Trayvon Martin

[StrangeSox]

We deal with tragic losses daily and continue moving forward because the bigger picture is more important. I don't see how this case differs. If Zimmerman and his fellow neighbors could turn the tide of his neighborhood by being active, by showing an attitude that they're not going to accept the crime, that they will be armed and might act in protection of their life/property, then perhaps the criminals will think twice about what they're doing.

 

As is, criminals are in fear of nothing. They don't fear their victims and they don't fear getting caught because they know, especially with theft/robbery, they'll be back on the streets in no time. Police can't keep up (and again, they're role isn't to prevent crime in the first place) so I'm 100% ok with people like Zimmerman taking an active role in trying to take back their street.

 

This is shockingly callous.

[Soxbadger]

And people mention that you're a lawyer, because we expect lawyers to be intelligent...and this isn't it.

 

he DOES have alternative choices to make on how to handle the confrontation after it begins, many of which do not lead to the use of a firearm. But I maintain that choosing to get beaten to death is not a choice. It's insanity.

 

So after writing all of that you agree with me?

 

You cant take 1 post out of context and then use it is an absolute. My statement was in response to:

 

Also, no one forced him to fire? Umm, if as some evidence suggests, Zimmerman's head was being pounded into the concrete, then Trayvon forced him.

 

My response was to show that Zimmerman had choices not to fire and to show that, I used the most extreme example, Zimmerman could have chosen non-violence.

 

You can call it insanity, but there are people who believe in non-violence.

 

Regardless, the point I was making is that no one forced Zimmerman to fire. Which you seem to agree with.

 

So I guess you can keep on preaching how it "isnt intelligent", but I am going to disagree. Im not going to keep attacking you for not reading the entire context of the post or for misunderstanding that I was using the most extreme example to show just how many choices Zimmerman had.

 

And you dont need to think of me as intelligent, you can think Im the dumbest person in the world. Youd be wrong, but everyone is entitled to their opinion, just like you are entitled to the opinion it would be insane to make the choice to be beaten to death instead of killing someone else, but it is still a choice, you just have a different opinion.

 

 

 

[The Sir]

Arguably, those weapons won't stop them either if they know what they're doing.

 

As a gunowner, I've always believed that having a gun doesn't make you armed. It's not so much how much they know what they're doing; it's how much you know what you're doing. If you don't practice at the range and don't know where to take good cover/concealment and get the best field of fire on your enemy's avenue of approach, then I don't give a s*** if you have a freakin' bazooka. You're screwed! But if you know what you're doing and if you have a defense plan, you'll be fine. I know my family will be fine.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't think anyone's going to dispute the right of a community to organize a neighborhood watch.

 

The question is...we have a circumstance that ended up in a barely trained neighborhood watchman stalking a 17 year old kid and killing him. Is that an acceptable result, or what scenario should lead to intervention here?

 

If it had turned out that he was actually chasing a robber and wound up shooting him down, that's not a good scenario either.

 

Some might say this is an argument for improving the funding and response times of the local PD also.

 

"Stalking" is crap. He was watching a kid that fit the profile of other criminals in the area - call that rayces all you want, but when all of the recent crime was being committed by young black kids I don't have a problem with that.

 

And yes, it's "acceptable" IMO just like it's "acceptable" that alcohol is still served in bars despite the fact that hundreds of thousands die each year from drunk drivers or how hundreds of thousands die each year from car accidents yet we still allow people to drive. Is it tragic? Yes. Is it a good example for why people shouldn't be able to protect themselves/their property/their neighborhood? No.

 

And how is increasing funding going to do anything here? How is increasing response times going to stop the crime. You've got a perfect example here of a situation where there have been tons of calls to the police, some arrests, and nothing has changed. Great, more police = more arrests. Since this is burglaries (thank God nothing more serious.....yet) those kids get minimal time or probation. It's not going to stop anything.

[Jenksismyhero]

This is shockingly callous.

 

Sorry I don't buy into the media hype of this situation when innocent kids in my own city are killed on a nightly basis. It's a tragedy, no doubt about it, but we deal with these incidents on a daily basis without a second of thought.

[Balta1701]

"Stalking" is crap. He was watching a kid that fit the profile of other criminals in the area - call that rayces all you want, but when all of the recent crime was being committed by young black kids I don't have a problem with that.

 

And yes, it's "acceptable" IMO just like it's "acceptable" that alcohol is still served in bars despite the fact that hundreds of thousands die each year from drunk drivers or how hundreds of thousands die each year from car accidents yet we still allow people to drive. Is it tragic? Yes. Is it a good example for why people shouldn't be able to protect themselves/their property/their neighborhood? No.

 

And how is increasing funding going to do anything here? How is increasing response times going to stop the crime. You've got a perfect example here of a situation where there have been tons of calls to the police, some arrests, and nothing has changed. Great, more police = more arrests. Since this is burglaries (thank God nothing more serious.....yet) those kids get minimal time or probation. It's not going to stop anything.

