Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[sgtbaker]

It's pretty questionable to say that someone wearing a hoodie, in the rain, at night, in February is acting all that suspiciously. Actually, that's the sort of thing you would expect people to wear on a cold, rainy night.

Of course it is, but it looks different depending on your perspective. In a high crime area, especially when you are trying to look out for the neighborhood, you will look with more suspicious eyes.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Of course it is, but it looks different depending on your perspective. In a high crime area, especially when you are trying to look out for the neighborhood, you will look with more suspicious eyes.

Of course you will. Odds are, if you go looking for bad guys, you'll find them.

 

[Giz]

Are you really that unable to see that you are simply indulging your prejudices here?

 

[crimresearch]

Of course it is, but it looks different depending on your perspective. In a high crime area, especially when you are trying to look out for the neighborhood, you will look with more suspicious eyes.

Which leads right back to not enough information. Who authorized this guy to 'look out for the neighborhood'?

The media says 'self appointed', I still wonder what they are basing that on.

 

[WildCat]

Which leads right back to not enough information. Who authorized this guy to 'look out for the neighborhood'?

The media says 'self appointed', I still wonder what they are basing that on.

Since when do you need authorization to "look out for the neighborhood"?

 

[Mumbles]

Of course it is, but it looks different depending on your perspective. In a high crime area, especially when you are trying to look out for the neighborhood, you will look with more suspicious eyes.

Having grown up in a ghetto, in the Crack Era, I'm going to merely repeat myself. It is not suspicious to wear a hoodie in winter, at night, in the rain.

 

[crimresearch]

Since when do you need authorization to "look out for the neighborhood"?

'Since' the Florida statutes which spell out the requirements for licensure to work armed security.
'Since' the Florida statutes which do not allow a CCW to substitute for said license when perfoming any sort of security duties while carrying a weapon.
'Since' the Florida statutes which spell out that authorization from the property owner or lessee is needed to order someone to leave, or demand to know what they are doing there.

But don't let the actual law get in the way of your TV fueled fantasies.

 

[sgtbaker]

Which leads right back to not enough information. Who authorized this guy to 'look out for the neighborhood'?

The media says 'self appointed', I still wonder what they are basing that on.

I've wondered that, myself. Do they mean self appointed, as in this one man just drives around the neighborhood calling himself neighborhood watch or did he decide that it's time to get proactive and form a neighborhood watch. Who knows?

 

[sgtbaker]

Having grown up in a ghetto, in the Crack Era, I'm going to merely repeat myself. It is not suspicious to wear a hoodie in winter, at night, in the rain.

Having lived in a community, sharing a border with a high crime area. Having experienced thug wanna be kids breaking into my car and stealing my kid's bikes, I can say it does. My anacdote trumps yours.

 

[Bikewer]

I've been watching the CNN coverage on this, and there is insufficient information to make any sort of decision. Likely the police are seeing if they can build a case.

We had a somewhat similar incident years ago when I was working communications for the local county police.
I took a call from a fellow who identified himself as an alderman for one of the local municipalities who we provided radio service. He said that a fellow in a VW van was on his circle drive exposing himself to some teens.
I got the description of the car and told him I'd have an officer on the way. Then.... The guy said, "I've got my gun, and I'm going to go out and get him!" Before I could warn him against this rash action, he hung up. This was long before cell phones.

Shortly thereafter, the "suspicious person" call changed to a "shooting" call.

The alderman said he'd tried to arrest the guy, who then attempted to run him down with his vehicle. The alderman fired, and the bullet severed the guy's spine, paralyzing him.
The guy said he was just trying to leave....
This case went to the grand jury, months later. After all the testimony (including mine) it was decided that there was not sufficient evidence to indict the alderman.
He claimed he fired in self-defense as the guy tried to flee, the vehicle was going to hit him.
The driver/exposer said the alderman just preemptorily shot him.

No evidence one way or the other.

I suspect this might turn out similarly. If the "watch captain" confronted the kid, who then became violent, he might have a case. However, from the picture the kid is rather small and slight... If no weapon was produced or threatened...
One can speculate endlessly. Best to wait for the facts.

 

[WildCat]

'Since' the Florida statutes which spell out the requirements for licensure to work armed security.
'Since' the Florida statutes which do not allow a CCW to substitute for said license when perfoming any sort of security duties while carrying a weapon.
'Since' the Florida statutes which spell out that authorization from the property owner or lessee is needed to order someone to leave, or demand to know what they are doing there.

But don't let the actual law get in the way of your TV fueled fantasies.

You're actually going to claim that patrolling your neighborhood and looking out for suspicious people is illegal?

Really?

Really?

 

[ponderingturtle]

You're actually going to claim that patrolling your neighborhood and looking out for suspicious people is illegal?

Really?

Really?

Looking out and chasing them down to confront them are rather different things you know. He was pointing out what he would need to be a legal security officer for the gated community.

 

[tyr_13]

I've been watching the CNN coverage on this, and there is insufficient information to make any sort of decision. SNIP

That's my feeling as well.

 

[Mumbles]

If one wanted to escalate the conflict, sure.

I just don't get the "I refuse to give information to anyone." line of logic. Either A) you can simply say the truth, "Coming back from a snack run.". Which is either going to satisfy the person, or cause the person to validate your claim. Or B) Refuse to tell them anything, which is surely going to escalate the issue with this knob.

Sure, you are well within your rights to say none of your business, but what good is that going to do? You don't like the fact that the man wants to hassle you, so your best recourse is to do the one thing that is going to extend the hassle? By the very action of hassling you, the person has branded themselves a knob, so you know that the situation isn't going to get any more pleasant by reacting immediately in a similar manner.

