Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: voteNRA
Your info further clarifies that there is indeed no law against carrying while on watch, its only a "matter of policy" as I suspected would be the case.

Is a matter of policy is the same as a violation of protocols?

It is not a "law" but it is 100% clear: patrol members are not carry weapons, have no police power, and should not attempt to apprehend a person committing a crime or to investigate a suspicious activity. Not following the guidelines can result in serious consequences: each member is liable as an individual for civil and criminal charges should he exceed his authority.

380 posted on 03/27/2012 2:24:02 PM PDT by Alice in Wonderland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies ]


To: Alice in Wonderland
"Is a matter of policy is the same as a violation of protocols?

It is not a "law" but it is 100% clear: patrol members are not carry weapons, have no police power, and should not attempt to apprehend a person committing a crime or to investigate a suspicious activity."

Well it is just that - protocol, there is no force of law behind the stated protocol no matter how clearly it is stated. I take that as more or less a policy the watch group takes out to attempt to protect themselves from being sued in an event such as this.

"Not following the guidelines can result in serious consequences: each member is liable as an individual for civil and criminal charges should he exceed his authority."

Anytime someone uses a gun against another human they are almost always personally liable for civil and criminal charges so this part of the policy is IMHO, just restating what should be obvious to anyone who carries a weapon.

381 posted on 03/27/2012 2:42:30 PM PDT by voteNRA (A citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies ]

To: Alice in Wonderland
It is not a "law" but it is 100% clear: patrol members are not carry weapons, have no police power, and should not attempt to apprehend a person committing a crime or to investigate a suspicious activity.

Since you seem to ignore as many facts as possible, here are a few more that you continue to ignore:
1) Zimmerman was NOT on watch at the time of this incident - he was running a personal errand when he saw someone who he thought was suspicious. Therefore ALL the guidelines, rules, protocols, etc... for Neighborhood Watch mean exactly - ZILCH.
2) Everything which Zimmerman was doing that night - watching Martin, following Martin, questioning Martin - was COMPLETELY legal - the police have already stated as such.
410 posted on 03/28/2012 3:02:35 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson