Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

[EsotericWombat]

A self-appointed vigilante was following someone under suspicion of being a black teenager, and not, it seems, for the first time. After emergency services told him to stand down, he accosted Trayvon without cause. He had no business approaching a teenager with a gun under those circumstances. When you commit a crime and someone else winds up dead because of it, it's murder. Meanwhile, it seems very likely that Trayvon was put in a situation where he reasonably feared for his life, so even if he attacked Zimmerman, the Stand Your Ground law would apply to him. Zimmermann wasn't standing his ground. He was stalking.

If someone bigger than you comes at you with a gun at close range after he's been stalking you, its a matter of either trusting them not to shoot you, or doing everything you can to not get shot. Under those circumstances, you could have a worse plan than beating the ever-loving shit out of them.

This is assuming that the story about Trayvon attacking him are true. In any case, the chain of events that led to his death began with a hate crime that was being committed against him, and without Trayvon breaking Florida law.

[yoni45]

A self-appointed vigilante was following someone under suspicion of being a black teenager, and not, it seems, for the first time. After emergency services told him to stand down, he accosted Trayvon without cause. He had no business approaching a teenager with a gun under those circumstances. When you commit a crime and someone else winds up dead because of it, it's murder. Meanwhile, it seems very likely that Trayvon was put in a situation where he reasonably feared for his life, so even if he attacked Zimmerman, the Stand Your Ground law would apply to him. Zimmermann wasn't standing his ground. He was stalking.

If someone bigger than you comes at you with a gun at close range after he's been stalking you, its a matter of either trusting them not to shoot you, or doing everything you can to not get shot. Under those circumstances, you could have a worse plan than beating the ever-loving shit out of them.

This is assuming that the story about Trayvon attacking him are true. In any case, the chain of events that led to his death began with a hate crime that was being committed against him, and without Trayvon breaking Florida law.

Eh -- I wouldn't necessary say that approaching someone in public with questions (even pointed ones) constitutes a crime. Coming at someone with a gun is a different story altogether, but we don't necessarily know that happened either.

[omgryebread]

Meanwhile, it seems very likely that Trayvon was put in a situation where he reasonably feared for his life, so even if he attacked Zimmerman, the Stand Your Ground law would apply to him. Zimmermann wasn't standing his ground. He was stalking.

The people who wrote those laws didn't intend for them to apply to black kids in hoodies.

[Princess Marzipan]

Ultimately... I'm uncomfortable about punishing people who thought they were doing good for their community. Obviously, we can't have vigilantes patrolling the streets, but its clear to me that in their own minds... they thought they were helping things out. Its definitely a tragedy no matter how I look at it, but I like to believe the problem is elsewhere.

You may like to believe it, but Zimmerman created the situation all by himself. Switch Zimmerman out for another volunteer: if that volunteer doesn't equate "black" with "suspicious", there's no interaction at all. If that volunteer is racist to the bone, there's still no shooting unless he's armed. If any other hoodie-wearing black teen were in Trayvon's place, everything would have played out exactly the same until Zimmerman confronted him, and would likely have ended in death as well.
Zimmerman is entirely at fault for what happened and deserves to be held accountable for it by a functional justice system.

As for the level of punishment that needs to be dished out... I dunno really. I'm not really a "punishment" sort of person at heart. As long as the crime most likely won't happen again, I couldn't care less. The officer getting discharged from the force, and in this case where Zimmerman is no longer a neighborhood watch captain... it seems like future violence from these individuals is not going to happen. That is adequate enough for me... although I guess I'm just too soft of a person. Perhaps it helps that I'm not actually related to the victims.

Bring this point of view to a discussion that takes place in a land where the justice system doesn't imprison people for casual drug use, where it doesn't punish equal infringements differently across economic and social classes, where every single death at cops' hands is investigated to make sure we don't have an aggressive power-tripping maniac patrolling the streets who's killed before and now knows he can do it again, where sending out a patrol car isn't considered an acceptable response when some racist calls 911 to report suspicious activity and the only suspicious thing is that someone's being black.

[sourmìlk]

Even if we weren't to punish bad behaviour (which I don't think is a policy conducive to good behaviour), there's still a substantial danger that this could happen again. Zimmerman's position on the neighborhood watch isn't too relevant because he was operating outside those duties when he shot Trayvon. If you take him off the neighborhood watch I'm pretty sure he's still as likely to escalate a situation with a "suspicious" person because, as he shouldn't act that way without being on the neighborhood watch, he shouldn't have acted that way while he was on the neighborhood watch.

[Princess Marzipan]

The Miami heat:


Suspiiiicious.

[sourmìlk]

Yeah, but considering that the shortest one is probably about 6'3" nobody wants to screw around with them.

[KnightExemplar]

Ultimately... I'm uncomfortable about punishing people who thought they were doing good for their community. Obviously, we can't have vigilantes patrolling the streets, but its clear to me that in their own minds... they thought they were helping things out. Its definitely a tragedy no matter how I look at it, but I like to believe the problem is elsewhere.

You may like to believe it, but Zimmerman created the situation all by himself. Switch Zimmerman out for another volunteer: if that volunteer doesn't equate "black" with "suspicious", there's no interaction at all. If that volunteer is racist to the bone, there's still no shooting unless he's armed. If any other hoodie-wearing black teen were in Trayvon's place, everything would have played out exactly the same until Zimmerman confronted him, and would likely have ended in death as well.
Zimmerman is entirely at fault for what happened and deserves to be held accountable for it by a functional justice system.

To me, it is clearly a mistake that Zimmerman was even in that position in the first place. If Zimmerman just never was a neighborhood watch captain, this would have been avoided.