And above and beyond that, if the guy is such a high caliber of knob that he is actually going to want to validate the fact that you lived there, sure let him, then when you open your door, shut it in his face. If he tries to go any further with it, you are now in your own home, with all of the legal protections that incurs.

This is a very good way to get your house robbed.

 

[WildCat]

Looking out and chasing them down to confront them are rather different things you know. He was pointing out what he would need to be a legal security officer for the gated community.

No, he was claiming it was illegal to voluntarily patrol your neighborhood for suspicious people, particularly while armed.

Do you agree?

 

[Hellbound]

Jus thtought I'd point out the legal definition, under Florida statutes, that defines a security officer (from http://www.s2institute.com/content/_downloads_pdf/FL_Chptr_493.pdf page 5):

(19) "Security officer" means any individual who, for consideration, advertises as providing or
performs bodyguard services or otherwise guards persons or property; attempts to prevent theft
or unlawful taking of goods, wares, and merchandise; or attempts to prevent the misappropriation
or concealment of goods, wares or merchandise, money, bonds, stocks, choses in action, notes,
or other documents, papers, and articles of value or procurement of the return thereof. The term
also includes armored car personnel and those personnel engaged in the transportation of​

prisoners.

A member of a neighborhood watch is not a security officer, and is covered by the laws that apply to private citizens only, not the laws that apply to security officers specifically. I bolded the relevent part above.

 

[Dancing David]

Are you really that unable to see that you are simply indulging your prejudices here?

Are you unwilling to admit you made an ironic statement considering you said something based upon no evidence?

"To be so sure at this stage means that you are indulging your prejudices rather than analyzing the evidence."

"But then... the kid was in a gang and had been kicked out of school... so he obviously had a habit of making antisocial decisions..."

So do you deny the irony of your behavior?

 

[Giz]

Are you unwilling to admit you made an ironic statement considering you said something based upon no evidence?

"To be so sure at this stage means that you are indulging your prejudices rather than analyzing the evidence."

"But then... the kid was in a gang and had been kicked out of school... so he obviously had a habit of making antisocial decisions..."

So do you deny the irony of your behavior?

Not at all. I was pointing out that other reports painted a different picture. All along I have said that either side might have been at fault and that the shooting may or may not have been justified but, on the information available, we just don't know.

YOU seem to be unwilling to go beyond "Zimmerman bad". Well, maybe he is, maybe he isn't - I am fair minded enough to say that I don't know, rather than forming an internet lynch mob.

 

[Eudaemonic Plague]

Your entire point seems to boil down to " But i am pissed, i can't just not be pissed, that takes so much effort." , and really that is a horribly poor line of logic, and you then take the step of saying this would cause you fear, not only that, but enough fear that you wouldn't trust this person for the amount of time it takes to walk to your door and close it.

Nice strawman, can I keep it? It'll look nice on my shelf of other useless brick-a-brak. I never indicated that I, personally, would feel either fear or anger, but merely indicated that those would be normal under the circumstance. That you claim "you then take the step of saying this would cause you fear", is clearly disingenuous, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Being accosted on the street by some puffed-up twit is sufficient cause for caution, which is what I mean by not turning my back on him. It would be foolish to assume that continuing about my way, without dealing with him, unless I were at my very doorstep, is the wisest course.

I have to say, that sounds very paranoid, and that is coming from a guy that does walk around armed, on a constant basis. Letting your emotions run your life, let alone feeling justified in this, is how crap like this happens. If the first gent were to simply say to himself "I'll just give the baby his bottle and tell him what i am up to, and if he wants to go further, i'll just outsmart him." he'd be alive today. The knob in question wasn't a sociopath, just a jerk with the same fantasy most jerks have, being dirty harry.

Paranoid? Ridiculous. It isn't paranoid to respond negatively to harassment. Why is it that you feel the need to "walk around armed"? Is that not due to paranoia? I see no reason that anyone should feel that need, apart from unreasoning fear.

I have a suspicion that your story about what the "correct" response should be, isn't how it would play out for you in real life. After all, you feel some need to be armed, eh?

And escalate is a perfectly appropriate word, you know how this person is going to react, and that by giving your answer that you admit is simply emotion fueled, it is going to simply cause him to act more like a knob , than by relating very simple information, that is not going to harm you. He isn't asking for a credit card number, or who you were banging, hell, you don't even have to tell the guy the truth, just make some crap up as to where you went.

You really ought to take a moment to look up the word escalate. What makes you think that you, or anyone else, is going to know how this person will react? I certainly never said anything about my reaction being emotionally fueled, that's simply your inference, and again, you don't know what his reaction will be, nor does he deserve an answer to his questioning of your presence, and certainly not a conciliatory one. Personally, I find that being truthful and honest is more likely to prevent escalation, than trying to lie your way out. I'm not at all violent by nature, and have had to learn the hard way that people who have no compunction about accosting strangers the way that Zimmerman likely did, won't quit easily, as their intent is to start trouble, and not otherwise.

Literally the only option that is guaranteed to make the situation more of a confrontation, is the emotion fueled snark of " None of your business." indeed it is none of his business, so lie. If your really that scared of telling someone you went on a snack run , it is the easiest way to not give that ultra valuable information, and not end up in a crappier situation than when you started.

Your assumption that "none of your business" must be emotionally fueled, and a snark, is preposterous on the face of it. The rest of what you say here, to lie just to satisfy some impudent nit, describes the poor habit of dishonesty, and is likely to only lead to further impudence on the part of the interloper.

I have no small acquaintance with these situations, and have learned by trial and error how to avoid escalation. Presenting oneself as a milquetoast only validates the view that you may be trifled with.

 

[rwguinn]

How to get "justice"

Yep, threaten until you get an answer you like...