It kinda seems to me that he sort of pulled a Rand Paul move,from what I understand,though admittedly,I don't hang on the edge of my seat waiting breathlessly for every little detail...
He wasn't fit to be any sort of real police officer,was,as I understand,rejected by the actual neighborhood watch,so started his own...

When demonstrably unqualified,simply invent your own medical review board or neighborhood watch,as circumstances dictate.Proceed with doing all possible damage.Somehow,at least as long as your Dad is a sitting congresscritter or former judge,this is allowed,without question.

I thought it was clear why I did...Paul couldn't pass a medical board,so he created his own board...

Zimmerman could pass neither a police exam nor be accepted to a neighborhood watch so.like Paul,he created his own...Capishe?

their neighborhoods? Should there be legal documents for every single possible instance that may happen a fraction of a percent of the time?

We live in such a gun culture that incidents like the Zimmerman will occur increasingly. Just look at his case:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-gun-hoa-threaten-resident-20130705,0,3300958.story


Cops: Gun-toting HOA officer threatened residents watching firework

A resident watching fireworks explode late Thursday over The Hamptons at MetroWest on Turkey Lake said she feared for her life when a man carrying what looked like a machine gun ordered her to leave, according to Orlando police.

The heavily armed man turned out to be Swapna Mandavia's neighbor with the title of "chairman of the fine and hearing violations" committee for the west Orlando complex's homeowners association.

"The suspect, later identified as Howard Fox, approached her and told her to leave because it was after hours," according to an arrest report released Friday. "Mandavia began to leave the pier when Fox raised the gun and pointed it at Mandavia and said she was doing something illegal."

Another resident with two children then complained about a stranger openly carrying firearms. That's when Mandavia, 36, noticed that Fox, 47, was pointing the gun at her again, and she called 911 for help, the report stated.

The first officers to reach the 776-unit complex found Fox at home, where he said property managers gave him permission to enforce HOA rules. He also said he walked the grounds at night to hunt small animals with a 9mm pistol on his belt and a .40-caliber Glock short-barrel rifle over his shoulder, the report stated.

A Hamptons spokesperson could not be reached for comment Friday.

Diana Washburn, the Hamptons Community Association manager, told police Fox had the right to report and document HOA violations but was never given authority to approach people or carry a weapon while enforcing its rules and regulations, the report stated.

After Fox opened his gun safe, he gave police two pistols, the short-barrel rifle, a shotgun and a pair of "silencers," which require a special federal permits to own, the report stated. Police arrested him on charges of aggravated assault with a firearm and openly carrying a firearm.

On Friday morning, Fox was released from the Orange County Jail on $2,600 bond.



Yup - sounds like a place that I would like to live.

Howard Fox = tremendous asshole.

A person who roams around a residential complex at night armed, discharging weapons, shooting small animals, is a fucking sick and disturbed individual who belongs in jail just for that along... and that's *before* factoring in pointing guns at other residents. The longer this guy is off the streets the better.

It sounds like he won't be playing community bully anymore either. I have no problem with HOAs or neighborhood watch groups getting rid of overzealous assholes. In fact, I think they have an obligation to do that.

is legal in a certain state a home owners association can not preempt state law. Remember cities like chicago and DC got slapped for banning guns or placing severe restrictions on them by the supreme court. A HOA would be sued into oblivion.

I don't think the guns made him an asshole (although they for sure amplified it) Had he been a decent human who happened to carry gun , then no one would have known. Well, unless it was one of those open carry things. Either way, I think home owners associations (or whatever) should be able to dictate if people representing their organization can be armed while performing their duties.

I believe he was on his way home from the store. My take on this is two fools met up one night one is now dead and the other is on trial. If both of them would have done things different this probably would not have happened.

A home owners association, as much as I dislike them, with unanimous consent, could certainly ban firearms, at least on the private property in the neighborhood.

Zimmerman initially identified himself as Neighborhood Watchman but he was 100% in violation of the NW standard by being armed. Thus, not actually preforming as a NW individual...which is manipulation. I fail to recall if Z identified himself as NW with the 911 non emergency call he made when in his vehicle. I don't recall him identifying that he also was armed with a loaded gun.

zimmerman didn't identify himself as a neighborhood watch person at the most critical time. If he had said that to Martin the whole situation could have been defused.

Seems the police departments that rejected him had good reason. He couldn't think of the most pertinent info to give at a critical time.

If I was walking down the street at night and someone approached me in a hostile manner, unless they are in uniform, I'd be very skeptical of them. His job was to watch and report anything he thought was suspicious, but he wanted to play enforcer.