Its hard for me to figure out a reason why an untrained man would be walking around a neighborhood with a gun under some twisted hero complex. Someway, somehow, it seems like the neighborhood trusted him with this job. This is where the mistake was made IMO. Replace "Neighborhood Watch Zimmerman" with "normal citizen Zimmerman" and I'd like to think that Zimmerman wouldn't have felt it necessary to confront the guy.

When someone feels elevated above other people, it gives them more of a power-trip, and they'll act more aggressive than usual. (ex: Stanford Prison Experiment). This is scientifically proven human behavior. Therefore, the mistake was entrusting this "power" to Zimmerman in the first place. ("Power" in quotes, because I don't think Neighborhood Watch Captains should be allowed to walk around with guns anyway. They're like Mall Cops at best)

As for the level of punishment that needs to be dished out... I dunno really. I'm not really a "punishment" sort of person at heart. As long as the crime most likely won't happen again, I couldn't care less. The officer getting discharged from the force, and in this case where Zimmerman is no longer a neighborhood watch captain... it seems like future violence from these individuals is not going to happen. That is adequate enough for me... although I guess I'm just too soft of a person. Perhaps it helps that I'm not actually related to the victims.

Bring this point of view to a discussion that takes place in a land where the justice system doesn't imprison people for casual drug use, where it doesn't punish equal infringements differently across economic and social classes, where every single death at cops' hands is investigated to make sure we don't have an aggressive power-tripping maniac patrolling the streets who's killed before and now knows he can do it again, where sending out a patrol car isn't considered an acceptable response when some racist calls 911 to report suspicious activity and the only suspicious thing is that someone's being black.

BTW: Princess Marizpan. I know my personal opinions is softer than the general opinion of our Justice System, and certainly, our Justice System does over enforce a lot of its laws. (Ex: Martha Stewards in Jail). As stated before, my personal philosophy is not to punish in vengeance... but to punish to correct behavior. If the punishment doesn't serve to correct a person's behavior, it kinda goes against my philosophy.

I understand its a minority view, but that is just my natural bias.

Even if we weren't to punish bad behaviour (which I don't think is a policy conducive to good behaviour), there's still a substantial danger that this could happen again. Zimmerman's position on the neighborhood watch isn't too relevant because he was operating outside those duties when he shot Trayvon. If you take him off the neighborhood watch I'm pretty sure he's still as likely to escalate a situation with a "suspicious" person because, as he shouldn't act that way without being on the neighborhood watch, he shouldn't have acted that way while he was on the neighborhood watch.

That is an important point sourmilk. Do you have a reference?

[Bharrata]

Ultimately... I'm uncomfortable about punishing people who thought they were doing good for their community. Obviously, we can't have vigilantes patrolling the streets, but its clear to me that in their own minds... they thought they were helping things out. Its definitely a tragedy no matter how I look at it, but I like to believe the problem is elsewhere.

You may like to believe it, but Zimmerman created the situation all by himself. Switch Zimmerman out for another volunteer: if that volunteer doesn't equate "black" with "suspicious", there's no interaction at all. If that volunteer is racist to the bone, there's still no shooting unless he's armed. If any other hoodie-wearing black teen were in Trayvon's place, everything would have played out exactly the same until Zimmerman confronted him, and would likely have ended in death as well.
Zimmerman is entirely at fault for what happened and deserves to be held accountable for it by a functional justice system.

To me, it is clearly a mistake that Zimmerman was even in that position in the first place. If Zimmerman just never was a neighborhood watch captain, this would have been avoided.

Its hard for me to figure out a reason why an untrained man would be walking around a neighborhood with a gun under some twisted hero complex. Someway, somehow, it seems like the neighborhood trusted him with this job. This is where the mistake was made IMO. Replace "Neighborhood Watch Zimmerman" with "normal citizen Zimmerman" and I'd like to think that Zimmerman wouldn't have felt it necessary to confront the guy.

When someone feels elevated above other people, it gives them more of a power-trip, and they'll act more aggressive than usual. (ex: Stanford Prison Experiment). This is scientifically proven human behavior. Therefore, the mistake was entrusting this "power" to Zimmerman in the first place. ("Power" in quotes, because I don't think Neighborhood Watch Captains should be allowed to walk around with guns anyway. They're like Mall Cops at best)

Would you allow that (at least in some cases, perhaps the majority) those who have misguided motivations are the ones who seek out positions of authority? In Zimmerman's case, from what I've heard, he wanted to be a police officer and had a past with the department, as in had numerous 911 calls over the years (I believe something like 80 in the last year) and had been charged with assaulting an officer which was eventually dropped by the PD.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the whole idea of a Neighborhood Watch was developed during the 80s as a response to the crime wave, and in this case it seems to be the problem a relatively benign, somewhat invisible institution being taken over by a man with a hero complex. As in, I doubt many people really pay attention or show up to their NW meetings (if they have them) and it wasn't even a case of anyone vetting whether this guy had a screw loose or not, instead he was just given the title because he volunteered.

As for the level of punishment that needs to be dished out... I dunno really. I'm not really a "punishment" sort of person at heart. As long as the crime most likely won't happen again, I couldn't care less. The officer getting discharged from the force, and in this case where Zimmerman is no longer a neighborhood watch captain... it seems like future violence from these individuals is not going to happen. That is adequate enough for me... although I guess I'm just too soft of a person. Perhaps it helps that I'm not actually related to the victims.

Bring this point of view to a discussion that takes place in a land where the justice system doesn't imprison people for casual drug use, where it doesn't punish equal infringements differently across economic and social classes, where every single death at cops' hands is investigated to make sure we don't have an aggressive power-tripping maniac patrolling the streets who's killed before and now knows he can do it again, where sending out a patrol car isn't considered an acceptable response when some racist calls 911 to report suspicious activity and the only suspicious thing is that someone's being black.

