Guns and Neighborhood Watches

[Loosedhorse]

Even if you don't agree with the comprehensive validity of the tests, the tests do filter out people who don't meet the qualifications.

I think we've all seen evidence that any such tests don't filter out ALL the bad apples. And to the extent that such tests are felt to be important, why couldn't the HOA require that its neighborhood watch members--armed or not--would have to take and pass them, too? Many employers use them already.

 

[Yoda]

Again, it seems that I must stress that the issue is whether a citizen on patrol in a Neighborhood Watch program MUST be disarmed, or whether the citizen should have the option of carrying a weapon for his own protection. Citizens on patrol are not armed guards or vigilantes.

- - - Yoda

 

[Ironclad]

When you leave your house and go about your daily business and carry you are doing it for self protection. When you carry with a watch and going on patrol you are doing a public service. Your right to self protection ends with my right not to be intimidated.

Why should people not have the right to self protection while doing a public service? And why are you intimidated by law abiding people concealed carrying?

 

[heeler]

What Ironclad asked.

 

[Yoda]

Did you bother reading the original post???

This is exasperating. I'm the guy who was fighting with a lawyer who wanted to prohibit CCW while serving on a Neighborhood Watch. And now you're insinuating that I'm intimidated by guns?

One reason I post so infrequently on this forum is the number of members who delight turning everything into an opportunity to assert their doctrinal superiority over the rest of us.

Outa here.

- - - Yoda

 

[BSA1]

All of this after the Zimmerman case all I can say is WOW!

The one sure thing that has happen in the Zimmerman shooting is one life was destroyed, the future on another's life has been changed forever and hangs in the balance and the lives of both families have been changed even though they have no direct role.

Zimmerman makes a strong case against carrying. I have no position because it doesn't affect me. But I ask you this; is it really worth going through everything Zimmerman is currently and will be dealing with for years to come?

 

[Ironclad]

Did you bother reading the original post???

Yes, I read the whole thread.

I was replying to the text quoted in my post, written by Gambjoe, not your original post. I strongly agree with you that if you are legal to carry a firearm in everyday life there is no reason to prohibit it while serving on a neighborhood watch.

But I ask you this; is it really worth going through everything Zimmerman is currently and will be dealing with for years to come?

If you only carry for personal protection and don't try to be a policeman I don't see how carrying on watch would be any more likely to lead to this than carrying in general.

 

[45_auto]

You're more likely to need your CCW on watch then if you're just carrying in the general population. If you're on watch, you're looking for unusual or suspicious activity. If that suspicious activity chooses to confront you (as supposedly happened to Zimmerman), then you're much more likely to need your weapon.

 

[stumpers]

Just a thought - if the neighborhood absolutely needs a watch, perhaps it is worth an increase in the HOA fees to hire a security company to patrol. It might then become the company's liability for what happens with armed confrontations, which is what bonding and insurance are for.

 

[Shoobee]

The rules are there to enforce the mission of the Neighborhood Watch program associated with the National Sheriffs Association to observe and report but to not intervene. If you can trust the people on the watch not to be emboldened by their tools, then there shouldn't be any problems.

I too believe this is the key. You need the right kind of people on the watch team, not the cop-wanna-be's.

You're more likely to need your CCW on watch then if you're just carrying in the general population. If you're on watch, you're looking for unusual or suspicious activity. If that suspicious activity chooses to confront you (as supposedly happened to Zimmerman), then you're much more likely to need your weapon.

I also agree with this as well. If you are unsuccessful in keeping yourself hidden from view, or if someone tries to ambush you, since what you are doing is inherently dangerous to begin with, I would go armed/concealed. But unfortunately for you, if there is only one of them, and if they are unarmed, and if they are a kid, you will then get your 15+ minutes of fame on tv as promised by Andy Warhol and it will cost you a bundle of money.

 

[GambJoe]

Why should people not have the right to self protection while doing a public service? And why are you intimidated by law abiding people concealed carrying?

Because of intimidation. If someone is eyeballing me and i know he's carrying I call it intimedation. That goes double for private security unless they are licenced to do so at work. As for a stranger walking down a steet while concealed, if the gun is concealed, I don't know he's carrying, I'm not intimidated.

Background: Months prior to the Zimmerman/Martin incident, the HOA asked me to take over as Neighborhood Watch Captain. My predecessor was chasing suspects down, conducting his own investigations, and confiscating the property of renters who the actual homer owners were behind in their HOA dues (!).