I mean, imagine an unarmed middle class guy in his thirties is walking through 'bad' neighborhood, and he is approached by an armed young black man who questions him for being in his 'hood'. Something happens and it leads to the unarmed middle-class guy being shot by the armed young black man. Many of the people defending Zimmerman would be yelling to have the murdering thug locked up. At least that's how I view this whole thing.

All very good points. Many zim supporters must not stop to think how the whole situation seemed to Martin — some creep continuing to follow him at night.

Seems black male teens are all thugs who can't possibly ever be afraid of anything. Those high-pitched cries on the tape are certainly not sounds that would come from a grown male.

I'd even say it wouldn't matter if Trayvon was a thug and a punk with a history, the fact is that he was not committing a crime at the time, and he wasn't armed. Nor is there any evidence to suggest he was there to commit any crimes.

identified himself to the victim as a member of the Neighborhood Watch which is the biggest problem Zimmerman faces.

to the 911 Dispatcher? If he did so...this "position" presents a different scenario to the 911 Dispatcher, wherein assuming the caller was not armed and was a reasonable, responsible caller.

This brings me then to the question; Did the Dispatcher know Zimmerman was armed and then leaving his vehicle on foot to chase the "suspect"?

I would enjoy hearing Z's 911 call again so I could piece this together better.

I am guessing this was what was played in court. I just did a quick Google for it.

https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=1042

No mention by Z to the Dispatcher that he was a Neighborhood Watch...no mention he was armed.

Selective facts and details Z avoided as it would of indeed changed the equation. He was living out his cop want-a be fantasy.....his selective disclosure show he assumed he was equal to the dispatch officer.

the person fielding the non-emergency line call that night was a volunteer - not a sworn officer.

but...Z didn't know that when he made the call. Plus, his disclosure was selective...never mentioned he was armed...which is manipulative and speaks of his arrogance as well.

and I would love for the DAs to bring that up...

to be protected from the 'neighborhood watch'.

Neighborhood watch people should not be allowed to carry. My wish is to be able to walk freely anywhere without worrying who carries and who doesn't. This won't happen, we live in a more fearful age now. I now think more carefully where I go, what time it is and who will be there. No more protests, no more anti anything on my car, tone down my rhetoric, etc. It is hard to be a Liberal I can't fight and I won't ever carry.

In one of Zimmerman's interviews with police… Det. Serino asks Zimmerman if his gun was totally concealed.

Zimmerman replied, "I mean totally concealed. I walk around Walmart all the time with it and nobody knows."

It's chilling that paranoid narcissists like Zimmerman can walk around with fully loaded yet hidden weapons.

it is required that it be totally concealed all the time and you can get fined or arrested for not having it that way. Surprisingly in many states openly carrying a sidearm is permissible, mine is one.

why do people carrying guns scare you? Do cops scare you, the military. What about people carrying fighting knives? Why do you let such a silly fear dictate when you go and when you go there. Are you also giving up your 1st Amendment Rights because of this fear. eg no protests, car stickers.

The problem with this sort of fear today is, depending on where you live, that most places have concealed carry laws in place, with thousands and thousand of people carrying concealed.

Please don't let this fear dictate you lifestyle.

but I assume cops and the military are trained in the proper use guns. Not so with Joe Blow.

I forget what the average shots fired by police when in a gunfight is, but it is a surprising large number. The military are certainly not trained in the nuances of defensive shooting. They are trained to use overwhelming firepower with automatic weapons and overwhelming force.

Just my thoughts.

but I think we have to ask the question of the amount of wrongful deaths committed by licensed concealed carry holders v the police. We know there are about 30,000 gun deaths, from all causes, in the past year. Far, far too many.

All legal gun owners would be a more fair comparison. Unless you're advocating for stricter guidelines for all gun owners? At any rate, cops are trained with guns and their guns are also registered and traceable.

At any rate, I don't have time to look for stats to bolster your opinions but I can look for more info later.

It's because anyone who would carry a gun to go to the supermarket is a fucking idiot.
A paranoid, anti-social whack-a-doodle.
A freak who does not belong in polite society, but in a mental institution being watched closely by the men and women in white coats.

There ya go...

Your answer sounds like that coming from an irrational, hopeless, hoplophobe. Secondly, and I'm sure you realize it, you are calling thousands and thousands and thousands of people paranoid, anti-social and whack-a-doodle. Do you really mean to do so? If that is the case, how do you dare to even leave your house?

Serious questions on my part.

There ya go...

Sorry but I agree with them. Irrational? Why do you need a gun at the grocery store? Is there a rational reason for a citizen to need one there? Hopeless? Um, at least try to make a logical argument.

I think there are a lot of paranoid whack-a-doodles in he world. But I'm NOT paranoid therefore I can go out into the world-unarmed.

