17 year old kid shot dead by Neighborhood Watch "Captain"

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    pirate

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    19   0   0
    Jul 2, 2011
    968
    18
    Know what's funny though... by your comments it's obvious that you're white.

    This makes no sense.




    You don't have to be white to not want to see race in the first sentences of a one side reported story. I would hope that people of any color would rather focus on the crime/altercation first when hearing of a story, then go from there to determine the motive and reasoning which could open up all sorts of windows into the story.
     

    paddling_man

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    Jul 17, 2008
    4,512
    63
    Fishers
    Not that clear cut. Bringing race into the conflict is unnecessary thought-police action. FWIW, not necessarily an "all-white" neighborhood; Dad and Stepmom live there. The kid didn't.

    Gated community.

    Access is restricted.

    Private property??

    While you may be a guest of someone who is known there - the kid was a visitor.

    Neighborhood watch captain may be volunteer - or even community elected - positions in lieu of hired private security in order to keep subdivision fees down. The man had every right to inquire about a child-in-name-only-since-less-than-a-year-from-18 stranger wandering the private, restricted access property.

    The point is the interaction began because the male was a stranger, solo and on foot. Who gives a crap about any specific detail of why the NWC thought the guy was suspicious. It doesn't matter. I may think short people are suspicious. Fat people. Those who drive Fords. Methodists. The list goes on ad nauseum. Thank God the thought-police, politically-correct can't actually read our minds. We are all a mish-mash of opinion based on past experience.

    At some point it became violent and someone was shot. The court and official testimony will reveal those details.
     

    tca1352

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Nov 7, 2009
    80
    8
    Not that clear cut. Bringing race into the conflict is unnecessary thought-police action. FWIW, not necessarily an "all-white" neighborhood; Dad and Stepmom live there. The kid didn't.

    Gated community.

    Access is restricted.

    Private property??

    While you may be a guest of someone who is known there - the kid was a visitor.

    Neighborhood watch captain may be volunteer - or even community elected - positions in lieu of hired private security in order to keep subdivision fees down. The man had every right to inquire about a child-in-name-only-since-less-than-a-year-from-18 stranger wandering the private, restricted access property.

    The point is the interaction began because the male was a stranger, solo and on foot. Who gives a crap about any specific detail of why the NWC thought the guy was suspicious. It doesn't matter. I may think short people are suspicious. Fat people. Those who drive Fords. Methodists. The list goes on ad nauseum. Thank God the thought-police, politically-correct can't actually read our minds. We are all a mish-mash of opinion based on past experience.

    At some point it became violent and someone was shot. The court and official testimony will reveal those details.


    And all that is fine. As the NWC, he has a right to investigate suspicious ppl on the property. He did the right thing by calling the police. Where he f'ed up is getting out of his car to confront this kid. If the kid was breaking in cars, or vandalizing property. I feel he then had every right to intervene. But the kid was walking. he should have stayed on the line with the dispatchers, gave them the kid's description, direction of travel, and kept him under watch from a distance.
     

    paddling_man

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    Jul 17, 2008
    4,512
    63
    Fishers
    And all that is fine. As the NWC, he has a right to investigate suspicious ppl on the property. He did the right thing by calling the police. Where he f'ed up is getting out of his car to confront this kid. If the kid was breaking in cars, or vandalizing property. I feel he then had every right to intervene. But the kid was walking. he should have stayed on the line with the dispatchers, gave them the kid's description, direction of travel, and kept him under watch from a distance.

    Whole lotta what-if's that we simply don't know. We don't know he "confronted" the male any more than we know the stranger didn't initiate the interaction since the NWC was following him.

    All we know is there was an interaction that became an altercation ending in one person injured and another dead. The media uses innuendo to fuel and sensationalize the public into creating emotional tall-tales based on their imagination.

    Clearly there was some compelling evidence for the police to not IMMEDIATELY arrest the NWC after he had just taken a life.
     

    Mackey

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 4, 2011
    3,282
    48
    interwebs
    This makes no sense.




    You don't have to be white to not want to see race in the first sentences of a one side reported story. I would hope that people of any color would rather focus on the crime/altercation first when hearing of a story, then go from there to determine the motive and reasoning which could open up all sorts of windows into the story.