Stalking is an accurate word as far as I'm concerned. It is an accurate description of following a person first in a car and then on foot.

 

And second...you just argued that arrests and such will not help the situation. A normal neighborhood watch should be trying to generate arrests. That's the goal. If arrests are ineffective, what option are you defending other than vigilantes gunning down people in the streets?

[StrangeSox]

Jenks, please tell me I'm reading your posts wrong:

 

It's acceptable that armed, untrained civilians actively "take back their streets" from burglars, even if it significantly increases the likelihood that an innocent victim who was incorrectly profiled winds up shot to death? That the loss of a human life is a tragic event, but that we need to move past it in order to look at the bigger picture of stopping burglaries?

[Jenksismyhero]

Stalking is an accurate word as far as I'm concerned. It is an accurate description of following a person first in a car and then on foot.

 

And second...you just argued that arrests and such will not help the situation. A normal neighborhood watch should be trying to generate arrests. That's the goal. If arrests are ineffective, what option are you defending other than vigilantes gunning down people in the streets?

 

I think someone's presence like Zimmerman's is going to be more effective than relying on people to call something into the police AFTER the crime has already occurred. That's the point i'm trying to make. Increasing police funding to do more patrols or to speed up response times isn't going to do anything because at that point the crime is already over. Ideally if Martin were a potential robber, Martin "stalking" him would have ended up being a phone call to the police before or during Martin's crime, not after he was already gone.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Sorry I don't buy into the media hype of this situation when innocent kids in my own city are killed on a nightly basis. It's a tragedy, no doubt about it, but we deal with these incidents on a daily basis without a second of thought.

 

Plenty of people give the deaths of those innocent kids thought. There are community organizations, marches, rallies, educational sessions, counseling etc.

 

"We shouldn't care about an innocent black kid being shot to death and his shooter not being charged because we (as a larger society) don't care about other kids being gunned down" isn't exactly a great argument, nor does it address where the biggest injustice in this case is.

[iamshack]

We deal with tragic losses daily and continue moving forward because the bigger picture is more important. I don't see how this case differs. If Zimmerman and his fellow neighbors could turn the tide of his neighborhood by being active, by showing an attitude that they're not going to accept the crime, that they will be armed and might act in protection of their life/property, then perhaps the criminals will think twice about what they're doing.

 

As is, criminals are in fear of nothing. They don't fear their victims and they don't fear getting caught because they know, especially with theft/robbery, they'll be back on the streets in no time. Police can't keep up (and again, they're role isn't to prevent crime in the first place) so I'm 100% ok with people like Zimmerman taking an active role in trying to take back their street.

So will you just admit that you're in favor of vigilantism instead of trying to couch it in other terms?

[StrangeSox]

I think someone's presence like Zimmerman's is going to be more effective than relying on people to call something into the police AFTER the crime has already occurred. That's the point i'm trying to make. Increasing police funding to do more patrols or to speed up response times isn't going to do anything because at that point the crime is already over. Ideally if Martin were a potential robber, Martin "stalking" him would have ended up being a phone call to the police before or during Martin's crime, not after he was already gone.

 

Why wouldn't more frequent police patrols serve as a deterrent?

[Balta1701]

I think someone's presence like Zimmerman's is going to be more effective than relying on people to call something into the police AFTER the crime has already occurred. That's the point i'm trying to make. Increasing police funding to do more patrols or to speed up response times isn't going to do anything because at that point the crime is already over. Ideally if Martin were a potential robber, Martin "stalking" him would have ended up being a phone call to the police before or during Martin's crime, not after he was already gone.

No one has said that Zimmerman didn't have the right to call the police on this potential threat that he saw, and no one has said that they dont' have the right to be proactive and form a neighborhood watch.

 

I dispute the idea that it's a good thing to have unarmed, untrained, and unidentified civilians attempting to deal with potential crimes on their own, and I hugely dispute the idea that having that civilian armed will actually make the situation any better.

[StrangeSox]

If only poor Trayvon had been armed

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks, please tell me I'm reading your posts wrong:

 

It's acceptable that armed, untrained civilians actively "take back their streets" from burglars, even if it significantly increases the likelihood that an innocent victim who was incorrectly profiled winds up shot to death? That the loss of a human life is a tragic event, but that we need to move past it in order to look at the bigger picture of stopping burglaries?

 

He was trained with his weapon right? Licensed/certified all that. He wasn't someone who stumbled upon a gun and decided to start shooting people.

 

And I never said he should take back his streets by shooting would-be criminals. I'm saying that there's no need, as Balta originally stated, to use this as an example for why no one should be allowed to carry guns. There's a mental deterrent effect out there that, IMO, hasn't sunk in yet - that if you try to rob someone, there's a good chance they'll be waiting inside ready to shoot and protect themselves/their property.

 

 

[Balta1701]

If only poor Trayvon had been armed

less than a year older and he could have been. And in a strange neighborhood, walking at night, with all the crime that has happened in the area...it's the protection he needed.

[Balta1701]

He was trained with his weapon right? Licensed/certified all that. He wasn't someone who stumbled upon a gun and decided to start shooting people.

 

And I never said he should take back his streets by shooting would-be criminals. I'm saying that there's no need, as Balta originally stated, to use this as an example for why no one should be allowed to carry guns. There's a mental deterrent effect out there that, IMO, hasn't sunk in yet - that if you try to rob someone, there's a good chance they'll be waiting inside ready to shoot and protect themselves/their property.

That same mental effect swings both ways though. When a guy has a gun, he's much more likely to aggressively confront people, even unjustly.

 

And pretending that state level Concealed carry certifications really require serious training in terms of when weapons should be carried and deployed...that's just not even close. The people who should be really carrying them, police, etc., receive vastly more training, on a regular basis, for when those weapons should be deployed, for exactly that reason...because having the gun as an option can make a confrontation vastly more likely.

[Jenksismyhero]

So will you just admit that you're in favor of vigilantism instead of trying to couch it in other terms?

 

As much as watching a kid in your neighborhood is "stalking" then I guess creating a presence in your neighborhood that you're armed and ready to defend yourself is "vigilantism," so sure.

[Jenksismyhero]

Why wouldn't more frequent police patrols serve as a deterrent?

 

Let's be realistic - how much money and man power would it take for that to be effective? It's a gated community mind you. If you're a teenager staking out a place, how difficult is it to hide behind a bush until the "patrol" drives by?

[StrangeSox]

He was trained with his weapon right? Licensed/certified all that. He wasn't someone who stumbled upon a gun and decided to start shooting people.

 

I have no idea what sort of training Florida requires for a CC license. However, I strongly doubt it includes actual policing training that would be appropriate in a scenario where you're following a suspicious subject around the neighborhood. Civilians are not trained to deal with that sort of situation, how to approach someone, how to deal with the adrenaline rush and the tunnel vision, how to apprehend someone, how to deal with the situation psychologically.

 

And I never said he should take back his streets by shooting would-be criminals. I'm saying that there's no need, as Balta originally stated, to use this as an example for why no one should be allowed to carry guns. There's a mental deterrent effect out there that, IMO, hasn't sunk in yet - that if you try to rob someone, there's a good chance they'll be waiting inside ready to shoot and protect themselves/their property.

 

You're conflating home defense and CC/SYG here.

[Jenksismyhero]

No one has said that Zimmerman didn't have the right to call the police on this potential threat that he saw, and no one has said that they dont' have the right to be proactive and form a neighborhood watch.

 

I dispute the idea that it's a good thing to have unarmed, untrained, and unidentified civilians attempting to deal with potential crimes on their own, and I hugely dispute the idea that having that civilian armed will actually make the situation any better.

 

Right, so stay in your house, lock the doors, and pray those once an hour police patrols catch the criminals in your neighborhood. That'll surely help.

[Balta1701]

Right, so stay in your house, lock the doors, and pray those once an hour police patrols catch the criminals in your neighborhood. That'll surely help.

Yes or no...

 

Is your solution having armed civilians patrolling the streets and choosing whether or not to deploy deadly force on their own?

 

Every statement you've made here defends that option.

[StrangeSox]

Let's be realistic - how much money and man power would it take for that to be effective? It's a gated community mind you. If you're a teenager staking out a place, how difficult is it to hide behind a bush until the "patrol" drives by?

 

How effective have Zimmerman's armed patrols been? The criminals haven't been caught and an innocent person is dead.

 

Is Martin's life the price society pays in order to send a message to would-be criminals?

[StrangeSox]

Right, so stay in your house, lock the doors, and pray those once an hour police patrols catch the criminals in your neighborhood. That'll surely help.

 

Call the police and don't follow someone 'suspicious' around your neighborhood with a gun. Do not take actions that overwhelmingly point to escalating the situation.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes or no...

 

Is your solution having armed civilians patrolling the streets and choosing whether or not to deploy deadly force on their own?

 

Every statement you've made here defends that option.

 

Yes Balta, that is the only solution i'm advocating here, because anyone who touches a gun will shoot someone, and that's exactly what I want. Everyone dead=no crime!

 

Sigh, I knew I shouldn't have started responding. Wasted day at work!

[Jenksismyhero]

How effective have Zimmerman's armed patrols been? The criminals haven't been caught and an innocent person is dead.

 

Is Martin's life the price society pays in order to send a message to would-be criminals?

 

According to that article it resulted in an arrest right? Didn't he call the cops as a kid was peeking into a window?