Also, I know stores such as Walmart have no guns signs on their doors. I'm not sure but I think their rules on their private property trump Zimmerman's concealed carry. So was he breaking the law then or is it different in Florida?

I never called anyone a name. Hopolophobe is a term describing a person with a certain kind of paranoia or irrational fear.

Now I would be very, very surprised to see a Wal-Mart store with a no gun policy. Certainly none in the SW to my knowledge.

And most stores, schools and pretty much most buildings have no gun signs posted on all doors since concealed carry passed here.

Oh and paranoid, hopeless whatever is name-calling. I didn't alert it but I'm just letting you know since you're fairly new. A lot of people do it anyway, but that doesn't make it right.

it might vary widly from region to region. In fact there is a lot of open carry here and no one thinks much of it.

Re the name calling, I simply don't see why hoplophobe, a psychological term is worse than calling a whole class of people paranoid wack-a-doodles, so you may, to be fair would have to alerted on both of us.

In my area are LEOs. Of course I'm in NE Ohio near Cleveland and southern part of the state may be different.

I'm not comfortable with a bunch of people carrying guns around me and my family. I don't know them and have no idea of their intentions with their deadly weapons. It's beyond me why anyone would feel the need to carry a gun everywhere. There's an irony that you'd consider me the paranoid one!

Yes, both could be alerted but unless its patently racist or over the top, describing a group probably won't be voted down. Idk what a jury would say, but your psychological term is still name-calling imo and you directed it at 1 poster specifically as well as paranoid and hopeless (still don't get that one? Lol)

are the paranoid one I was referriing to. I find your attitude and discomfort very understandable and reasonable for someone not around guns much. StPat.. not so much.

I live in NM where shooting sports, huntung and guns are practicly a way of life even though it is a very blue state. I hope people like you and I can have respectful discussions without the all the name calling and hyperbole.

I'm sure you realize that guns are not going away and it is important we find ways that borhs sides of the issue can luve with.

Best regards.

I was raised in the snow belt in Ohio and left in 1969. I have absolutely no regrets. People in Ohio often look forward to a two week vacation in Florida to escape the snow. I live here.

I will agree that there is a lot of name calling here on DU. I strongly support gun rights and concealed carry and over the years have been called many names. I have never alerted on an insult and have no intention to ever do so. I actually compliment those who come up with original ways to insult me.

I legally carry a firearm on a regular basis. I have often carried one in a grocery store.

I usually stop at a number of places when I leave the house and the grocery store may be the last. At every stop I have to make a decision. Do I legally carry my firearm inside the establishment or do I leave it in my vehicle.

If I decide to leave it in the car, I have to pull it out of its holster and place it in the glove box. A firearm in a proper quality holster is safe but there is an increased chance that it may discharge if I do something stupid while drawing it or holstering it. Leaving it in the car might lead to my weapon being stolen by a thief who might misuse it or sell it to a violent individual.

Therefore I carry my handgun everywhere it is legal when I leave the house. I leave it in the car if I go into a restricted area or simply leave it at home if I plan to go to such an area.

There is also a factor that you may not have considered. Obviously a super market or a large box store such as a Walmart or a BestBuy are safe areas. Parking lots often are not and parking lot crime is common. In order to reach the safety of the store I have walk through the parking lot. Parking lots are statistically the most dangerous part of shopping.

I am curious as to why one would choose to carry a weapon while running normal errands. I can't think of a time ever where I would have wished that I was armed. I can think of situations where it would make sense to be armed, such as a job requiring one to transport large sums of cash or valuables.

When the right wing turned Minnesota into a "Shall issue" state (they have to issue a permit, unless valid reason not can be found), almost all businesses and buildings put up signs saying that guns were not permitted on the premises. It would be almost impossible to legally complete a Saturday shopping run to handful of stores while carrying the entire time. I'm certain that may not be the case everywhere.

I don't know, maybe Minnesota criminals are nice. When I read the crime reports, it's mostly simple theft of unattended belongs. Occasional burglary (breaking and entering) , almost never robbery (theft from a person, with violence or threat).

went downhill. Clerks were murdered during robberies in several stores within walking distance of my home including a Subway restaurant and a gas station. There was a drive-by shooting two houses from mine but fortunately no one was injured.