BTW: Princess Marizpan. I know my personal opinions is softer than the general opinion of our Justice System, and certainly, our Justice System does over enforce a lot of its laws. (Ex: Martha Stewards in Jail). As stated before, my personal philosophy is not to punish in vengeance... but to punish to correct behavior. If the punishment doesn't serve to correct a person's behavior, it kinda goes against my philosophy.

I understand its a minority view, but that is just my natural bias.

I think what Marzipan was pointing out was that there's a tendency to over enforce the law when it comes to black defendants and/or poor defendants. edit: There have been far worse miscarriages of justice than Martha Stewart, and most of them don't get to leave in a year or two to their huge bank account. Not saying Martha isn't a nice lady, just saying her life was not completely ruined.

As far as punishment to correct behavior, it is really unfortunate that there are mentally ill people in this world who are more prone to snapping and committing violence. My argument would be for more social workers to be paid as government workers to identify and work with those people so that we fix the problem proactively rather than reactively with police.

[Princess Marzipan]

BTW: Princess Marizpan. I know my personal opinions is softer than the general opinion of our Justice System, and certainly, our Justice System does over enforce a lot of its laws. (Ex: Martha Stewards in Jail). As stated before, my personal philosophy is not to punish in vengeance... but to punish to correct behavior. If the punishment doesn't serve to correct a person's behavior, it kinda goes against my philosophy.

I understand its a minority view, but that is just my natural bias.

That's a fine attitude, and I honestly don't object. (Except to the Martha Stewart thing, but I don't recall details and shall digress.) However, it's entirely moot.

Surely you agree that if laws are being overenforced, overenforcing them equally is preferable to selective mercy? Otherwise you don't have a single justice system. You have one justice system that overenforces and one that underenforces.

Zimmerman MUST be given equal treatment under the law. In this case, that means prosecuting him for murder. He shot and killed a 17 year old boy who did nothing to warrant the confrontation. I don't believe these are disputed at this point - they are facts. Zimmerman MUST receive a trial, like anybody else. Zimmerman MUST receive a dozen people who MUST presume his innocence, review the evidence and arguments, and reach unanimous agreement as to whether reasonable doubt exists that Zimmerman's actions constitute murder.

[sourmìlk]

That is an important point sourmilk. Do you have a reference?

For what, exactly, are you asking a reference?

[Princess Marzipan]

Ta borra ba tree fiddy.

[KnightExemplar]

Would you allow that (at least in some cases, perhaps the majority) those who have misguided motivations are the ones who seek out positions of authority? In Zimmerman's case, from what I've heard, he wanted to be a police officer and had a past with the department, as in had numerous 911 calls over the years (I believe something like 80 in the last year) and had been charged with assaulting an officer which was eventually dropped by the PD.

Sure. Which is why its important to have quality control over people who join police forces. And the ones that do get through need appropriate training to ensure that they continuously understand the position they're in and what it can do to their psyche.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the whole idea of a Neighborhood Watch was developed during the 80s as a response to the crime wave, and in this case it seems to be the problem a relatively benign, somewhat invisible institution being taken over by a man with a hero complex. As in, I doubt many people really pay attention or show up to their NW meetings (if they have them) and it wasn't even a case of anyone vetting whether this guy had a screw loose or not, instead he was just given the title because he volunteered.

Hmm... that is probably what happened too. And I really don't know what to think of it. I don't see people being able to afford a decent vetting process due to the nature of neighborhood watch programs. Furthermore, I don't really see people giving up their neighborhood watch programs if they believe in them. As for the gun, obviously the watch captain can just yell 2nd amendment rights and people would probably comply with it... because you wouldn't want a guy protecting you without some means of self defense. So its all in all a difficult situation for me to think of an adequate solution of.

BTW: Princess Marizpan. I know my personal opinions is softer than the general opinion of our Justice System, and certainly, our Justice System does over enforce a lot of its laws. (Ex: Martha Stewards in Jail). As stated before, my personal philosophy is not to punish in vengeance... but to punish to correct behavior. If the punishment doesn't serve to correct a person's behavior, it kinda goes against my philosophy.

I understand its a minority view, but that is just my natural bias.

That's a fine attitude, and I honestly don't object. (Except to the Martha Stewart thing, but I don't recall details and I'll agree to disagree in favor of more important points. However, it's entirely moot.

Zimmerman MUST be given equal treatment under the law. Surely you agree that if laws are being overenforced, overenforcing them equally is preferable to selective mercy? Otherwise you don't have a single justice system. You have one justice system that overenforces and one that underenforces.

Well, there's also the option of correct enforcement every time. Overenforcement every time is still an unfair justice system after all.

On a lighter note: its been shown that lunchtime is one of the strongest correlations to overenforcement / underenforcement. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notro ... of-judges/ . With humans being judges, it will always be near impossible to get rid of simple human biases such as "how hungry you feel". That doesn't mean that you should just throw the maximum sentence every time in some twisted hope to appear more fair however.

That is an important point sourmilk. Do you have a reference?

For what, exactly, are you asking a reference?

Your quote: Zimmerman's position on the neighborhood watch isn't too relevant because he was operating outside those duties when he shot Trayvon.

[Ghostbear]

Well, there's also the option of correct enforcement every time. Overenforcement every time is still an unfair justice system after all.

Under what system is not trying somebody for murder when they shot and killed someone "correct enforcement"? When we have no reason to believe that their life was in danger when they did so, and many reasons to believe that if there was danger, it was created entirely by that person? How is that "correct"? If they're innocent, it should be shown at trial, otherwise you're just not enforcing murder laws at all.

[sourmìlk]

Your quote: Zimmerman's position on the neighborhood watch isn't too relevant because he was operating outside those duties when he shot Trayvon.

Oh, okay. As a neighborhood watchman and not a police officer, Zimmerman was supposed to report suspicious behaviour, not confront it. Neighborhood watchmen are also advised not to carry weapons. You can read about it here.

