Should neighborhood watch associations be illegal?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You could do sort of a RICO thing against them. Maybe if a member of one kills someone while on duty every single member of the association is tried as an accessory to murder.

Similar to my idea for fraternities, where if there's any abusive hazing activities, every single member of the frat gets expelled. It doesn't matter if they were present at the hazing or even had knowledge of it. Of course I'd just prefer colleges completely ban fraternities full stop but if they're not going to do that...

[bedstuy]

You could do sort of a RICO thing against them. Maybe if a member of one kills someone while on duty every single member of the association is tried as an accessory to murder.

Similar to my idea for fraternities, where if there's any abusive hazing activities, every single member of the frat gets expelled. It doesn't matter if they were present at the hazing or even had knowledge of it. Of course I'd just prefer colleges completely ban fraternities full stop but if they're not going to do that...

Aside from George Zimmerman, can you name one instance of a neighborhood watch member killing someone?  Do you actually think this is a systemic problem on the level of gang violence?

[barfbag]

No it's covered by the first amendment along with freedom of the press.

[Torie]

Moot point, because as noted, any such law would be as unConstitutional as hell.

[dead0man]

It's good to see BRTD still wants to ban everything he doesn't like, just like a good suburbanite!

[traininthedistance]

It's good to see BRTD still wants to ban everything he doesn't like, just like a good suburbanite! member of a neighborhood watch association, HOA, co-op board, etc.!

We basically have a neighborhood watch on my block in Brooklyn.  It actually does help to stop crime.  Instead of a few anonymous vigilantes, it's a bunch of old ladies that know all the trouble-makers.  They're not going to go and confront people they don't know, of course.  But, they might talk to someone's family or parents.

Maybe if you live in the suburbs, that's not necessary.  But, if you live in an area that's had a crime problem, I think the right kind of informal groups are really helpful.

I don't know if there's a Whittier Neighborhood Watch, but I don't see how it'd work, and Whittier is most certainly not a low crime or suburban neighborhood. The problem is defining "suspicious behavior". If I called went around the neighborhood looking for people who looked odd or I didn't recognize and called 911 on every single one of them I'd be calling 911 every time I left my apartment, and would probably make multiple calls walking around one block. Like train noted, it's just for busybodies with too much time on their hands, and actually seems more likely to happen in a suburban area (like where George Zimmerman was.) Especially if Zimmerman's standard for "suspicious behavior" is used.

Now simply calling 911 if you witness an actual crime or emergency (I have more than once upon hearing audible gunshots) is not something that you need an official "neighborhood watch" group for, and I know if I was a criminal those "If I don't call the police my neighbor will" signs I see in some neighborhoods would not scare or deter me. The whole thing seems similar to someone who believes the reason their neighborhood hasn't had any tiger attacks is the magic rock they carry that keeps tigers away.

My neighborhood probably has ten times the population density of your neighborhood.  As far as I'm concerned, most of the Twin Cities feels suburban.  

But, you're missing the point.  People on my block know who has had a drug problem in the past, who is a knucklehead and so on.  So, the knuckleheads know that someone is going to see them selling drugs on the corner or sawing off an architectural elements off a brownstone, and they're going to get caught or at least found out.  So, they sell drugs and saw off an architectural elements on other blocks.

What you're describing sounds more like that informal network of "eyes on the street" that Jane Jacobs talked about, and less like formal neighborhood watch associations as they're commonly understood.  Which is all to the good, and I certainly approve of civic-minded grannies trying to keep their troublemakers in line.  But I don't think that it's the sort of thing that would really work in any suburban development (the density and street design are both way too inadequate), and I guess I can't be that thrilled if they're merely externalizing the knucklehead problem onto adjoining blocks, rather than neutralizing it entirely.

[opebo]

as I said in the other thread, for better or worse, both gangs and their white petit-bourgeois incarnation, neighborhood watch associations, can't be banned pursuant to the right of free association in the first amendment, as I understand it.

Can't one get round that by simply calling them 'terrorists'?

[© tweed]

as I said in the other thread, for better or worse, both gangs and their white petit-bourgeois incarnation, neighborhood watch associations, can't be banned pursuant to the right of free association in the first amendment, as I understand it.

Can't one get round that by simply calling them 'terrorists'?

I'm not sure how easy that is for domestic organizations.  foreign neighborhood watch associations, sure.  and in 10-20 years, maybe less if we have another large-scale 'terrorist attack', there will be no law left at all.