I broke up a robbery at my neighbor's house which may have been one of my more stupid moments as there were four guys involved and I ran across the street yelling at the top of my voice and scared them off. They were busy stealing my neighbor's gun collection and when I pulled my Geronimo tactic, one guy attempted to chamber a round into a .45 automatic pistol which he had stolen from the home but the round stovepiped. I was unarmed as I realized that had I grabbed a gun and shot one of the robbers, I might have been in a world of shit

My wife had woke me up as I was working the graveyard shift to tell me that these guys were climbing through the side window in m neighbor's house and I told her to call the police as I ran out the door. The police knew right off who the bad guys were and the one that was not a juvenile ended up arrested and spending a couple of years in jail. My neighbor did make me a great steak dinner for my efforts.

Several years later while I was at work a guy attempted to force the sliding glass door of our home open and attack my daughter despite the fact that a burglar alarm was sounding. She pointed a large caliber revolver at him and he ran.

It wasn't uncommon to see police with firearms drawn chasing a suspect in my neighborhood as I witnessed this several times.

I had been shooting handguns for over 25 years on a weekly basis when I finally decided that it might be a good idea to either move or to start carrying a concealed handgun. My house was close to being paid off and to move to a much better neighborhood would have meant that I would have to take on a new mortgage. I decided to stay.

I could add more but you probably get the picture. If I had lived in a nice neighborhood, I probably would have never bothered to get a carry permit.

I finally retired and moved to a more rural town in north Florida. Still my old habits remain and while I don't always carry my snub nosed revolver, I often do especially if I plan a number of stops at locations outside of my town.

Even here there are some dangers. I was walking my daughters dog one day when I was approached by a thin guy with bad limp who panhandled me for a buck or two. He set off my alarm which usually panhandlers do not. I laughed and politely told him that I was walking a dog and didn't have my wallet or any money on me. All ended peacefully.

When I described this individual to a cop who was rooming with us at the time he said, "You just ran into Jack. He has a serious drug problem and usually ends up in jail for petty theft but he has been known to mug elderly citizens. Don't let that limp fool you. He runs like the wind when we chase him. He just got out but will probably end up back in prison in the next couple of months." The cop was right but I'm not sure what Jack was arrested for.

I would imagine that it is difficult for a person who lives in Minnesota to understand what it is like to live in a crime ridden area like I did in Tampa. You might imagine that I lived in fear but that would not be accurate. I simply adapted to my environment and found ways to be prepared to react to any threat. For example I have had some martial arts training but I realize that it can have serious limitations when facing an attacker armed with a knife or gun.

The best way to avoid getting hurt in a fight is to not be in one which is why I practice situational awareness. The first rule of winning a gun fight when you can't avoid it is to have a gun. If attacked by a knife fighter, the wise man has a gun and a knife as a backup.

You may not understand where I am coming from and that is fine. People and their life experiences differ. If you moved to my old neighborhood you might still feel that there was absolutely no need to carry a handgun and you might never have a reason to do so. If the shit hit the fan you might regret that decision or you might survive and still feel the same way. I simply prefer to be prepared and to be able to use a level of force necessary to attempt to stop an attack that would be appropriate to the situation if I chose to use it.

Don't misinterpret what I just said. Let's suppose I was walking down a street tomorrow and a guy walked up to me with a gun or a knife and said, "Give me your wallet!" I would appraise him and if I honestly felt that all he wanted was my wallet, i would simply give it to him. I can always replace my money, my ID and my credit cards. I can't replace my health or my life as easily. However if I felt the guy was planning to hurt or kill me even if I did give him my wallet or if he attacked me after I did, i would attempt to use my snub nosed revolver to stop his attack.

...thousands and thousands and thousands of people paranoid, anti-social whack-a-doodles.
Millions even.
And yes, I really mean to say that.

I leave my house all the time.
I live one block from "the ghetto."
I have never once felt a need to be armed.
Ever.

If someone is a member of a well-regulated militia, I have no problem with them walking around armed.
But to go to the supermarket?
Whack. A. Doodles.

answer. It helps me to understand and I really do appreciate it!

is your personal opinion wrapped around your personal bias. Millions of people CC daily, hasn't been a problem yet, if it were, you would see state after state repealing CC laws.
How many states are considering that? Even the last holdout, IL, is set to become a Shall Issue state.

There are nice decent people who have legitimate safety concerns that might warrant them carrying a firearm. Take a woman (or man) who escaped an abusive lover who will not leave them alone. There are many other situations in which a person may have a legitimate concern about their personal safety because of their job (prosecutor or judge or someone who had to fire a lot of people)

I look suspiciously at people who just carry their guns around for the sake of carrying their guns around though. I wouldn't go as far as you go in saying they need to be locked up, but I do try to avoid being around such people. Although, the ones I avoid are the ones who have to make it known they are armed and talk about their guns a lot... That's a red flag to me.

to a mental institution interesting. Perhaps you are right. Let's assume that you are.

