Fla. city bans guns for neighborhood watch volunteers

The Florida city where neighborhood watch leader George Zimmerman shot and killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin is changing the rules on how civilian patrols can operate to help prevent a recurrence and revive the program's reputation.

The new rules, to be released at a community meeting on Nov. 5 in Sanford, Florida, will state explicitly that residents acting under the authority of neighborhood watch may not carry a firearm or pursue someone they deem suspicious.

Source

Interesting... I hadn't thought about the Zimmerman trial actually leading to something like this.

Not really sure how I feel about it at this time, will have to think.

What says you ?

reply to post by elevatedone


Don't think they really have any authority to ban anything. If you're part of a neighborhood and want to take part in the watch no community group can remove your 2nd amendment rights.

Just because they're all bent out of shape because someone defended himself against an "unarmed" thug is just too bad.

IMO

As well here Elavatedone. We're told if we have 'em, leave em home or dont volunteer tonight and tomorrow.

We are "eyes and ears" only. No getting out of the vehicles either.

(Michigan)

...residents acting under the authority of neighborhood watch may not carry a firearm or pursue someone they deem suspicious.

Then why have a neighborhood watch at all?

Serious question. Because without the ability to really watch any suspicious person you're reduced to jst being a nosey neighbor leering from a window.

Is "neighborhood watch" really just a club name for these people who cant mind their own business because the way the world wants them to operate they arent really doing anything.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Why have it? So we become "extensions" of the Police as their "eyes and ears"...until they get on-site. It quadruples the size of the eyes out on the streets.

reply to post by Bassago


I agree, and what exactly are they going to do if you decide to carry while watching the neighborhood? They going to write you a neighborhood watch ticket or kick you out of the group? They have no real authority, so how do they expect to enforce this nonsense?

reply to post by mysterioustranger


Not really. What's suspicious? A white lady calling the cops because she sees a black kid walking down the street?

Just having every paranoid out there to call the cops when they see something is a recipe for disaster.

Since pursuit/following is now banned nobody will ever know what anyone is doing.

Unless something is totally brazen like a middle of the day break in in a dense housing area then nobody is going to be seeing anything. That's not something that requires a "neighborhood watch" at all. Just an individual. Why not just be individuals who call the cops when they see a blatant crime? Seems being a "neighborhood watch" is just pointless since they dont/cant/wont do anything beyond what any individual would do.

Maybe I'm missing the point and all "neighborhood watches" were ever meant to be was an excuse to have tea with your neighbors?

Look at it from the criminals perspective. Two neighborhoods, one with stupid watch signs on the poles and one without. What's the difference? Not the alleged difference. The real difference.

The results of previous systematic reviews of neighborhood watch presented in the
introduction were divided in terms of the conclusions drawn. Titus (1984) concluded that
neighborhood watch was effective, but noted that the research methods used to investigate
this were weak. Husain (1990) concluded that there was little evidence that neighborhood
watch worked. Sherman and Eck (2002) concluded that neighborhood watch was ineffective
in reducing crime. The Effectiveness of Neighborhood Watches

Bassago
reply to post by elevatedone

 

Don't think they really have any authority to ban anything. If you're part of a neighborhood and want to take part in the watch no community group can remove your 2nd amendment rights.

Just because they're all bent out of shape because someone defended himself against an "unarmed" thug is just too bad.

IMO

Yep either that or "there goes the neighborhood watch", IE, no volunteers. I personally believe it could have been handled with a written and signed instruction pamphlet and agreement that would say something to the effect that unless loss of life is imminent the gun is for your protection, only. No doubt they are under allot of political pressure so they can say, "See we fixed it"!! We feel pain for everyone.

elevatedone

The Florida city where neighborhood watch leader George Zimmerman shot and killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin is changing the rules on how civilian patrols can operate to help prevent a recurrence and revive the program's reputation.

The new rules, to be released at a community meeting on Nov. 5 in Sanford, Florida, will state explicitly that residents acting under the authority of neighborhood watch may not carry a firearm or pursue someone they deem suspicious.

Source

Interesting... I hadn't thought about the Zimmerman trial actually leading to something like this.

Not really sure how I feel about it at this time, will have to think.

What says you ?

Ummm.. yeah... Are they that intent on being dragged into court for a 2nd amendment violation?

elevatedone
What says you ?

I say it proves neighborhood watch programs are nothing the founding fathers had in mind when they introduced the 2d Amendment. If Zimmerman was on patrol wearing the uniform of his local militia he never would have been charged ... because, not only would thugs be afraid to enter the neighborhood ... cops would never visit either ... unless it was a raid.