your guests, yes, that's creepy and annoying, but perfectly legal.

I can't tell from what's been reported if Zimmerman even did anything a reasonable person would find threatening or annoying. I suspect what he did annoyed at least ONE person, based on what we know, but it still boils down to who assaulted first, and whether the assault continued after one of them surrendered. After everything I see and have read, those are the only two important facts in question.

Whether Zimmerman had reason to fear for his life isn't a fact, it's a judgment. The only fact, is that Zimmerman said he feared for his life, and said why.

So far, every fact to come out has supported Zimmerman.

On one side you have a coherent story that matches the facts as we know them. On the other side you have conjecture, speculation and manipulation of every unknown element to support the other side.

I still don't know if Zimmerman did anything legally, morally, ethically, or even tactically wrong.

Yet, it's still possible that Zimmerman was the one who started the confrontation, and it's possible Zimmerman got the upper hand and it was Trayvon who was screaming for help, and Zimmerman just executed him. That's possible.

Which one takes the bigger leap from facts to conclusions?

Looking at his 47 911 calls (I certainly hope some of these were to a non emergency number instead of 911), he's called in potholes blocking the road, bags of trash in the road, and what appears to be following a truck with kids not in a car seat for 3-4 minutes, crotch rockets on the interstate, etc. is there anything not in his purview?

 

[griffin]

The Trayvon call was to the non-emergency number.

Those 47 calls were also over a seven year period. That's, what, an average of less than seven a year, one every couple of months? You are picking out one or two that you think too frivolous, or busybodyish.

What about the typical calls like when he called to report that people were misbehaving in the community-pool area, jumping over the fence and trashing the bathroom? Or when he called to report a woman who appeared to be yelling at elderly people? Or when people were continually driving back and forth through the neighborhood? Or when garage doors were open when it appeared people weren't home? Or suspected drug activity? Or two guys with a slim jim possibly burglarizing cars? Or alarms going off (fire and motion)? Or when he called the police to report a burglary at a resident's house he came upon during a nightly patrol?

According to police records, his subdivision had eight burglaries, nine thefts, and a shooting during the previous year.

By the way, both the 911 and non-emergency lines go to the same operator. It just helps her figure out what's more important. Also, by the way, the Sanford Police never told Zimmerman that he was abusing the 911 or non-emergency system. Apparently you're the only one that thinks so.

 

[bobzilla]

Looking at his 47 911 calls (I certainly hope some of these were to a non emergency number instead of 911), he's called in potholes blocking the road, bags of trash in the road, and what appears to be following a truck with kids not in a car seat for 3-4 minutes, crotch rockets on the interstate, etc. is there anything not in his purview?

Come, admit it. You want to see him fry because he is a "busy body" and you hate people that look out for others. Admit it. You want everyone to hide in bunkers like you do and never interact with one another.

 

[hornadylnl]

Come, admit it. You want to see him fry because he is a "busy body" and you hate people that look out for others. Admit it. You want everyone to hide in bunkers like you do and never interact with one another.

I don't want him to fry and I've said numerous times I'd vote to acquit him. For a forum that preaches personal responsibility so much, there is a lot of it takes a village to run a home mindset.

If I'm hiding in a bunker, you're at the local klan meeting.

 

[dom1104]

I don't want him to fry and I've said numerous times I'd vote to acquit him. For a forum that preaches personal responsibility so much, there is a lot of it takes a village to run a home mindset.

If I'm hiding in a bunker, you're at the local klan meeting.

What is your stance on this? I really cant figure it out.

Seriously.

I honestly cant figure out what your soapbox IS much less understand it.

 

[bobzilla]

I don't want him to fry and I've said numerous times I'd vote to acquit him. For a forum that preaches personal responsibility so much, there is a lot of it takes a village to run a home mindset.

If I'm hiding in a bunker, you're at the local klan meeting.

Yeah, real classy. Calling people racist really makes your comments take on a whole new level. And now you go to Iggy-land. I thought there might be hope, but I was wrong. Just another troll in here to stir up the pot.

What is your stance on this? I really cant figure it out.

Seriously.

I honestly cant figure out what your soapbox IS much less understand it.

I think I've come to the conclusion he's merely trolling in here to start ****.

 

[hornadylnl]

Yeah, real classy. Calling people racist really makes your comments take on a whole new level. And now you go to Iggy-land. I thought there might be hope, but I was wrong. Just another troll in here to stir up the pot.



I think I've come to the conclusion he's merely trolling in here to start ****.

And baseless accusations of cowardice is the height of class. I got you.

 

[hornadylnl]

What is your stance on this? I really cant figure it out.

Seriously.

I honestly cant figure out what your soapbox IS much less understand it.

My point is we aren't the police of the world and leave each other be. Property rights. If I'm not infringing on yours, leave me the hell alone. I have no desire to micro manage your life.

 

[bobzilla]

This is so much nicer. Why didn't I use Iggyland sooner on him?

This message is hidden because hornadylnl is on your ignore list.

 

[CarmelHP]

My point is we aren't the police of the world and leave each other be. Property rights. If I'm not infringing on yours, leave me the hell alone. I have no desire to micro manage your life.

Where exactly do property rights factor into this? You contract with an HOA and your neighbors for community services and areas then complain that your property rights are violated when the HOA acts within that covenant. These people in GZs areas had a choice, they chose the HOA. How about respecting their choice?

 

[dom1104]

My point is we aren't the police of the world and leave each other be. Property rights. If I'm not infringing on yours, leave me the hell alone. I have no desire to micro manage your life.

I still dont understand this.

Property Rights?

You mean.. like my yard?

Who isnt leaving you alone?

What does micromanaging my life have to do with George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin?

I am yet more confused.

 

[bobzilla]

Where exactly do property rights factor into this? You contract with an HOA and your neighbors for community services and areas then complain that your property rights are violated when the HOA acts within that covenant. These people in GZs areas had a choice, they chose the HOA. How about respecting their choice?

Because then you can't troll. DUH!

 

[hornadylnl]

Are neighborhood watches limited to just HOA's? Guests of my home should be free to come and go to my house without interference or having to answer to nosy neighbors.

I don't think he should be convicted but I also don't think he should be held on a pedestal like many are.

 

[griffin]

For a forum that preaches personal responsibility so much, there is a lot of it takes a village to run a home mindset.

The point is not what we want, but what they want. Twin Lakes wanted a Neighborhood watch. The police set it up, met with them, and were there when they elected Zimmerman to be their captain.

You don't like neighborhood watches. We get it. They wanted one. Get over it.

 

[CarmelHP]

Are neighborhood watches limited to just HOA's? Guests of my home should be free to come and go to my house without interference or having to answer to nosy neighbors.

I don't think he should be convicted but I also don't think he should be held on a pedestal like many are.

And what do your nosy neighbors have to do with the case? Thinking that GZ shouldn't be punished to satisfy some issue you have is not putting him on a pedestal. As previously stated, it is perfectly legal for your neighbors to watch the weirdo who moved in next door. It's even legal for them to speak to your guests. It's legal for your guests to politely answer or tell them to get bent.