Nonsense. 'Legal' was from the chief, not from me. Are you going into CT land now?
In the real world, 'on a personal errand' means exactly the opposite of in his NW 'role'. He was not acting in that role, and you've got nothing except desperate spinning at this point.
You can play that little semantic game all day if you like, however, as we have all seen, NW is a
24/7 eyes and ears role. There is no "punch in" or on the clock detail for members of the NW, and with GZ as "captain," whenever anything or anyone was deemed suspicious, then they are acting in the NW capacity.
<snip>
Crimresearch seems to be trying to characterize a Neighborhood Watch as some sort of Neighborhood
Patrol. I'm not sure if this is merely to advance his argument or because he actually believes that, but the idea is more of a Hollywood stereotype than a reflection of what law enforcement would like for people to be doing.
I see it as a form of training which enables people to act more effectively if they happen across a problem situation and need to do something before trained professionals can get there. Apparently the most salient parts of the Neighborhood Watch training somehow managed to escape George's grasp.
I've been trained in first aid and CPR (many times) but I never had the impression that it meant I was supposed to drive around on a beat looking for people who had hurt themselves or keeled over from a heart attack.
I don't think participation in a Neighborhood Watch is much different, except to wannabes who use it as an excuse to play dress-up and swagger around the neighborhood with dangerous toys.
One area where I disagree with crimresearch is that the training which George did receive, whether it sunk in or not, puts a higher burden of responsibility on him to act appropriately than if he had not had it at all. I do agree that there might not have been any statutory obligations as a result of that training, but he is less able to make any plausible claim that he didn't know which actions were appropriate and which ones weren't. This can and should be taken into consideration when he is being tried.
He had to know, due to that training, that as soon as he climbed out of his vehicle that evening he was on a path across the line between 'watching' and 'engaging'. The dispatcher's admonishments only reinforced that knowledge.
I am not suggesting that this somehow establishes his guilt or innocence as far as the charges placed against him are concerned, only that it is not unreasonable to acknowledge that training when evaluating his responsibility.