[Bharrata]

Would you allow that (at least in some cases, perhaps the majority) those who have misguided motivations are the ones who seek out positions of authority? In Zimmerman's case, from what I've heard, he wanted to be a police officer and had a past with the department, as in had numerous 911 calls over the years (I believe something like 80 in the last year) and had been charged with assaulting an officer which was eventually dropped by the PD.

Sure. Which is why its important to have quality control over people who join police forces. And the ones that do get through need appropriate training to ensure that they continuously understand the position they're in and what it can do to their psyche.

Allow me to quote myself (though it was behind a spoiler tag)

As a citizen of the U.S. what's more troubling to me is that police departments apparently aren't hiring for intelligence and are getting the nod from some court systems that they're allowed to turn down individuals who are too intelligent.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95836&page=1#.T2449TF8Ca_

A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.

Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.

But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.

Jordan has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.

Let that sink in for a bit. As a person who feels he is of above-average intelligence (never taken an IQ test, could be wrong) and recently learning that Einstein or Freud with 160 IQs would have related/interacted with someone with an IQ of 100 in the same was as the 100 IQ person would interact with someone with an IQ of 40....this is terrifying.

Now I'm not saying that every cop is stupid but there's a fair number and it looks like some departments are hiring FOR that. I mean, I've gotten patted down for drugs at 11 PM in my parent's nice suburban town while taking a midnight drive with a friend (completely sober mind you) and the justification for the stop was that she drove slightly over the yellow line two miles up the road at a spot in town that everyone does because of potholes. Then I got to listen to the 2nd police officer who pulled up in a cruiser during the stop describe to me how they thought there was a war going on in all the surrounding towns and they were just being careful.

/endrant

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the whole idea of a Neighborhood Watch was developed during the 80s as a response to the crime wave, and in this case it seems to be the problem a relatively benign, somewhat invisible institution being taken over by a man with a hero complex. As in, I doubt many people really pay attention or show up to their NW meetings (if they have them) and it wasn't even a case of anyone vetting whether this guy had a screw loose or not, instead he was just given the title because he volunteered.

Hmm... that is probably what happened too. And I really don't know what to think of it. I don't see people being able to afford a decent vetting process due to the nature of neighborhood watch programs. Furthermore, I don't really see people giving up their neighborhood watch programs if they believe in them. As for the gun, obviously the watch captain can just yell 2nd amendment rights and people would probably comply with it... because you wouldn't want a guy protecting you without some means of self defense. So its all in all a difficult situation for me to think of an adequate solution of.

As I understand them NW programs are for keeping an eye out for suspicious behavior and alerting the police, not a citizen militia. The NW "chief" isn't there to protect and serve their neighbors, they're there to alert those that the community pays for that service. So, I don't think it's legitimate to say NW heads need to be armed...at all. But I do support the 2nd amendment, with the footnote that in the hands of the untrained and/or unstable guns become much more dangerous.

[Princess Marzipan]

Surely you agree that IF laws are being overenforced, THEN overenforcing them equally is preferable to selective mercy? Otherwise you don't have a single justice system. You have one justice system that overenforces and one that underenforces.

Well, there's also the option of correct enforcement every time. Overenforcement every time is still an unfair justice system after all.

No, there isn't that option in the question I asked. I agree it's preferred, but re-read my quote. ("Then" was added, as well as caps and bold.) My question presumes overenforcement is a given. To answer it, you need to make the same presumption.

On a lighter note: its been shown that lunchtime is one of the strongest correlations to overenforcement / underenforcement.

Eesh. That's not really a "lighter" note, for me. That's a gigantic gaping hole in the foundation of our justice system. But much like Martha Stewart, it's not entirely relevant here: it's just sentencing. Enforcement includes every part of the system from investigation at the start to sentencing at the end if a case goes that far. Our two justice systems are over- and underenforced at EVERY point, meaning the former system will have more investigations, more arrests, more trials, more convictions, and harsher sentences, where the latter system will have fewer investigations, fewer arrests, fewer trials, fewer convictions, and lighter sentences.

And it's not even just about the separate systems themselves. Imagine if Zimmerman had shot a 17 year old blonde white girl. He'd have been cuffed within minutes and tossed into a jail cell. And four dozen scumbag legislators would ALREADY have co-sponsored Jessica's Law in the House of Representatives.

[sourmìlk]

I don't necessarily think that refusing to hire somebody because they're intelligence is too high is necessarily bad. If a person is overqualified, that is a legitimate reason not to hire him. And while it may be true that a person doesn't have control over his innate intelligence, that doesn't really matter, because if his innate intelligence interferes with his job, then he shouldn't have that job.

That said... 125? Maybe I'm spoiled because I've had the good fortune to meet many intelligent people, but that doesn't seem so high that it should interfere with his police work. It's not exactly like we're asking Einstein to be a burger flipper, or a patent office clerk. If police forces are refusing people with IQs even just about a standard deviation above the norm, then that seems problematic.

[Princess Marzipan]

Imagine if Zimmerman had shot a 17 year old blonde white girl. He'd have been cuffed within minutes and tossed into a jail cell. And four dozen scumbag legislators would ALREADY have co-sponsored Jessica's Law in the House of Representatives.

Oh fuck me sideways, this is ridiculous. I got curious immediately after that last post. Turns out there IS a Jessica's Law, and it's IN FLORIDA. I just grabbed the top name from 1993's most popular girl baby names.