Currently there are 1,115,981 individuals who have a valid Florida concealed weapons permit, 140,166 of which are not Florida residents. (Sources: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_active.pdf

Obviously not all people with carry permits carry their weapon on a regular basis but a significant percentage do -- lets assume 10%. That would mean that if you had your way approximately 100,000 Florida residents should be sent to a mental institution for the rest of their life to be carefully watched by men and women in white coats.

The cost of our idea would be enormous and since it is extremely rare for an individual who is licensed to carry a firearm to commit a crime with their weapon your idea would not be as cost effective as using the money to arrest and take those who illegally carry deadly weapons off the street. Florida passed "shall issue" concealed carry in 1987 and in the 26 years since only 168 licenses have been revoked for a crime involving the use of a firearm after the license was issued.
(Source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf)

It's easy to assume after reading the main stream news that Florida is the new Wild West and people are being murdered on a daily basis by people with carry permits. Fortunately that would be false.

I'm happy for you...

I found the suggestion of putting those who legally carry in a super market in a mental institution for life reminded me of using a shotgun to kill a mosquito.

Let's take it back to first principles. What fears cause people to feel the need to carry firearms? I believe much of the US is devoid of deadly wildlife (exceptions, of course, in some rural areas). It's not wilderness where a bear, wolf or cougar might jump out at any moment. We mostly get our food from stores so we are not hunting the urban landscape. We have not had a foreign attack on the continental US where handguns would have had any effect in over a century.

So what drives the fear that requires being armed? Only thing that I can think off is someone else that has a weapon. I'd have to guess those that carry are letting fear dictate their lifestyle.

That may be because often they have criminal records and sometimes a history of violent crime.

Maybe when enough HOAs realise they can't keep yahoos from shooting people or intimidating folks with their guns, we'll see some action.

A good guy with a gun could have prevented this.

For further reading...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Wannabe owner. Wannabe cop. Wannabe MMA athlete. And now the true owners in the community have to pay up!

To answer your question, the first step, I'd assume, would be to only allow owners to participate in the program (assuming any are left).

He wasn't even an owner. Just shows he had an agenda and it played out that night.

No wonder the HOA had to settle.

I'm a renter. Never in my life would I ever be able to afford my own house. There's nothing wrong with being a renter rather than a home owner. Just because you don't own the home you live in doesn't make you any less worthy of the same safety that people who DO own their homes are entitled to, nor should it exempt them from participating in Neighborhood Watch since us renters are just as much community members as home owners, and some of us stick around longer than a lot of home owners.

On my street which is half owner occupied with the other half being renters, it's the renters that are more careful of their behavior, how they take care of the rental property, how they get along with their neighbors, etc. because as a renter you can be booted out of the house at any time and for just such issues. Landlords don't WANT tenants that have problems with the neighbors, don't keep the property immaculate, and tenants are basically at their mercy as to whether or not the landlord is willing to keep them as a tenant. As a renter you have to work a hell of a lot harder at being a good neighbor than a home owner does since us renters are subject to losing our ability to live in the home while home owners have the safety of being the home owner so that they don't have to worry about whether or not they're a good neighbor, whether they let their home go to rack and ruin, etc. for the simple reason that because they own the home nobody can kick them out. Renters also pay the same as owners in taxes since that amount is calculated into the rental charge.

Shame on you for disparaging renters! It's horribly offensive and damned bigoted.

He can walk away and go rent someplace else, but heaven help someone in that neighborhood who tries to put their house on the market before all lawsuits are settled.

Thats why it matters - not because he wasn't a good tenant.

And you can bet your bippy that the moment this happened that landlords of the properties there raised the rents in anticipation of their property value going down.

But what does that have to do with a renter not being allowed to participate in neighborhood watch? Do they not also live there with the same safety concerns as any of the home owners? The renters are already exempt from being able to participate in the home owners association and can't have any input in what it decides. If I rented one of those homes I would have no ability to complain about the manner in which it was decided who was going to be part of neighborhood watch or how they acted, but the home owners DID. Except those home owners weren't concerned about what the association was doing when Zimmerman was appointed or the manner in which he would exercise whatever he believed his duties were when THEY had the opportunity to. Shame on the home owners for not participating in what was going on with the association where they lived when they COULD and not being concerned about how the neighborhood watch was being conducted and how Zimmerman was appointed the head of it. If their property values went down because of what happened the home owners are partially responsible because they COULD have participated in what the association was doing but didn't bother.

There's nothing about being a renter that should exempt someone from participating in neighborhood watch and nothing about being a renter that makes one any less concerned about their safety where they live.

Oh, and how did there even get to be renters in the neighborhood in the first place? Because home OWNERS decided to rent their property to make money off of instead of living there themselves.