I suppose the Captain was a good law abiding person.

 

[Averageman]

I would carry only to protect myself.
I'm not a Cop, Superman or Charles Bronson. To be honest, I probobly would look at the liability of being on the neighborhood watch and back off and move out of a bad neighborhood.
The more I look at Zimmerman/Martin the more I like living in a quiet little town and looking after me and mine.
I know that sounds selfish to some, but rather than being placed on an alter and sacrifice myself and family in the name or someone else and their family; well I will stay right here in Mayberry and pack heat and shoot weekly.
At 50, with all of the shooting and getting shot at excitment behind me, I'm quite happy to see after whats mine and leave the heroics to folks who don't know better.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Folks,

This isn't a Zimmerman thread. We don't yet know the facts of the case and we won't for a while yet, debating what Z did or didn't do or what he should have or shouldn't have done on this thread is off topic.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I probobly would look at the liability of being on the neighborhood watch and back off and move out of a bad neighborhood.

Good neighborhoods are often the ones with stuff outsiders come in to steal. People who are living in bad neighborhoods often have no choice (lost jobs. plant closings, retirees, etc).

 

[HankB]

This is exasperating. I'm the guy who was fighting with a lawyer who wanted to prohibit CCW while serving on a Neighborhood Watch

Lawyers are not legislators, and if a person is duly licensed by his state to carry a concealed weapon, neighborhood watch rules or guidelines that don't have the force of law are irrelevant. Of course, persons with concealed carry licenses are NOT police, and any involvement in a suspicious situation they observe while on patrol beyond calling the REAL cops is ill-advised.

Background: Months prior to the Zimmerman/Martin incident, the HOA asked me to take over as Neighborhood Watch Captain. My predecessor was chasing suspects down, conducting his own investigations, and confiscating the property of renters who the actual homer owners were behind in their HOA dues (!).

Some of the actions described here would not be survivable in many places - and wouldn't even result in charges against someone who didn't honor the imagined "authority" of someone who wasn't a police officer. I know I would be disinclined to kowtow to someone who wasn't a sworn LEO . . .

 

[Neverwinter]

Again, it seems that I must stress that the issue is whether a citizen on patrol in a Neighborhood Watch program MUST be disarmed, or whether the citizen should have the option of carrying a weapon for his own protection. Citizens on patrol are not armed guards or vigilantes.

They are not intended to be armed guards or vigilantes, but going about armed enables those with the intent to act as such. This has terrible consequences.

It would be interesting to hear what a lawyer advising on your behalf would have to say about the liability that a neighborhood watch captain takes on by enacting a policy which allows the carry on patrol.

 

[Yoda]

The lawyer was staring into abyss when he realized that the HOA would be liable if it demanded that volunteers go about unarmed, and that one of the got hurt as a consequence. Facing a no-win situation, he realized that the only escape was to help draft an SOP that held some hope of keeping our volunteers in line.

- - - Yoda

 

[mortablunt]

I called my neighborhood watched back in VA. They say just talk with the Police and let them handle it. Don't get involved with anything. They expressly forbade the carrying of weapons, even personal pocket knives, while on duty.

So, the Zimmerman/Martin incident is having an impact far beyond Samford FL. Unless Zimmerman threw the first punch, he did nothing legally or morally wrong. We can argue whether his tactics were flawed, but that's not the issue here.

Must.. not... flame...

Leave discussion of that topic for its thread.

 

[Loosedhorse]

They are not intended to be armed guards or vigilantes, but going about armed enables those with the intent to act as such.

It's hard to tell, but I don't think you mean an inanimate object causes intent?

If you don't want "vigilantes"--however one defines that once-honorable, now-pejorative term--keep people with that intent off your Neighborhood Watch. For example, make the observe-report-don't-approach SOP clear enough that "vigilantes" would self-select out, and eject anyone who does approach and question after one such offense.

But disarming people--vigilantes and non-vigilantes allike--simply because they have the civic consciousness to want to protect their neighborhood? You'd select out anyone with half a brain or more...and leave yourself with quite an interesting candidate pool to choose from.

enacting a policy which allows the carry on patrol.

You mean which allows him to lawfully protect himself in case of deadly, criminal attack? As Yoda suggests, what about the liability of a policy that prohibits that legal, life-saving ability?