I have spent the entire time since researching and composing THIS post. Let's go down that list of names, shall we. Ashley's Law? Virginia. Sarah's Law? UK; unrelated law proposed in California. Samantha's Law? Canada. Emily's Law? Ohio. Brittany's Law? New York's Senate passed one. Taylor's Law? Passed in the Georgia State Assembly last week. Amanda's Law? New York again. Stephanie's Law? Kansas. Nicole's Law? Massachusetts. Megan's Law? New Jersey and Michigan. Jennifer's Law? Texas. Lauren's Law? Also Texas. Being Rachel's Law? Brings us full circle to Florida.
That's the top fifteen, with the exception of #10, Elizabeth. Apparently no Elizabeth inspired legislation by her death. The deaths catalyzing these laws run the gamut from carbon monoxide poisoning to complications from an abortion, as well as a separate gamut from organ donation to posthumous high school diplomas. But they were all female, most or all minors, and every one I found a picture of was white. (In the interest of full disclosure, some were brunette.)

What are the odds we'll ever see a Trayvon's Law pass that bans neighborhood watch volunteers from carrying deadly weapons while performing neighborhood watch duties?












*chirp*














*chirp*















*chirp*





























*chirp*


Yeah.

[sourmìlk]

Well for one thing I'm not entirely sure I'd support that law as neighborhood watch members are, if anything, probably a bit more in need of a weapon for self-defense than most people. But I am (sarcastically) shocked to hear that there isn't a Trayvon's Law.

Also, did you search for variations of Elizabeth? Is there a Liz's or Lizzie's law or something?

[Princess Marzipan]

I kept strictly to the specified spellings.

But since you asked:

Zeus Almighty, There IS a Lizzie's Law in Massachusetts, named for an Elizabeth - a living one, though.

[Bharrata]

Well for one thing I'm not entirely sure I'd support that law as neighborhood watch members are, if anything, probably a bit more in need of a weapon for self-defense than most people.

Neighborhood Watch != Police-Lite, how hard is this to understand?

That doesn't mean that as citizens they are not allowed to own guns and in some states conceal carry, but something's wrong if the Neighborhood Watch feels like it may need to be armed - further, if you feel like you need to be armed as a part of the NW in a gated community you're doing it wrong.

[sourmìlk]

Should we count that, Marzipan?

Bharatta: I recognize that they're not "Police-Lite", but nevertheless, if a criminal sees a neighborhood watchman observing his criminal activity, he may want to stop the watchman from interfering or reporting him just as he may want to stop a police officer from interfering.

[Bharrata]

Bharatta: I recognize that they're not "Police-Lite", but nevertheless, if a criminal sees a neighborhood watchman observing his criminal activity, he may want to stop the watchman from interfering or reporting him just as he may want to stop a police officer from interfering.

How is the criminal supposed to identify the neighborhood watchman? Perhaps by having the neighborhood watchmen wear a police uniform?

I'm just trying to make the point that a NW member is not someone who is paid, is not someone who is supposed to be constantly patrolling the neighborhood looking for criminals, but is rather a member of the community who...watches out for strangers or suspicious activity. Observing and relaying relevant information to the actual authorities is not a task that requires a weapon, nor should it.

The issue of arming yourself because you feel it necessary as a member of Planet Earth where other members may be dangerous is separate.


Further, most neighborhoods never have to actually worry about crime or it's so rare that I doubt I'm overreaching when I say that if the street has a NW that they're just as lulled into complacency as a street without NW that is just as quiet.

[sourmìlk]

Observing and relaying relevant information to the actual authorities is not a task that requires a weapon, nor should it.

I get all your other points, but I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. If you go around observing misbehaviour, those misbehaving might be inclined to inhibit your observation, and you need a means of self-defense in that situation. Neighborhood watchmen might need weapons not because they have to attack or apprehend criminals, but because criminals might not take kindly to a person observing and then reporting their activity.

[Bharrata]

Observing and relaying relevant information to the actual authorities is not a task that requires a weapon, nor should it.

I get all your other points, but I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. If you go around observing misbehaviour, those misbehaving might be inclined to inhibit your observation, and you need a means of self-defense in that situation. Neighborhood watchmen might need weapons not because they have to attack or apprehend criminals, but because criminals might not take kindly to a person observing and then reporting their activity.

"not someone who is supposed to be constantly patrolling the neighborhood looking for criminals"

There's also no way the criminals would know you had reported them, unless they observed you observing them. I'm assuming, again, that a member of NW isn't out, literally looking for trouble, but instead keeping an eye on the rest of the neighborhood from their property. In most cases that would keep one fairly concealed or hard to see to a criminal in the street who is presumably busy committing crimes.


The decision to carry a weapon carries with it the reminder that it is there and usable, which is why I'm having a problem saying that a member of the NW should have a gun as a part of their decision to be in the NW. You've agreed to try and look out for suspicious behavior and report it, that is the extent of it, when a gun becomes part of the equation it goes from a benevolent position looking out for your neighbors and their children and becomes more aggressive and confrontational because you have an implement of aggressive confrontation that you feel is one of the means that will help you watch the neighborhood.

There's nothing wrong, in my opinion, about owning a gun for self-defense - but when you get one solely because of the NW and the boogeyman you'll be seeing every stranger as, you're basing your choice off the assumption that you'll have to use it, rather than having it in the hope you never do have to use it.

[KnightExemplar]

Surely you agree that IF laws are being overenforced, THEN overenforcing them equally is preferable to selective mercy? Otherwise you don't have a single justice system. You have one justice system that overenforces and one that underenforces.

Well, there's also the option of correct enforcement every time. Overenforcement every time is still an unfair justice system after all.

No, there isn't that option in the question I asked. I agree it's preferred, but re-read my quote. ("Then" was added, as well as caps and bold.) My question presumes overenforcement is a given. To answer it, you need to make the same presumption.

There are an infinite number of options Princess Marzipan. Ignoring even a single option means you commit the fallacy of false dichotomy.

If over-enforcement is a problem, then we must fight to combat over-enforcement. If under-enforcement is a problem, then we must fight to combat under-enforcement. If both over-enforcement and under-enforcement are a simultaneous problem, then we must fight to combat both.