With so much to criticize Zimmerman over the fact that he was a renter rather than an owner is the last thing. Everything else about him aside, the fact that he was a renter had and should not have had one single iota of concern about his being a part of neighborhood watch, and as a community member with the same safety concerns as anyone else that lived in the neighborhood whether owner or renter.

I'm a renter and part of my street's neighborhood watch. In fact were it not for a few renters here there would BE no neighborhood watch at all since the home owners are either unconcerned or the very problem it's needed at all. Should we seriously not have been ALLOWED to have a neighborhood watch here just because we're renters??? Because that's EXACTLY what the post I was responding to was saying.

and why I refuse to live where a HOA or COA is in effect. I have heard too many horror stories of little Adolphs running the boards, not to mention potentially being financially responsible for the actions of someone like GZ.

I looked into a condo once a few years back, and the realtor who owned the building sent me the 330 page COA in email. It was eye opening to say the least...

I'll take back the part about excluding non-owners from the NW... but my point is that Zimmerman didn't have the liability that the owners had. His actions were completely over the top and didn't match up with the actual situation. His neighborhood was not experiencing the crime wave that he thought it was, as confirmed by the police witnesses and the fact that most people kept their lights off at night.

because the landlord can kick him out. Home owners enjoy the luxury of not having to worry about how they act or how well they keep up their property. Because they own it they aren't subjected to a landlord with the sole discretion of whether or not they can remain a tenant. It's the single thing I despise about being a renter. Everything you do or don't do is subject to scrutiny by the landlord who has sole discretion on whether or not they want to keep you as a tenant. There's no question whatsoever that a renter has to work MUCH harder than a home owner in how they keep up the property and how they act as a neighbor.

And yes, Zimmerman has the same liability as a home owner. That's why renters carry tenant insurance. I as a renter have to follow the same rules as any home owner as far as keeping the property safe (shoveling snow off walkways, reporting to the landlord or repairing any unsafe conditions myself, etc.

How on earth did you think your post disparaging renters came off??? Just delete it. It's offensive and bigoted.

You read WAY more into my comment than what was stated. For the record, I regret my decision to become a homeowner. At some point, I'll get rid of this place and rent because I have no desire to own again anytime soon. Owning has been a nightmare from start to finish. From being stuck here due to the housing collapse, to having to replace a 9 year old HVAC system which became defective 5 years in, to the HOA van stalking the neighborhood looking for potential infractions to fine us with. The only thing that would make this nightmare even worse would be if a Zimmerman type killed a child and caused me to lose even more money on this underwater home.

All gun nuts are potential Zimmermans, and all people could become gun nuts.

Thus, we have a cultural problem, a psychological and social problem, and the appropriate measures to take need to address the underlying causes of gun nuttiness.

Would help.

Zero tolerance in middle school if a kid uses his index finger as a gun, but somehow we lock up pot-possessors for longer terms than violent criminals with guns.

Zimmerman wasn't even a member of the Neighborhood Watch, which is just that: a *watch* program that doesn't allow its members to patrol while armed. That, IMO, renders your question moot, unless there are programs which do allow patrolling while armed, that is.

What if said HOA effectively endorsed said self-appointed watch "captain"?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/09/zimmermans-homeowners-association-could-owe-millions-in-martin-case/

then I'd say the HOA is on the hook for millions. First I've seen of this.

But nobody is officially disclosing what the actual settlement was.

participate in annual election of directors, and attend and watch the board meetings so you know what the Directors are doing.

If the association has a website request that all minutes of regular and special Board meetings and minutes of annual and special Association meetings be posted online. If not, homeowners should request a copy of the minutes from the Board secretary. If you find that they (or individual board members) are conducting HOA business outside of the meetings and not recording it send a registered letter to the President and Secretary of the Board asking for all correspondence, contracts, and phone logs.

imo The Board of Directors (on everyone's behalf) should only embrace a policy of calling 911. That should be the clearly stated policy for the watchers. Otherwise the board is sanctioning physical harm, harassment or murder on behalf of all the homeowners.

It seems to me that some of the Directors in Trayvon's community also needed a psych evaluation.

a HOA before you buy? That would prevent a lot of horrible surprises later.

You need to know how well a Neighborhood Association is run, the history of the fees, and I good idea of the financial status of the subdivision you are moving into.

fighting there is, and if they freak because your petunias were supposed to be pink! Finances could look great on paper, but if the place is a verbal war zone....