 

[Shawn Dodson]

The Neighborhood Watch Program according to my Sheriff (scroll down to page 3) - http://173.201.60.204/ss/PDFbrevsheriff/sheriff.pdf

From the Brevard County Sheriff's Crime Watch newsletter:

Neighborhood Watch members are only asked to observe and report what they see during their normal everyday activity. They are not expected to solve a crime, place themselves in jeopardy or create a more dangerous situation by trying to apprehend a suspect.

I'm president of my HOA and I wouldn't approve of any "patrol" due to the risk.

There are "Neighborhood Watch" signs posted in the development by the Sheriff's Office but there is no formal neighborhood watch nor any designated residents involved. If we had an active Neighborhood Watch and if I saw anyone actively "patrolling" then I'd immediately ask for that person to be removed from the Neighborhood Watch.

Do you really need an active, formal Neighborhood Watch program with a designated "coordinator" and "block captains"? The HOA can have it's own "Neighborhood Watch - Suspicious Activity Reported" signs fabricated at any sign shop and posted where ever the HOA wants to place them. The HOA can then simply encourage residents to keep an eye out for one another and call 9-1-1 to report any suspicious activity they see during the course of their "everyday activities".

 

[JRH6856]

Neighborhood Watch members are only asked to observe and report what they see during their normal everyday activity. They are not expected to solve a crime, place themselves in jeopardy or create a more dangerous situation by trying to apprehend a suspect.

I see no reason for a Neighborhood watch to be anymore than than this.
And if a Neighborhood Watch is limited to this, then--assuming that anyone with a valid CCW permit normally carries during their normal everyday activities--the question of whether or not they should be armed is moot. They will be.

 

[Neverwinter]

It's hard to tell, but I don't think you mean an inanimate object causes intent?

No, it's the person with the intent. The tool only assists their intent to be acted upon.

If you don't want "vigilantes"--however one defines that once-honorable, now-pejorative term--keep people with that intent off your Neighborhood Watch. For example, make the observe-report-don't-approach SOP clear enough that "vigilantes" would self-select out, and eject anyone who does approach and question after one such offense.

It only takes one offense where an armed person confronts an unarmed person who then acts in self defense to cause terrible consequences.

You mean which allows him to lawfully protect himself in case of deadly, criminal attack? As Yoda suggests, what about the liability of a policy that prohibits that legal, life-saving ability?

Lots of employers seem to do just fine restricting their employees the ability to defend themselves. Don't they have liability regarding harm to their employees if disarmed?

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[Loosedhorse]

It only takes one offense where an armed person confronts an unarmed person who then acts in self defense to cause terrible consequences.

So, since "it only takes one offense" for someone with a gun to do irreparable harm, take those guns away.

Sounds like we should take them away from everyone; otherwise someone with bad intent is bound to do something bad with one.

Lots of employers seem to do just fine restricting their employees the ability to defend themselves.

Well, lots of employers sure do it; and lots of us here think that's a bad idea, and possibly inconsistent with basic civil rights.

It's nice to know that you will speak up for the right of employers to restrict the RKBA. How much are these Neighborhood Watchers getting paid, again?

 

[Onward Allusion]

HOAs should never actively sponsor any type of neighborhood watch program. There is tremendous exposure to the HOA's Board of Directors and the HOA's assets. The Board can be held personally liable as well if something should go sideways. That's what D&O insurance is for, BTW.

As for being armed or not armed, go back to my first sentence - the HOA should never sponsor neighborhood watches. The OP's lawyer was providing the correct advice. The HOA & its Board should disseminate information, make suggestions on how to maintain a safe neighborhood, provide hints to prevent break-ins...etc.

If members in the community want to create a NW group, then the liability rests on the individuals in the group and not the HOA or its Board. Finally, like so many have already stated - the role of a NW is to observe and report.

BTW, I speak from personal experience. I'm HOA Board President for about 200 single family homes.

 

[Neverwinter]

So, since "it only takes one offense" for someone with a gun to do irreparable harm, take those guns away.

This pertains to people retained on behalf of an organization, it makes sense for that organization to limit their liability. If they want to patrol armed, they can do so without that organization.

It's nice to know that you will speak up for the right of employers to restrict the RKBA. How much are these Neighborhood Watchers getting paid, again?

I was making an observation regarding the inconsistencies between the neighborhood watch identified liability from disarming and that of regular employers. Neighborhood Watch organizations should not have liability when employers do not. If that lack of liability seems wrong, then maybe the liability of employers who disarm employees should be greater.

Sent using Tapatalk 2