What do 'not prohibited by law' mean?
You have the critical thinking skills of an elementary student.
I guess you don't realize what you said...
I didn't know Florida Law allowed citizens to detain others.
Link please.
What do 'not prohibited by law' mean?
You have the critical thinking skills of an elementary student.
Look up the definitions of 'behavior' and 'mutually exclusive' and get back to me.
Why can't you just tell me if you know it...Why does it have to be some kind of homework assignment?
I tell you... iT'S THAT fUZZY LOGIC.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-07-2012 at 01:12 AM.
Mutually exclusive means that if one thing is defined as something then it cannot be some other thing at the same time.
What i am saying is that behavior and actions are not mutually exclusive. Behavior can be exhibited as an action.
Somethings that are mutually exclusive are WC and intelligent thought.
Also please explain why/how police can be held liable if they fail to prevent it. Thanks.
The core elements of a crime is opportunity and desire. As a citizen worried about being a victim, you can truly only control the opportunity. Some believe that having people followed or questioned for no reason might take away their desire. There are studies that show that the police going into areas and neighborhoods with zero tolerance do not actually deter crime. There was a study done that had two neighborhoods with the same crime rate. One neighborhood only had police go into their when a crime was committed and police were called. The other neighborhood had a higher amount of random police drive through patrolling. The result was that the same amount of crime was in both neighborhoods.
Either way, this neighborhood wanted a neighborhood watch for people who were not from that neighborhood. I doubt there is anything wrong with following someone that you view as a threat, when that is your role (neighborhood watch).
Has anyone implied that following someone should be illegal?
"following someone that you view as a threat, when that is your role"
Z disqualified himself from neighborhood watch role, according to National Neighborhood Watch org, by
1) carrying loaded gun
2) getting out of his vehicle to stalk closer.
His only watch role was to call the police.
If you permit Z to consider M a threat, then you MUST permit "walking while black" M to view stalking vigilante Z as threat, so M is legal under FL's "kill anyone you view as threat laws", although in FL (and in all similar state laws) threats seems to be only black, not white.
There is a major disconnect here: What is/are the role(s) of a neighborhood watchman?
I don't believe following a threat is one of them, much less doing so while armed. I think that neighborhood watch people are supposed to observe and report, unless someones life is in immediate danger of course.
Thats what i am trying to get at. Florida law needs to prohibit that type of behavior but it does not.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware that FL allowed watchers to carry. Scary stuff.
Florida needs vigilante laws. In order to prevent watchers patrolling neighborhoods from carrying you have to have a law that prohibits it. there is no such law. there are laws that allow people in general to carry in FL.
if he had been carrying the firearm illegally then he would be in jail right now on a gun charge if nothing else. i am trying to phrase what i am saying in as many ways as possible because a lot of people do not seem to get at what i am trying to say.
It appears this killing has quieted down. Hopefully cooler heads have prevailed. God bless
I think those driving the media frenzy got slapped pretty hard with the truth.
Or the story is more than a week old and that is how entertainment news works.
For those who are still following the case, I thought this was as interesting read, particularly the comments from the posters.
http://www.logarchism.com/?s=trayvon+martin+map
Post #36 in particular was really interesting in terms of reconciling with the known pieces of evidence.
I'd love to hear theories on how Zimmerman could be beaten for at least 45 seconds (if it was indeed him screaming for help as his family so vehemently maintains) and not have a single bandaid on his body ~30 minutes afterwards. I didn't realize the screaming had lasted so long and that doesn't even include the seconds that weren't picked up by 911.
It just doesn't make sense...
Just one call to C.S.I. would have solved this issue.
So you want to prohibit law abiding citizens to carry guns when most criminals have guns?
I guess you want to make florida, which you don't even live in, like dc? You want to outlaw guns?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...crime-us-state
• If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top - with 16 firearms murders per 100,000 man,
• DC is also top for firearms robberies per 100,000 people - with 255.98
You want only the criminals to have guns?
We want everyone to carry guns everywhere, all the time. It's wonderful income for the guns and ammo industry, which hoses the NRA with propaganda and lying funds.
2nd Amendment?GMAFB This is America, Follow The Money.
Guns don't kill innocent people in crossfire, people do.
Just heard that the State Atty will not use grand jury in this case.
At this point I don’t think it matters what the State Attorney or local police do…The Big Dogs are in charge now…In six months or so when the Feds conclude their investigation sparks will fly…At least that’s my un educated opinion…
Maybe if people like Mr. Zimmerman didn't act re ed with their firearms more peoole would be OK with them.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions