What does the statute or ordinance say about identifying one's self as neighborhood watch?
You must respect the supreme overlord.
Serious question. You buy a house in a neighborhood and they want a neighborhood watch after the fact. Do I as a homeowner have a say in it? I'm not respecting a Blart wanna be when I didn't want it in the first place.
Seriously though, does he have to announce himself as "Neighborhood Watch" or wear a t-shirt or something?
How do I know neighborhood watch from some creepy dude in a truck?
You don't have to cooperate, you don't have to participate, you don't have to answer their questions.AFAIK, neighborhood watch groups aren't limited to just HOA's. If I own a home that isn't in an HOA and the neighbors decide to institute one, am I bound by it? Do I have to cooperate with Blart or am I forced to move to get away from it?
I don't see how the neighborhood watch (or for that matter, "stand your ground") is relevant to what we know about the incident.
If I'm in an NW organization, I don't have any more power to harass than does an ordinary citizen. As an ordinary citizen, I can follow anyone I want to follow, as long as I stay back a certain distance.
I've never understood what NW, or following the guy has to do with anything other than discussing whether it's a tactically good idea.
As to the Watch, so what if you don't want it? If me and other people want it, we put up a sign and we watch. Big deal. Is there some responsibility or action they're requiring of everyone? As far as you're concerned it's a private organization you don't belong to. If part of that is that we stare at your house and make notes about the comings and goings of your guests, yes, that's creepy and annoying, but perfectly legal.
I can't tell from what's been reported if Zimmerman even did anything a reasonable person would find threatening or annoying. I suspect what he did annoyed at least ONE person, based on what we know, but it still boils down to who assaulted first, and whether the assault continued after one of them surrendered. After everything I see and have read, those are the only two important facts in question.
Whether Zimmerman had reason to fear for his life isn't a fact, it's a judgment. The only fact, is that Zimmerman said he feared for his life, and said why.
So far, every fact to come out has supported Zimmerman.
On one side you have a coherent story that matches the facts as we know them. On the other side you have conjecture, speculation and manipulation of every unknown element to support the other side.
I still don't know if Zimmerman did anything legally, morally, ethically, or even tactically wrong.
Yet, it's still possible that Zimmerman was the one who started the confrontation, and it's possible Zimmerman got the upper hand and it was Trayvon who was screaming for help, and Zimmerman just executed him. That's possible.
Which one takes the bigger leap from facts to conclusions?
I don't see how the neighborhood watch (or for that matter, "stand your ground") is relevant to what we know about the incident.
If I'm in an NW organization, I don't have any more power to harass than does an ordinary citizen. As an ordinary citizen, I can follow anyone I want to follow, as long as I stay back a certain distance.
I've never understood what NW, or following the guy has to do with anything other than discussing whether it's a tactically good idea.
As to the Watch, so what if you don't want it? If me and other people want it, we put up a sign and we watch. Big deal. Is there some responsibility or action they're requiring of everyone? As far as you're concerned it's a private organization you don't belong to. If part of that is that we stare at your house and make notes about the comings and goings of your guests, yes, that's creepy and annoying, but perfectly legal.
I can't tell from what's been reported if Zimmerman even did anything a reasonable person would find threatening or annoying. I suspect what he did annoyed at least ONE person, based on what we know, but it still boils down to who assaulted first, and whether the assault continued after one of them surrendered. After everything I see and have read, those are the only two important facts in question.
Whether Zimmerman had reason to fear for his life isn't a fact, it's a judgment. The only fact, is that Zimmerman said he feared for his life, and said why.
So far, every fact to come out has supported Zimmerman.
On one side you have a coherent story that matches the facts as we know them. On the other side you have conjecture, speculation and manipulation of every unknown element to support the other side.
I still don't know if Zimmerman did anything legally, morally, ethically, or even tactically wrong.
Yet, it's still possible that Zimmerman was the one who started the confrontation, and it's possible Zimmerman got the upper hand and it was Trayvon who was screaming for help, and Zimmerman just executed him. That's possible.
Which one takes the bigger leap from facts to conclusions?
Looking at his 47 911 calls (I certainly hope some of these were to a non emergency number instead of 911), he's called in potholes blocking the road, bags of trash in the road, and what appears to be following a truck with kids not in a car seat for 3-4 minutes, crotch rockets on the interstate, etc. is there anything not in his purview?
Come, admit it. You want to see him fry because he is a "busy body" and you hate people that look out for others. Admit it. You want everyone to hide in bunkers like you do and never interact with one another.
I don't want him to fry and I've said numerous times I'd vote to acquit him. For a forum that preaches personal responsibility so much, there is a lot of it takes a village to run a home mindset.
If I'm hiding in a bunker, you're at the local klan meeting.
I don't want him to fry and I've said numerous times I'd vote to acquit him. For a forum that preaches personal responsibility so much, there is a lot of it takes a village to run a home mindset.
If I'm hiding in a bunker, you're at the local klan meeting.
What is your stance on this? I really cant figure it out.
Seriously.
I honestly cant figure out what your soapbox IS much less understand it.
Yeah, real classy. Calling people racist really makes your comments take on a whole new level. And now you go to Iggy-land. I thought there might be hope, but I was wrong. Just another troll in here to stir up the pot.
I think I've come to the conclusion he's merely trolling in here to start ****.
What is your stance on this? I really cant figure it out.
Seriously.
I honestly cant figure out what your soapbox IS much less understand it.
This message is hidden because hornadylnl is on your ignore list.
My point is we aren't the police of the world and leave each other be. Property rights. If I'm not infringing on yours, leave me the hell alone. I have no desire to micro manage your life.
My point is we aren't the police of the world and leave each other be. Property rights. If I'm not infringing on yours, leave me the hell alone. I have no desire to micro manage your life.
Where exactly do property rights factor into this? You contract with an HOA and your neighbors for community services and areas then complain that your property rights are violated when the HOA acts within that covenant. These people in GZs areas had a choice, they chose the HOA. How about respecting their choice?
The point is not what we want, but what they want. Twin Lakes wanted a Neighborhood watch. The police set it up, met with them, and were there when they elected Zimmerman to be their captain.For a forum that preaches personal responsibility so much, there is a lot of it takes a village to run a home mindset.
Are neighborhood watches limited to just HOA's? Guests of my home should be free to come and go to my house without interference or having to answer to nosy neighbors.
I don't think he should be convicted but I also don't think he should be held on a pedestal like many are.