This poor couple bought a home in one of the "historic districts." This house had been empty for some time and needed a lot of work done on it. The couple began the work (obvious to everyone in the neighborhood) and did a lot to renovate it and make it look great. The neighbors waited until after the couple started putting new windows in to file a complaint that the windows were not the approved kind that fit in with the neighborhood. They sat back and waited before they spoke up. Windows are not cheap. The couple went before the city counsel to ask for a waiver. They had no idea that the windows were not the "approved" kind and would have been more then happy to adjust the windows if someone had told them ahead of time and not waited until a lot of the new windows were already installed. There were 2 women on the counsel who showed no mercy and wanted to force the couple to take out the new windows and install the correct ones. The rest of the counsel were men who were willing to cut them some slack and give them a one time only waiver. I felt for the couple and thought that the two women were total b*tches!

The mayor in the men on the counsel understood that it was not an intentional violation. Them women could have cared less, a violation was a violation.

Historic Districts are a whole other kettle of fish.

In states that require that a closing be done by an attorney this would have definitely been a subject of conversation. In Oklahoma closings are not done by attorneys although the couple still should have been advised by their sales agent.

Of what just the the slightest amount of authority, and self importance can do to some people. Regarded as policies to keep a consistent look ie property values, HOA I think are often abused to create a more socially/economically uniform community,.... by an elected body. huh........Kinda like city planning.

Not all real estate agents are as anxious to fully disclose rules of an HOA, or escarpment plans as they are to sell the property.

Ask your Sales Agent for a copy of the Articles of Incorporation and Declaration. This is public record in most states.

Ask the Seller for a copy of the By-Laws. Sometimes they are also public record.

Ask the Seller for copies of all correspondence and copies of annual and special meeting minutes for the past 3 years.

Ask Seller for copy of the budget. Also, ask for details of any special assessments for past 5 years.

Note: Watch for line item in budget for "security".

Determine the exact (legal) description of shared-interest in said community. Sales agent often do not have a clue...

If the Seller can not provide the above items that should be a red flag. If the Board is not providing info to the Owner/Seller on a regular basis they are functioning behind closed doors. A lack of transparency should be a deal breaker.

Not in a position to buy anything, but thanks for the info.

My mother bought a condo in her later years in life. She didn't get around that much so I attended the pre-annual meeting for her. I was the only person to show and and talk to the condo board. I talked to them for 2 hours and learned anything and everything you could ever learn about that development. I was rather horrified by what I learned and came away thinking that the complex was not managed all that well. Subsequent events bore out by assessment.

Another thing to take into account when purchasing a home with HOA fees - the presence of tennis courts and pools.

Thanks D!

for his actions taken in the course of his duties for them? So then you're saying that by Zimmy executing that document, a homeowner (or guest of that homeowner) would have no recourse in civil court?

I don't think that's remotely correct.

What can homeowners do to protect themselves from a future event like this? I don't know. This is a world without perfection, and I'm more "afraid" of what my govt is currently doing than I am of someone, walking somewhere with a gun. Besides, here in Tampa, I'm far more likely to get gunned down in traffic, according to the local news.

your HA is doing and who they are empowering for stuff like a Neighborhood Watch group. After the Zimmerman case and the recent incident in Orlando I think you also need to know something about the members of your NW.

What is interesting about the Zimmerman case is that, of all the homeowners who have testified thus far, I believe only one might have actually known who Zimmerman was. And this guy was supposed to be this big hot shot head of the NW? He was a big wig only in his own mind.

The watch people are working on their behalf.

I'm more afraid of being gunned down. Dead is ... you know, dead.

Zim was working for or on behalf of, with their knowledge and agreement, the homeowners' association, that there should be significant liability if he's convicted or if they (Treyvon's family, etc) can prove outside of that conviction that he acted maliciously.

then the HOA is responsible.

Thus they knowingly embraced a giant (probably un-insurable) liability for the corporation known as the owners association.

a pretty good idea, actually, for all that I've been coming up with different scenarios to explain what some say don't make sense about the "facts" and his story.

No guns.

But...in the interests of NW volunteers being able to protect themselves, I do think that tasers...or at the very least...pepper spray...should be allowed.

to have anything. They are supposed to "watch". Not stalk, harass or taze. They should call the police, and that's it.

As it stands, they are there to watch, as the name implies.

From behind the safety of their living room curtains?

Or out on the street?

In any case, I have no problem with people deciding for themselves what form of protection (or not) they wish to have while doing that.

But I do have a problem with others deciding what non-lethal protection someone else does, or does not, need.

to stalk, but there are people out there who, without reason, would think they're being stalked.

Just like there are people here who think that.

And just like there are people here who misunderstand someone's statements and come out (verbally) fighting.

Lots of angry, messed up people out there who would punch you in the face just for looking at them "the wrong way".

I'm going to assume they are up to no-good. They will then get a face full of pepper spray, and I'm calling the cops.

