For police, the goal is vigilance, not vigilantes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sounds like they have a good understanding of the safest way to handle this situation for all involved. Hope it works out ok.
 
“goal is vigilance, not vigilantes”

They should tell that to the vigilantes who want to lynch George Zimmerman and his family.

.
 
MaryT777 said:
Sounds like they have a good understanding of the safest way to handle this situation for all involved. Hope it works out ok.
Click to expand...
Thanks Mary! Here in California we do not hand out concealed gun permits to vigilantes. The idea was explored and rejected by the governor and chiefs of police.
 
From the article: " The infamous Florida case, with George Zimmerman shooting to death unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin while on neighborhood watch, was a lesson in what could go wrong when you don’t wait for police."

So much for journalistic accuracy.

I can see why so many people are upset with the Zimmerman/Martin case: they read articles put out by the NYT and others like them. So much misinformation packed intonso little space.

Now I suppose that every time a NW is set up, we willhave another inaccurate Zimmerman-bashing article like this, and a resumption of the debate.

To the news media (not to anyone here!!!): Zimmerman was found not guilty for a reason. Get over it and stop with the agenda-bent fiction y’all are putting out as reporting.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Thanks Mary! Here in California we do not hand out concealed gun permits to vigilantes. The idea was explored and rejected by the governor and chiefs of police.
Click to expand...
the hell with what the voters want huh ,like prop.8
 
I’ll be honest, it sounds to me like they are doing the right thing. I mean it is really quite dangerous to confront a criminal like an armed robber.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Thanks Mary! Here in California we do not hand out concealed gun permits to vigilantes. The idea was explored and rejected by the governor and chiefs of police.
Click to expand...
Yes, your state is a bastion of safety, fiscal sanity, and a holy sense of marriage.
 
I think so too, slow as progress may be.

But, If it looks like duck, quacks like a duck, is it a duck?🤷

Perhaps we should revisit what we consider “roll models”. Seems to be where the confusion resides.



Proceed with caution. might not be a duck.
 
AirTalk with Larry Mantle.
In fact there is one state that not only lets you to stand your ground, it explicitly allows you to pursue your assailant if necessary for your safety. And that state is California. ~Attorney Andrew Branca
Click to expand...
 
Holly3278 said:
I’ll be honest, it sounds to me like they are doing the right thing. I mean it is really quite dangerous to confront a criminal like an armed robber.
Click to expand...
But what if you are on the neighborhood watch, and the armed robber confronts you? I think that if someone can pass all the legal requirements for owning a gun they should be allowed to keep one since we know that the bad guys are going to have the guns regardless of the laws and the police usually only show up afterward to take a report of who was killed. If anyone has to be killed when the criminal confronts the one on neighborhood watch, I’d rather it be the criminal than the one who is trying to look out for the neighborhood.
 
livingwordunity said:
But what if you are on the neighborhood watch, and the armed robber confronts you? I think that if someone can pass all the legal requirements for owning a gun they should be allowed to keep one since we know that the bad guys are going to have the guns regardless of the laws and the police usually only show up afterward to take a report of who was killed. If anyone has to be killed when the criminal confronts the one on neighborhood watch, I’d rather it be the criminal than the one who is trying to look out for the neighborhood.
Click to expand...
I see nothing wrong with gun ownership and I also see nothing wrong with using one to defend oneself so long as you don’t use excessive force.
 
Its hard to balance as the article admits. “It’s hard to balance,” said Mason Heller. She wants neighbors “to be watchful but not to incriminate someone who’s not doing anything wrong.”
 
GaryTaylor said:
Its hard to balance as the article admits. “It’s hard to balance,” said Mason Heller. She wants neighbors “to be watchful but not to incriminate someone who’s not doing anything wrong.”
Click to expand...
That’s never going to happen, Mason. There will always be people who are reported, approached, or have the police called on them (in all circles of life) who are doing nothing wrong. They are the minority, but it happens to law enforcement. It also happens to our intelligence agencies. That is the price of security.

Now if you want to pass laws that forbid neighborhood watches from approaching strangers, go ahead and good luck with that. But unless you undo the 2nd amendment, some citizens are going to carry a gun for protection (and some won’t). Perhaps a law that bars gun owners from participating in the NW. I am sure there will be a long list for signups if they went that route.
 
Julian_Bashir said:
Yes, your state is a bastion of safety, fiscal sanity, and a holy sense of marriage.
Click to expand...
Same Sex Marriage was voted against 2 times, if you want to blame someone for that happening in California, it looks like the Judicial system making rogue decisions is to blame.

However, I would go along with California along with New York having abortion rates well higher than the national average. And NYC affects NY a whole lot at that.

guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/print/new_york.html

guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/print/california.html
 
I wonder what they are going to do when THEY are approached. Run away?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top