Too much unknown information. As for the whole "he didn't have to confront him" him bit, it's kinda hard to remove those that are causing problems if they are never confronted and (imo) it is time for the citizens to quit relying on cops for every little thing.
I agree with your last statement. However, standard Neighborhood Watch protocol is to avoid confrontation (yeah, I know - I'm not very good at that, either), act as the reliable, detail-oriented eyes and ears, and report all suspicious activity to the police. The guy did that, in his 911 call. What constitutes "suspicious" in his mind is anyone's guess. I might have been race, it might has been the kid jumping the fence in the gated community. Who knows? As he was his only witness, I'm sure that information won't come out except in trial.
If someone sees suspicious behaviour it should be completely acceptable for them to investigate it should they choose (which means accepting all the risk that goes along with that) and not have to cower in fear and wait on police to "check it out."
In most communities, neighborhood watch programs are run by citizens coordinating with the police. Here in Colorado Springs, there's a short but sweet handbook with very good, smart, rational, well-thought-out guidelines. They don't tell people they can't carry as part of their neighborhood watch program. They simply recommend they don't, as people who do tend to take matters into their own things.
Nine times out of ten, "suspicious activity" amounts to nothing higher than a hill of beans. It's the 10% (or 1%, or one out of a thousand) times when confrontation leads to conflict. Personally, I like breathing, so I'm very reluctant to stick my nose into a drug deal. The police are better equipped and trained to observe, stop, detain, and arrest the bad guys than I am, and they get paid to do it. As I member of the Neighborhood Watch program, my annual salary was $0.00. As a block captain, it was precisely $0.00 higher than that.
Having said that, if I observed some man trying to wrestle a resisting girl into a vehicle, I wouldn't hesitate to get involved. It might be an abduction, or it might be a father who found his teenage daughter taking a romp in the back of her boyfriend's vehicle. Regardless, the situation warrants immediate involvement.
But I'd make the 911 call first.
And if the person who's being approached decides they want to do something foolish simply because the person approaching them isn't a cop, well that is on them.
Yes, it is. Imagine the above situation if the guy turned out to be the girl's father, and he wound up dead simply because he was hopped up on adrenaline and did something foolish, like rush at me after I told him to unhand the girl. Scratch one father, scratch one husband, scratch one family, scratch one human being who may very well have been an honest, law-abiding citizen who was merely at his wits end with respect to trying to deal with a wayward daughter, and all because I took the attitude, "I'll stop this, and if he resists, I'll shoot, and that's on him."
Nice... :banghead:
This is precisely why law enforcement is fine with Neighborhood Watch programs, provided its members call the cops to engage the bad guys. Contrary to popular misconception, the vast majority of cops do not shoot first, but rather, are well-trained to handle a variety of situations, and will resort to deadly force only if other options (take-down, taser) are not available. I know that here in the Springs if I reported an "abduction in progress" the response time would be just a few minutes, and yes, in order to stop it I would have to step in. My goal wouldn't be to kill the guy, but to stop and detain him for the police to handle when they arrive.
Though I do think OCing in these types of situations would be a very good thing as it can help prevent a person from making a move that could be viewed as hostile (such as quickly reaching into a pocket after some heated words and in a manner that could be taken as reaching for a weapon).
I agree completely! And if it looks like the guy is preparing to do something foolish, drawing is certainly an option.
Now with all that said, again there just isn't enough information to say with this case. I don't blame the watchman for approaching a "suspicious indvidual" in his neighborhood. But before even trying to say if I think the shooter was/wasn't justified I would need to know what all transpired prior to the shooting (exchange of words, actions of the dead person, why the shooter felt reasonably afraid of death/grave bodily harm, etc).
Also agreed, with the exception that I believe there is enough information to draw some tentative conclusions:
1. The kid was visiting relatives in the neighborhood.
2. The kid was unarmed.
3. The man was armed.
4. The man was in a car.
5. The kid was on foot.
6. The man made a call to 911, reporting "suspicious activity."
7. The man shot the kid.
From this alone, I can indeed draw some conclusions. From the standpoint of the Neighborhood Watch program, the man violated two guidelines, that against being armed (I don't blame him a bit on this one) and that of allowing police to make contact. Yes, it's Monday morning quarterbacking, but discretion is the better part of valor, and the man had several options available to him which he did NOT take. He could have:
A. Sat in his car, made the phone call, never approaching the kid.
B. Observing the kid to see which house he enters.
C. Remaining inside the car while striking up a friendly conversation through a partially rolled-down window, with foot on the accelerator, ready to withdraw from a bad situation.
D. Engage, but as the child was unarmed, instead of shooting him, use other take-down measures if necessary.
Instead of taking any of these options, he chose to engage, and an unarmed child is dead.
I cannot conclude what I am about to say next, but I suspicion they got into an argument, possibly a physical altercation. That it was avoidable, however, is beyond reproach.