Because there are lots of trigger happy shit heads out there. I have a right to protect myself too, so maybe I should shoot first.

Non-lethal protection.

Taser or pepper spray.

They are supposed to WATCH. Not taze. Not spray. They are NOT cops, they have no authority.

If I want somebody that can actually DO something, I would speak to the local police department. Then the neighborhood could have an actual police officer, rather than an untrained yahoo on the loose with a tazer.


edit to add - In my post 64, when I said that I would pepper spray them - I was speaking as the person being followed. If I'm scared, I'm not waiting for the damn mall cop to say shit to me. Pssssst...goes the pepper spray and off I go, calling the police on the mall cop.

We don't need to go digging through medical records we need to have more understanding of what's going on when people who are inclined to own guns are also inclined to use them.

Our culture has come to a point where advocates for guns ownership is practically sub-culture.
I have noticed that are intellectual, truly fearful defenders, and advocates on a scale of mild to extreme.
I was talking to a guy who said he hated driving in the city but wouldn't mind so much if he had an AK47 mounted on his truck.
Obviously such incidents would not equal a diagnosis. But, if the same person talked about wanting to shoot the mailman, their boss, the cashier and everyone in front of them in a long line....
Suppose that if that person were arrested for a violent crime- domestic abuse or any other violent episode they were evaluated for their attitudes about guns within a basic questionnaire?
Would it be possible to do something like that without being too intrusive? Maybe a short evaluation on an application to be on a neighborhood watch?

Watch means just that - watch. A trigger happy asshole would probably get around it. Ridiculous amounts of evaluations for volunteers is too intrusive. People would be better off without a watch. If you see something, call the cops.

Do you own a gun? Yes

Have you taken a firearms class? Yes

Do you think you were well trained? yes

Have you encountered a situation where you fired it?

Have you ever just thought you might need to fire it?
Yes when I thought someone was trying to break into my house.

At what point during that incident would you have used your gun?

How was it resolved? Showed him my gun and he retreated.

Do you expect to use your gun at some point in your life either to scare or injure someone? Probably.

How often do you think a person who owns a gun could have interrupted or prevented crimes? At least 50%

Someone who thinks they are absolutely right on this issue might not get around it if they believe that everyone agrees with them. If they are presented with rules that say NW members don't carry guns but come off as eager to use one on the application, they may not be the best candidate.

They would be shit out of luck if they answered 'yes' to the first question. And even then, they could lie their asses off about all of it.

or how they are scored. If there are rules are against carrying gun, ownership would not necessarily rule that person out. It's when you dig in to learn about whether they expect to use a gun in over the course of ordinary life.

for what amounts to a mall cop.

I would rather have no neighborhood watch, and if I see something call an actual cop.

in a way they think is LEGAL has joined a neighborhood watch? I would think it would be possible for people who want to have a neighborhood watch to do so. And, if someone want to call the cops if something is wrong they could.

On a regular basis there are drunk teenagers all hours of the night, fights for entertainment, vandalism to property in the park. When it is readily apparent what is going on I call the police who employs a conservation like catch and release program. Living in a small town I have reported this to the Chief of Police, City Council and Mayor with no relief. I have had some spill over and had lawn furniture stolen off my porch. The last thing that ever crosses my mind even though shooting is one of my hobbies, is any kind of firearm or for that matter club. Violate the inside of my home or garage is another matter. Even then the last and only home intruder was a six year old (from the park) who was eating a bowl of Cool Whip from our refrigerator on our porch confrontation just is not an issue with me.

Mr. Zimmerman was looking for a fight he got one and I consider that murder.

and you didn't shoot him?

He set it up and several people attended the initial meeting, but within a few weeks he was the only member.

At least that's what I remember reading last year.

That was one of his 911 calls. Suspicious person standing OUTSIDE Kohl's. Little secret there, Georgie. Kohl's, and all major retail chains, have their OWN, undercover Security.

He wasn't a Neighbor Watch. He was a wanna be COP and thought it was his right to patrol, along with his gun, ANYWHERE he went.

I suppose it was the Defense who didn't want those 911 calls in as evidence to his vigilante, wanna be cop, mindset.

I remember you posting those documents.

A guy outside a store, eating a Slim Jim!!!11 RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!111


Zimmy is a fucking menace.

in any suit filed by Martin's family. And if Zimmerman gets found guilty I would sue for civil rights violations first and then go after them for actual death. Also the elected prosecuting attorney of that county should be recalled or impeached for negligence.

on a wrongful death lawsuit.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/05/us/florida-martin-settlement

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/trayvon-martin-wrongful-death-suit_n_3022300.html