Anyway, if a single judge over-enforces the law with overly strong punishments... that does not give free reign to other judges to do the same. So I would have to disagree with your premise entirely. A justice system with only one bad judge over-enforcing everything is preferable to all judges over-enforcing everything.

As I understand them NW programs are for keeping an eye out for suspicious behavior and alerting the police, not a citizen militia. The NW "chief" isn't there to protect and serve their neighbors, they're there to alert those that the community pays for that service. So, I don't think it's legitimate to say NW heads need to be armed...at all. But I do support the 2nd amendment, with the footnote that in the hands of the untrained and/or unstable guns become much more dangerous.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that NW captains should carry guns.

Just that if a Neighborhood Watch captain yelled "2nd Amendment" at a meeting, everyone would back down and then let him carry a gun around. So there really is no way systematic way to prevent a situation like this from happening again. On the other hand... it is kind of rare for neighborhood watch captains to gun down innocent people.

[Princess Marzipan]

Should we count that [Lizzie's Law], Marzipan?

Honestly, I think it's more effective remaining asterisked as the sole exception.

Surely you agree that IF laws are being overenforced, THEN overenforcing them equally is preferable to selective mercy? Otherwise you don't have a single justice system. You have one justice system that overenforces and one that underenforces.

Well, there's also the option of correct enforcement every time. Overenforcement every time is still an unfair justice system after all.

No, there isn't that option in the question I asked. I agree it's preferred, but re-read my quote. ("Then" was added, as well as caps and bold.) My question presumes overenforcement is a given. To answer it, you need to make the same presumption.

There are an infinite number of options Princess Marzipan. Ignoring even a single option means you commit the fallacy of false dichotomy.

This is my frustrated face. :|
You're missing the point of the question. I'm not asking you your preference so that we may go forth and implement the best solutions to enforcement problems. I'm asking the question because you cannot currently escape the realities of overenforcement. Given the realities of overenforcement, is it better to let Zimmerman go because, well, I guess he probably won't do this again if we just remove him from neighborhood watch, or is it better to "overenforce" by giving Zimmerman EQUAL rights to trial by jury, to not be compelled to self-incriminate, and to legal represenation? Note that this isn't even actually overenforcement by US legal standards, only by yours.
I'm asking you to defend posting in this thread about how our justice system is too strict, when the whole reason this thread exists is that the justice system looked the other way and told Zimmerman "We didn't see nothin' ;)".

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that NW captains should carry guns.

Just that if a Neighborhood Watch captain yelled "2nd Amendment" at a meeting, everyone would back down and then let him carry a gun around. So there really is no way systematic way to prevent a situation like this from happening again. On the other hand... it is kind of rare for neighborhood watch captains to gun down innocent people.

Sex crimes trigger.

Spoiler:

It's kind of rare for a pedophile to kidnap a random kid from the neighborhood as opposed to taking advantage of one he knows personally. And yet we have a registry of everyone who's ever done that. Where's the registry of every white racist murderer that robbed an innocent black person of life? There is exactly as much justification for the latter list as the former...except this country doesn't much care to be proactive about the latter, 'cause black people? Fuck 'em.

Unfortunately, I believe you're entirely correct about the 2nd Amendment making it impossible to ban neighborhood watch from carrying guns. Even though it's fucking insane to allow anyone who gets approved by the local Hero Squad to walk around armed with a deadly weapon and no certification whatsoever that they're aware how to avoid needing to use it.

[KnightExemplar]

This is my frustrated face.
You're missing the point of the question. I'm not asking you your preference so that we may go forth and implement the best solutions to enforcement problems. I'm asking the question because you cannot currently escape the realities of overenforcement. Given the realities of overenforcement, is it better to let Zimmerman go because, well, I guess he probably won't do this again if we just remove him from neighborhood watch, or is it better to "overenforce" by giving Zimmerman EQUAL rights to trial by jury, to not be compelled to self-incriminate, and to legal represenation? Note that this isn't even actually overenforcement by US legal standards, only by yours.
I'm asking you to defend posting in this thread about how our justice system is too strict, when the whole reason this thread exists is that the justice system looked the other way and told Zimmerman "We didn't see nothin' ".

Probably was my mistake for not communicating the idea clearly. I fully support that Zimmerman be put to trial for this.

The question however will inevitably arise: what would be the appropriate punishment for this guy? I don't know. I'd like to believe that he'll never harm another person again now that he's been thoroughly embarrassed with this case and that getting away with a slap on the wrist would be good enough. (ex: probation or him losing his gun license).

As a side note... I think I'm connecting with Zimmerman's perspective because I have a close friend who probably would make the same mistake as Zimmerman. At least, he would have a few years ago... My friend registered for the Marines, and then signed up for Infantry at the height of the Iraq / Afghanistan war. Apparently, he wanted to go out and personally kill himself some terrorists. Four years later, the war changed him, and he has clearly matured from combat. (and he has his fair share of war horror stories that he told me about). But if he didn't mature in combat... or if he never went out there... I think he'd still be the type who'd probably go out and pick fights thinking he was helping people. I mean, essentially, that is what he did, and why he decided to go fight in the War. Its a maturity and training thing IMO... these people aren't monsters... they just haven't grown up yet. They'll make the wrong choice and hurt people out of ignorance. Bharrata strikes the nail on the head when he describes them as carrying a gun in hopes to use it... as opposed to carrying a gun with the hope to never use it.

So the ultimate question is how do you properly set up the punishment system to account for these sorts of people? In this particular case, that means... what is the appropriate level of punishment for Zimmerman? As stated before, as they are disillusioned by a hero complex, strict jailtime doesn't really affect them. And without a vetting / training process like in the Police Force, these sorts of people will seek out positions like the Neighborhood Watch program.