    I disagree. I believe it would take someone not familiar with being profiled to state
    Not sure why race was mentioned at all (Other than to instigate) until those other factors and other side of the story is in
     

    paddling_man

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    Jul 17, 2008
    4,512
    63
    Fishers
    Nope.

    Everyone is "profiled." All the time. The type of clothes you wear, your haircut, your shoes, your skin, your accent, the car you drive.

    We've turned the way an intelligent mammal takes the benefit of past experience and applies it to a likely outcome in an emerging situation and termed it a dirty word: profiling. Your past experiences aren't a 100% predictor of future behaviors but it is accurate more often than not. To ignore that is impossible, short of having cognitive memory issues. The thought-police have twisted an aspect of normal human maturation and development.
     

    Mackey

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 4, 2011
    3,282
    48
    interwebs
    Nope.

    Everyone is "profiled." All the time. The type of clothes you wear, your haircut, your shoes, your skin, your accent, the car you drive.

    "everyone" ..... "all the time" ???
    Sounds like a conspiracy to me.

    I understand what you're saying ... but
    You know what I'm talking about. To pretend that racism is not alive and well in this country is turning a blind eye to the obvious.
     

    CarmelHP

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 14, 2008
    7,633
    48
    Carmel
    Bottom line...a citizen of these United States was walking, minding his own business. Was there a crime reported in the neighborhood? NO. He was gonna be detained for walking down a damn street. And since he would have been out of the area before the police arrived, some guy thought he needed to stop him. And now he is dead.

    Bottom line, you can't try to bash the skull in of a guy that stops you and is verbally being a dick to you. He might shoot you and be justified in doing so because you turned a rude, unnecessary encounter into a fight for life and death. If the kid escalated verbal into violence then he's at fault.
     

    Mackey

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 4, 2011
    3,282
    48
    interwebs
    Bottom line, you can't try to bash the skull in of a guy that stops you and is verbally being a dick to you. He might shoot you and be justified in doing so because you turned a rude, unnecessary encounter into a fight for life and death. If the kid escalated verbal into violence then he's at fault.

    What?
    You really think, this kid. With no criminal record. Was going to fight a man to the DEATH?!
    Can the gun carrying community not see that just because you get in a fight and are taking a whoopin that you do not necessarily have the right to kill that person??
    Wow.
     

    Jake46184

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Apr 2, 2011
    750
    16
    Indianapoils
    How many of you were there and witnessed what happened? All you know is what the sensationalist media, ever mindful of what will make them the most money, wanted to tell you. Again, the most noteworthy thing we know at this point is that the officers on the scene, upon their initial assessment, chose NOT to arrest the captain. That tells us more than anything else in the media article.

    We'll all know a lot more once the investigation is complete.
     

    hornadylnl

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 19, 2008
    21,505
    63
    There is a whole lot of presumption of guilt on both sides in this thread. Depending on what your personal opinion of teenagers and neighborhood watchmen is, it will cloud your judgement. I'd bet a box of ammo some of these posts would read much differently if you replaced the 17 year old kid with a 40 year old legal open carrier.
     

    Leo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Mar 3, 2011
    9,733
    113
    Lafayette, IN
    Bad deal no matter how you slice the story up. No winners here. There will be trouble over this for a long time.

    I have spent time professionally a "17 year old Kid" that was 6'6", 290 lb and had beat his victim to death with a tire tool. I have also had a skinny punk with martial arts training kick me in the head three times before I saw it coming. Never underestimate an opponent.
    Detention centers in major cities house some (not all) minors that are vicious animals. On the other side, the Watch captain might just be a sociopath. Many of these do work their ways into positions of leadership including the military and police work. Like already said, the truth will probably never be known.
     

    Que

    Meekness ≠ Weakness
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 98%
    48   1   0
    Feb 20, 2009
    16,373
    83
    Blacksburg
    Bottom line, you can't try to bash the skull in of a guy that stops you and is verbally being a dick to you. He might shoot you and be justified in doing so because you turned a rude, unnecessary encounter into a fight for life and death. If the kid escalated verbal into violence then he's at fault.

    This is probably how most in the neighborhood, along with the authorities, will see this. I'm sure the guy will say he was forced into an altercation and nothing will happen to him.

    Looks like El Capitan might not be a saint after all.

