Posted on 07/22/2009 8:29:55 AM PDT by skyman
GOT IT?
Neighborhood Watch patrols have no special powers and no more right to stop and question someone than any random citizen..As a private citizen,even on watch patrol,you may ASK someone to stop and question what they are doing;and they are perfectly within their rights to refuse to co-operate with you ,and to report you for harassment if you persist .In my area,dispatchers routinely send officers to "verbal assaults" which sounds strange but means you don't start yelling at someone if you don't want the police to show up.
Neighborhood Watch is fine as long as the patrols stick to watching in a normal way,and confine themselves to reporting.Only if the Watch actually witnesses a crime being committed might they consider themselves taking action,and then under the same conditions as any citizen. Bad cops are a blight on the nation,and bad cop wannabees are no better.Good cops also resent cop wannabees causing problems.
If you are stalking someone you don't deserve to have a CCW, but following someone you suspect may be breaking into cars while on neighborhood watch isn't stalking someone is it?
“..As a private citizen,even on watch patrol,you may ASK someone to stop and question what they are doing;and they are perfectly within their rights to refuse to co-operate with you ..”
Which is exactly what happened.
“and to report you for harassment if you persist ..”
Which they didn't do.
“which sounds strange but means you don't start yelling at someone if you don't want the police to show up.”
I don't recall the article mentioning them yelling at the girls. Did you just make that up?
I didn't say the watch patrol yelled at those girls although apparently they did get in a yelling match with the father;I was making the point that if you try to stop someone and they refuse and you start yelling at them to come back or whatever,that ,in many places you could be charged with harassment.
Keeping in mind the watch patrol guys were carrying firearms there could be grounds for criminal charges of intimidation with a deadly weapon if any watch person is anything less than very polite.
Any Neighborhood Watch carrying weapons best tread very lightly.
Again,I don't believe it was a good idea for the patrol to stop and question the girls unless they were clearly lost or otherwise in distress,or clearly in the act of committing a crime.
Walking or driving in public areas is NOT a crime,even at eleven pm and even though the Neighborhood Watch doesn't know you.
er... thats sort of what neighborhood watch is all about. Questioning suspicious people. The girls car matched descriptions of a car that had been used to burglarize cars in the neighborhood. If the girls weren't doing anything wrong they had nothing to fear from being questioned.
“Walking or driving in public areas is NOT a crime,even at eleven pm and even though the Neighborhood Watch doesn't know you.”
Nobody said it was. It also isn't a crime to question suspicious people as to their intentions. The only crime committed was attempted murder by the girls father.
Now if you want to talk of the duties of a uniformed security patrol duly authorized to protect private property you will find all they can usually do is request any trespassers leave or request persons wait for the police.Only if the security person sees a crime being committed or is absolutely certain the suspect has committed a crime can the security person effect a citizen's arrest.
Again on public streets and sidewalks,parks,etc. the Neighborhood Watch would have no more authority than any other citizen to stop a "suspicious person" and question that person.And the stop ought to start off "Hello,I (or we) are members of the Neighborhood Watch here ,and I (or we) wondered if you need assistance." Establish clearly who you are,and begin a non-accusatory conversation.Acting the part of the "take-charge cop wannabee " and confronting people will only cause trouble. If the suspicious person turns out to be simply lost,ill, confused, or new to the neighborhood confronting the person won't help;and if he is a criminal confronting him may trigger a violent reaction.
Don't tease mean dogs ;keep them in sight and call the dog-catcher to deal with them.
ANYONE patrolling a community ought to be clearly identifiable if they plan on stopping people. I know a community that decided to cut officer overtime by having its director of services patrol one shift a week;he showed up for duty looking like a redneck clown,dressed in camo jacket,blue jeans,ball cap,cigar in mouth, and single-shot hunting pistol in chest-slung holster! (The standard uniform issued and worn by all eight other officers was brown/tan sheriff style pants and shirt,utility belt with holstered revolver,radio and accessories , and individually numbered badge featuring the state seal.)I believe he singlehandedly lowered the department's level of respect from adjacent city police departments.
“I beg to differ;Neighborhood Watch is just that :watch,it is not about questioning suspicious people.”
You don’t have to be neighborhood watch to ask suspicious people what they are up to. Anyone can, and should. You can’t force them to answer, but if they don’t it’s a pretty good indication that it’s time to call the police on them. So many indifferent, uncaring, or downright cowardly people in the world. It’s the reason criminals feel like they can get away with anything. Too many only care about themselves.
How you approach the other person can have a great deal to do with how they respond. Somewhere between uncaring and nosy,lies "Mind Your Own Business".
I think it perfectly reasonable that you or I stop and confront anyone seen on our own property or property we are duly responsible for;but stopping strangers in public areas to question them is different.I don't believe it is even required ,nor any business of the police, for a stopped person to fully explain what they are doing in a public area,unless their activity is illegal.If the police stop me or you it should not matter if it is on the way to or from a job,a girlfriend,shopping,or any other legal activity.Only the instant offense should be a concern.
If say,speeding is the charge,and it is because my speeding is a danger to others on the road,then it matters not one whit in terms of the danger to others what my reason for speeding may be. Even if I am a doctor rushing to the hospital that doesn't change the fact of my speeding ,missing tail lights or whatever.
Now who will be the first to say"if you're not doing anything wrong you won't mind others knowing what you're doing?"?
Yet it happens all the time. If you are driving a car that looks like one used in a crime, like the girls car did, and are behaving in a suspicious manner, as the girls were, then you can expect people, not just police, to question you. If you have nothing to hide, you simply explain what you are doing and go on your way. If you blow off the question, you can expect to be followed at the very least, and if you blow off the police, you can expect much worse. You know it's true.
My business is my business and your business is your business;as long as it isn't a crime.
Ever been a teenage girl?
I’d assume they could reasonably have had fear for their personal safety - strange men in an SUV trying to pull them over late at night. You say they had “nothing to fear” - well, if you call potential kidnapping, rape, and murder nothing then I agree.
I said nothing of the sort. Maybe they were frightened. If so perhaps they will quit wandering around the neighborhood late at night in the future. The fact is the men didn't want to “kidnap, rape, or murder them”, and they assumed wrong if that is what they thought. If you think it's ok to shoot anyone you “think” might want to harm you, then you are wrong too. The girls father will have to pay the consequences of his and his daughters wrong assumptions for the rest of his life.
Personally, I think the girls were breaking into cars, and were angry when confronted and so one of them fed her father a line in order to get even.
Finally, one small point. The girls were on foot when the neighborhood watch guys questioned them. They then went to their car. The neighborhood watch guys didn't try to pull them over once in their car, they just followed them and then drove on once they reached the girls home.
Before you make too many assumptions about what happened, you might want to dig a little further into and read the report by the investigating team. THEN decide.
Here is an excerpt from it:
(EXACT QUOTES)
Campos gave orders to Serbeck to “put his hands up”.
Serbeck exited his vehicle with his own firearm, holding it upside down, by the barrel.
He then placed the gun on the ground and kicked it away, disarming himself.
The defendant then fired two shots at Serbeck. One bullet entered Serbeck’s shoulder and exited through his back.
Serbeck is now permanently paralyzed as a result of the gunshot.
The statement of detective Paul Nielson that scene documentation shows Serbeck’s firearm
Was on the ground when officers arrived, and that it also had the safety lock on.
(END OF QUOTE)
All three men were NOT armed.
Don’t misunderstand me, I am not, in any way trying to chastize you for your post, I just want to try and stop some of the “speculations”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.