[Princess Marzipan]

Zimmerman is far more dangerous than the pharmacist who was convicted of murder after killing an assailant he'd rendered unconscious. Zimmerman sought out this confrontation, despite being explicitly advised by emergency services to do exactly not that. The pharmacist was thrust into a situation he didn't want, and neither assailant would have died had they not attempted to rob him at gunpoint in the first place. THAT GUY is serving jail time. You simply cannot justify claiming Zimmerman shouldn't, unless you're prepared to ignore reality.

[KnightExemplar]

Zimmerman is far more dangerous than the shop owner who was convicted of murder after killing an assailant he'd rendered unconscious. Zimmerman sought out this confrontation, despite being explicitly advised by emergency services to do exactly not that. The shop owner was thrust into a situation he didn't want, and neither assailant would have died had they not attempted to rob him at gunpoint in the first place. THAT GUY is serving jail time. You simply cannot justify claiming Zimmerman shouldn't, unless you're prepared to ignore a significant amount of reality.

Sure I can. Florida law is probably different than the law where the shop owner was put into jail time. Or perhaps his lawyer screwed up and didn't use Florida's "stand your ground" law.

I think where your problem is... is that you don't recognize that the US does indeed have multiple justice systems. At very least, there are 50 different ones, one for each state. I don't know the details of this shop owner case you've just put up however, so maybe if you had more details I'd be able to discriminate between the two.

Even then, it doesn't negate the more abstract argument we both were having. In my eyes of justice and the law, the Shop Owner also doesn't deserve jail time, because self-defense should be a valid legal defense. Certainly far more solid than Zimmerman's case. But without knowing the details of that ruling, it is difficult for me to make a sound judgement.

EDIT: there is a difference between self-defense and cold-blooded murder. Returning to an unconscious man and shooting him 5 times while he's down is a clear cut case of murder IMO.

[Princess Marzipan]

In my eyes of justice and the law,

In your eyes of justice and the law (which ignore reality as I said), which of the two men is more likely to kill an innocent person in the future?

Edit: The pharmacist may be a clear cut case of murder (I disagree, but digress), but is your metric not based on how likely is it to happen again?

[KnightExemplar]

In my eyes of justice and the law,

In your eyes of justice and the law (which ignore reality as I said),

Marzipan, if you disrespect me and my argument, then there is no point in us continuing to discuss this issue. You have your views, and I have mine. If you are at the point where you think I'm ignoring reality... then our discussion is over.

Edit: The pharmacist may be a clear cut case of murder (I disagree, but digress), but is your metric not based on how likely is it to happen again?

I think it is a bit of your mistake to assume that I was some sort of naive fool who judges cases on singular metrics. The world is a series of greys. So no, I don't have a singular metric that I judge all cases under. So please, in the future, don't take assumptions on how I judge people. It is rather insulting and also unnecessarily escalates discussion.

But if you were really to ask me about something? A guy who is disillusioned with his post probably wouldn't attack anyone again after you strip them of their post. Ex: outside of Sourmilk's point, Zimmerman doesn't seem to be the guy who'd attack someone again after losing his position. (Sourmilk seems to be attacking my argument from this side)

However, cases of self-defense happen all the time. The shop keeper would likely be robbed again in the future (it happens in bad neighborhoods). And if he is the type to shoot people on the ground while they're bleeding out already... I'd say he's a more dangerous person. So yes, even if I only use a singular metric, I can describe this situation fine.

But no, I don't have single metrics that I judge issues with. I'm also the kind of guy who is comfortable with uncertainty and contradictions. A bit of "wiggle room" so to speak, so I'm also fine with a somewhat inconsistent judicial system. (At very least, I understand that no judicial system is perfect. An ideal consistency in the judicial system should be sought after of course, but mistakes will always happen)

[Princess Marzipan]

No disrespect intended toward you personally; my apologies. When I say you're ignoring reality, I mean you are ignoring the way the justice system functions and advocating special treatment for Zimmerman. Your views on whether we should be punishing people at all simply aren't relevant to discussion about a single incident.

[KnightExemplar]

No disrespect intended toward you personally; my apologies.

Well, I was a bit harsh, so I went in and edited a response anyway. My unedited response was unwarranted for this level of discussion so I also should apologize.

When I say you're ignoring reality, I mean you are ignoring the way the justice system functions and advocating special treatment for Zimmerman. Your views on whether we should be punishing people at all simply aren't relevant to discussion about a single incident.

I certainly don't think Zimmerman should get special treatment. But as stated before... I have a bias towards prevention of future crimes.

Biases aren't supposed to make sense, and they tend to be indefensible. So I just put them out there so that people can see where I'm coming from. And certainly, I don't apply them to all arguments consistently. So its a bit of a folly to attack me at my bias. Those discussions tend to go nowhere.

[Soralin]

Its hard for me to figure out a reason why an untrained man would be walking around a neighborhood with a gun under some twisted hero complex. Someway, somehow, it seems like the neighborhood trusted him with this job. This is where the mistake was made IMO. Replace "Neighborhood Watch Zimmerman" with "normal citizen Zimmerman" and I'd like to think that Zimmerman wouldn't have felt it necessary to confront the guy.

When someone feels elevated above other people, it gives them more of a power-trip, and they'll act more aggressive than usual. (ex: Stanford Prison Experiment). This is scientifically proven human behavior. Therefore, the mistake was entrusting this "power" to Zimmerman in the first place. ("Power" in quotes, because I don't think Neighborhood Watch Captains should be allowed to walk around with guns anyway. They're like Mall Cops at best)

And to bring it full circle, is the fact that Zimmerman was self-elevated into that position. Yes, the neighborhood watch sure approved and trusted Zimmerman, since Zimmerman was its only member. And shockingly, Zimmerman unanimously entrusted Zimmerman with this power, and appointed himself the captain.