    Sanford Crime Watch Captain George Zimmerman Did Have Previous Arrest Record in 2005 For Battery :: The Florida News Journal

    A quick glance at the various articles about this story on Google state that the captain is a 26 year old self appointed captain of the neighborhood watch.

    Yeah, but who knows the background of the battery case? I'm sure his record will not be taken into consideration and he will not be charged for anything in this case.
     

    tca1352

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Nov 7, 2009
    80
    8
    After dialing 911. He was told by the dispatcher that the police where on the way....and to let them handle it. He didnt...a kid is dead because of that. Forget about the fight...it didnt have to happen. And a month later, this kids parents cant even hear the 911 tapes?.....
     

    Jake46184

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Apr 2, 2011
    750
    16
    Indianapoils
    After dialing 911. He was told by the dispatcher that the police where on the way....and to let them handle it. He didnt...a kid is dead because of that. Forget about the fight...it didnt have to happen. And a month later, this kids parents cant even hear the 911 tapes?.....

    We have no idea what the dispatcher told him. We have no idea what action the captain took (if any.) We have no idea why the kid is dead. We have no idea why or how the fight started. Did the kid approach the captain and attack him? The parents have no more, or less, right to hear the 911 recording than anyone else. In fact, if they do not reside in the municipality in question, they have less right than the residents who do.

    Ignore the sensationalist media story. They need for you to.....well, respond exactly as you have done here. It's how they maximize their profit.
     

    Prometheus

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 20, 2008
    4,462
    48
    Northern Indiana
    Walking down the sidewalk. Check.

    In his neighborhood. Check.

    I'm missing something. Why would anyone, cop or neighborhood watch guy, have justification to question this guy?

    Wow, just wow.
     

    cobber

    Parrot Daddy
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    Sep 14, 2011
    10,225
    149
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    The parents have no more, or less, right to hear the 911 recording than anyone else. In fact, if they do not reside in the municipality in question, they have less right than the residents who do.
    Of course they do. Imagine if it was your son who was killed. You don't think you would be demanding to hear the 911 audio? Aside from their right to know what happened, they might have a wrongful death suit against the "Captain".

    They have at least as much right to hear the 911 as the news media, which often obtain and air such recordings.

    It might show the kid was culpable, or it might show nothing at all. Still.

    Ignore the sensationalist media story. They need for you to.....well, respond exactly as you have done here. It's how they maximize their profit.
    It doesn't seem like this story is sensationalism. No one is rousing the rabble, just reporting the incident. While sometimes the media play these games, how does a discussion on INGO affect the bottom line of the outlets reporting on this?
     
    Last edited:

    jbombelli

    ITG Certified
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    May 17, 2008
    13,010
    113
    Brownsburg, IN
    What right does he has to ask someone what they are doing?....and if the kid told him to "f*** off", so what.

    He has EVERY right to ask that. What he doesn't have is the authority to force someone to answer him. But if they choose to answer and say something stupid and aggressive, then that's on the guy doing the answering. And I like how you specifically omitted everything else I said in my post about the hypothetical statements. You left out the far more important parts. Thanks for trying, though. :rolleyes:


    Could be this captain was the neighborhood Paul Blart and all the kids there knew it. I have a hard time believing that a "neigborhood watch" captain isn't predisposed to being a busybody. What was his general attitude to all of the neighborhood kids? Was he the guy that berated and hated kids or was he the neighborhood father figure and a member of the Boys and Girls club?

    He could very well have been that neighborhood's Paul Blart.

    The "watch captain" may have been initially in the wrong, and the yout' could have escalated it into a physical attack because he was being screwed with. If a party unnecessarily escalates a verbal confrontation into a physical, possibly deadly, attack, the lethal force can legitimately be used.

    That could very well be the case, too. And that's exactly what I was trying to get at earlier in the thread. You said it better than I did, though.

    Bottom line, you can't try to bash the skull in of a guy that stops you and is verbally being a dick to you. He might shoot you and be justified in doing so because you turned a rude, unnecessary encounter into a fight for life and death. If the kid escalated verbal into violence then he's at fault.

    Exactly.

    And as I said earlier, I have no real idea what REALLY happened. Only one guy does. And because of all the possible ways it could have gone down, right off the bat I've got enough "reasonable doubt" that, without the guy confessing to being a murderer, I'd most likely vote to acquit if I was on his jury.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom