S.T.A.G.E. said:
Max King of the Wild said: “People participating in neighborhood watch enjoy all the legal protections under the Constitution, as well as state and federal law,” said Novak. “That can include carrying a weapon.” Jeffrey Dehan, a sergeant who advises neighborhood watch groups as part of his duties with the Thurston County Sheriff’s Office in Washington state, says it is not their role to offer guidance on whether members should carry a weapon. “We don’t advocate ‘should or shouldn’t,’” he said. Carmen Caldwell, the executive director of Citizens’ Crime Watch of Miami-Dade, in Florida, said that in the wake of the Zimmerman case, some trainers and others were considering new safeguards, which could include background checks on prospective members and teaching about racial profiling. Basically, just because you are apart of neighborhood watch doesn't mean you have to forfeit your federal or state constitutional rights. Again, him having a gun was irrelevant and he wasn't even going on patrol when the event occurred. The reason the (http://www.usaonwatch.org/assets/publications/0_NW_Manual_1210.pdf) says to avoid carrying a weapon is because it needs to work under 50 different state laws and also has no legal bearing anyway |
He might not have broken the law (especially in florida), but just like the fireman said in the second article, he should've heeded the dispatcher telling him it wouldn't be a good idea to follow Trayvon. The job of a neighborhood watchman is to be the eyes and ears of the neighborhood, not the hero. No ones saying he didn't have rights, but two people would be alive and one kid would've been investigated anyway for his "weird" behavior in the neighborhood. The other fireman said on his neighborhood watch job that he did the exact opposite of what Zimmerman did and the perp was actually breaking into his own car. The cops came into the area, the guy ran off and they chased him and finally caught him and the fireman then identified said suspect. This guy is an actual first responder professionally....and knew when the stay back because he's not a cop. He wanted to, but after listening to the dispatch, he realized it was right to let the cops do their job. That and as a neighbood watch for his own safety he's supposed to stay away but identify the person who and wait for the cops to do their jobs. He doesn't need to be seen by the criminal. He just needs to spot him.
|
Finally got back to reading this thread, and I almost feel bad bringing it back up, but I just had to respond to this. Why is it that in order for you people to make sure you see Zimmerman as a bigoted murderer, you HAVE to deal in misinformation? Why not look at the facts? Oh, because they don't support your view of the events.
I'm not sure why you are turning to people's opinions, and not the law, to determine his guilt. Of course, that opinion is wrong, as is anyone's who still holds the opinion Zimmerman didn't listen and stalked Trayvon. If you would actually listen to the 911 call, while being honest with yourself, you will hear that once the 911 dispatcher says that they don't need him to follow Trayvon, then the wind starts to die down and Zimmerman clearly begins to catch his breath. Using common sense, this means he STOPPED following Trayvon. Both Zimmerman's AND Jeantel's story support the fact that Trayvon lost Zimmerman, as he continued to run/jog. Sorry, last time I looked, stalking is not following someone for maybe a block, then stopping and losing the guy.
So, if Trayvon lost Zimmerman, how was there a confrontation several minutes after he lost Zimmerman. Simple. Using common sense, yet again, Trayvon must have turned back around to confront him. Why? Well, according to Jeantel's interview with Piers Morgan, it was partly because Trayvon thought Zimmerman was a "creepy ass cracker" and may have been a rapist that he didn't want to follow him back home, where his younger brother was, so he was just going to give him a little "whoop ass."
What's funny is how many people on Trayvon's side wish to say those who support Zimmerman, or more accurately the laws on the books and the facts of the case, make Zimmerman out to be a saint, yet no one truly does. They do refute your accusations with facts, which I guess you don't like and in turn can't refute, so you turn to opinion pieces written by people who support you side already. I do have to say, I see more people making Trayvon out to be a saint than I do Zimmerman. "The only crime he commited was buying Skittles and Tea, while being black." "He was just your average teen." Please. To even say that means you have no idea what the facts are, or maybe don't care, and it only hurts your case.