[Princess Marzipan]

I think your friend's experience is certainly relevant, and can add to the discussion. I think if you'd started by laying out your bias, I might (might) not have gotten all LKJADKLJ WUT. But you didn't mention it until well after I took issue with your arguments for leniency on Zimmerman.

I don't have a singular metric that I judge all cases under.

For clarification, by 'metric' I was referring to

But as stated before... I have a bias towards prevention of future crimes.

this attitude, which you've admittedly stated before.

But no, I don't have single metrics that I judge issues with. I'm also the kind of guy who is comfortable with uncertainty and contradictions. A bit of "wiggle room" so to speak, so I'm also fine with a somewhat inconsistent judicial system. (At very least, I understand that no judicial system is perfect. An ideal consistency in the judicial system should be sought after of course, but mistakes will always happen)

Take a step back and look at all the different parts of this tragedy. 400 years of racism are weighing on everyone who feels its sting and reads this story. Economic and class disparity comes into play with a man protecting a gated community, a level of safety and security most blacks will never know. Indeed, even those blacks who DO live in a gated community have just their illusions of safety and security shattered. Moreover, they've seen that unless it gets noticed and enough people start looking, a white man can kill a black man without the justice system doing anything about it. Coming into THIS THREAD, a discussion about TRAYVON MARTIN, and saying "Y'know, I'm fine with wiggle room in my justice system" displays a lack of tact and/or understanding of the myriad factors that make this tragedy such a slap in the face to blacks, and anyone who's tired of seeing them treated as threats first and people never.

[Jonesthe Spy]

Ultimately... I'm uncomfortable about punishing people who thought they were doing good for their community. Obviously, we can't have vigilantes patrolling the streets, but its clear to me that in their own minds... they thought they were helping things out. Its definitely a tragedy no matter how I look at it, but I like to believe the problem is elsewhere.

As for the level of punishment that needs to be dished out... I dunno really. I'm not really a "punishment" sort of person at heart. As long as the crime most likely won't happen again, I couldn't care less. The officer getting discharged from the force, and in this case where Zimmerman is no longer a neighborhood watch captain... it seems like future violence from these individuals is not going to happen. That is adequate enough for me... although I guess I'm just too soft of a person. Perhaps it helps that I'm not actually related to the victims.

Wow, you do realize that when the KKK was lynching "uppity" black men, they were sure they were doing good for the community, don't you?

And gee, since Zimmerman probably won't shoot another kid we should just shrug it off? Cool, so if someone outraged person goes and kills Zimmerman and the police chief who wanted to pretend no crime occurred but isn't likely to commit other acts of violence they should just walk away too?

[Diadem]

Could you fix those quote tags. That quote is not from me.

* edit: Thanks! *

[KnightExemplar]

Marzipan, I do believe that I can state my opinion better than you can. This goes back to respecting me and my arguments. If you are seeing me as a racist scumbag, there is no point in continuing this discussion. Honestly, the words you are using to describe me are rather hateful. If you can't see me as your equal in a discussion, then the discussion cannot exist.

Now, I reject your obsession with consistency in the justice system. This is a fundamental difference in opinion between you and me. Whereas you seem to be fine with having 100% of judges over-enforcing the rules... I am not. I prefer the system where a minority of people are over-enforced, and everyone else is fairly enforced. Period. Over-enforcement is a problem in of itself, and settling for 100% over-enforcement is far too destructive a society for my tastes.

I reject the notion that Zimmerman must be similarly punished to how a black man would be punished in today's system. On the other hand, I also reject the notion that a black man should be punished like a black man in today's system. It is clear that African Americans receive too much of the blame. However: over-enforcement is a problem regardless if it happens to black or white. Justice should be fair all the time, period.

Now if you want to manipulate my statements into thinking that I want Zimmerman to be "treated specially" in this situation, then fine. Call me racist and send the personal insults towards me. This discussion would no longer be worth my time however.

Its hard for me to figure out a reason why an untrained man would be walking around a neighborhood with a gun under some twisted hero complex. Someway, somehow, it seems like the neighborhood trusted him with this job. This is where the mistake was made IMO. Replace "Neighborhood Watch Zimmerman" with "normal citizen Zimmerman" and I'd like to think that Zimmerman wouldn't have felt it necessary to confront the guy.

When someone feels elevated above other people, it gives them more of a power-trip, and they'll act more aggressive than usual. (ex: Stanford Prison Experiment). This is scientifically proven human behavior. Therefore, the mistake was entrusting this "power" to Zimmerman in the first place. ("Power" in quotes, because I don't think Neighborhood Watch Captains should be allowed to walk around with guns anyway. They're like Mall Cops at best)

And to bring it full circle, is the fact that Zimmerman was self-elevated into that position. Yes, the neighborhood watch sure approved and trusted Zimmerman, since Zimmerman was its only member. And shockingly, Zimmerman unanimously entrusted Zimmerman with this power, and appointed himself the captain.

Do you have references? Despite this topic being about Zimmerman, the original post doesn't seem to have a lot of details about the case.

Wow, you do realize that when the KKK was lynching "uppity" black men, they were sure they were doing good for the community, don't you?

And gee, since Zimmerman probably won't shoot another kid we should just shrug it off? Cool, so if someone outraged person goes and kills Zimmerman and the police chief who wanted to pretend no crime occurred but isn't likely to commit other acts of violence they should just walk away too?

And if a reformed African American Gangster is likely to not shoot another person after doing a few months of community service, then I also feel that the guy should get a break. I admit it doesn't happen, but it probably should. Especially with gang-related violence... its often an issue of ignorance that leads to tragedy. Not a bunch of sociopaths running around town.

But I guess that sort of opinion makes me a racist?