“Gun violence” and the Zimmerman case
Post-Zimmerman-acquittal, we are hearing extremely predictable cries from President Obama and the liberal world that the case should be used to motivate a continued fight against “gun violence.”
But the only gun violence demonstrated here was the right to use one in bona fide self defense when suddenly attacked and overpowered and in fear for one’s life. Of course, facts like that have never mattered to many of those with an anti-gun agenda. They will bend the facts to their needs.
And believe me, those same liberals, especially if they are public figures themselves, will retain their own right to either own guns for self-defense or to hire security guards who carry them. It’s only poor peons (half-white-half-Hispanic-peons?) like George Zimmerman who shouldn’t be allowed to do so. He would have been more of hero to them, no doubt, if Trayvon Martin had beaten his head long enough to kill him or to cause brain damage—although actually, if that had happened, Zimmerman’s plight would almost certainly have been ignored by those same liberals.
The only person in the Zimmerman-Martin duo who appears to have been enamored of guns and their potential for violence may have actually been Martin, although he did not carry one at the time of the killing. Why do I say that? For this reason:
Don’t sit on a hot stove till the antigun crowd spotlights that.
[NOTE: The above video should start playing at minute 23:16. If for some reason it won’t play properly for you (every now and then it wouldn’t play for me), just go to You Tube and start watching it there at 23:16.]
Neo,
I think this case, in addition to the race hucksters getting new grist, was also grist for the anti 2nd amendment types. If GZ weren’t acquitted, people would think twice about defending themselves. And even though GZ was acquitted, people who carry firearms will now think twice about using it.
This carries an added benefit for the gun grabbers.
Prediction: Hundreds (if not thousands) of neighborhood watch programs will be terminated/dismantled as a result of this case and there will be a movement (initiated by the insurance companies) to effectively ban the carrying of guns by neighborhood watch volunteers.
The gun control goons are ever-ready with their playbook…
You’re assuming it has been proven that Martin did attack Zimmerman “suddenly”. It seems to me the prosecution case was weak but that doesn’t mean the opposite was proven — that Zimmerman did nothing to provoke Martin at all. Zimmerman had a gun, was playing cop, was following a “suspicious” kid who wasn’t doing anything wrong, as he had done numerous times in the past, and the end result was one teenager dead who should be alive. Whether the proximate cause of the gunshot was Trayvon attacking Zimmerman or whether Zimmerman provoken Trayvon, there is a lot of blame to place on Zimmerman, armed “neighborhood watcher”, even just from the facts not in dispute.
provoked
Mitsu – it doesn’t matter. You don’t prove a negative. You weigh the evidence that does exist, and you base your decision to convict on that evidence.
You start with a bunch of items that you assume to be facts, but have no basis in the evidence: “was playing cop”, “wasn’t doing anything wrong”. From there, you skip the entire event in between, and then jump to “one teenager dead who should be alive”.
This is not how a jury trial works. You can’t convict based on what you think should have happened; you can only convict based on the evidence you have.
Because you wish something to be true, doesn’t make it true, no matter how many times you tell yourself it is.
Do you want Chicago as your neighborhood? Detroit? Pittsburgh?
No. Of course not.
When ordinary citizens give way before the hooded crowd, expect exactly that kind of neighborhood.
In rich, gated, security patrolled complexes, even in Chicago, a person feels safe in their person and property. The police didn’t provide that. Money did by building walls and gates and paying for alarms, cameras and security officers.
Why should only the rich get that protection? In less wealthy places, shouldn’t the people have the right to be free from burglary and mugging?
You see here the fundamental difference between Obama and Reagan. Obama believes the State provides everything, including your right to life, liberty and property. Reagan, of course, knew exactly what secured those rights: an armed populace.
But as Neo states, don’t wait on a hot stove waiting for the Left to acknowledge the facts of gun control.
>that is not how a jury trial works
Obviously. Did I say any different? Much as I think there’s blame to place on Zimmerman, I think the jury verdict was probably correct, based on the evidence we had. This isn’t to say they proven Zimmerman was innocent, they just didn’t prove he was guilty.
>gated, security patrolled
New York City (where I live) is currently the safest large city in the country. I live in a poor neighborhood that used to be rife with crime. Improved policing methods have worked here. Among them: putting cops where the crime happens (amazingly, this wasn’t done before). Putting more detectives in high crime neighborhoods (ditto), and moving them out of low crime neighborhoods. Rotating police captains to reduce the possibility of corruption. Community policing. Many more beat cops on the streets. Cracking down on street dealing (to eliminate the turf wars that used to contribute so much to the violence).
Zimmerman wasn’t making his neighborhood safer. He called the police 46 times over 6 years and never caught a real criminal. He was a wannabe cop doing something he shouldn’t have been doing, he didn’t have training or temperament to do safely, and a teenager is dead. Yes, he probably should have been found not guilty, given the lack of solid evidence. But he’s certainly not free from all blame.
Zimmerman was just doing as Obama told him to do when he was elected.
When someone brings his fists or knife to a fight, you bring a gun. That’s what Zimmerman did. And that’s what Mitsu’s ally, Obama, told him to do.
So what’s the problem? Obama now tells us we can’t bring a gun to his rock fight?
I wonder how much Mitsu will take responsibility for his part in promoting a dictator to the throne and all the foreigners and Americans killed by that guy since.
How much Blood is on that guy’s hands anyways? How much of a sinner is allowed to judge another person in court anyways?
Ymarkasar I really can’t understand what you’re trying to say there. Is “a dictator” supposed to be Obama? Or are you talking about something that happened overseas? I just can’t follow you, you’re writing in some private code.
It seems to me the prosecution case was weak but that doesn’t mean the opposite was proven – that Zimmerman did nothing to provoke Martin at all
Actually, the witness’ testimony (and the medical testimony) does say that. All evidence points to Zimmerman following Martin, Zimmerman not finding Martin, turning back to his car, and getting jumped by Martin near his car.
If you have some evidence that points in a different direction, I’m all ears. But it certainly didn’t come up in the trial.
Mitsu:
How does it feel to be a parrot?
Zimmerman was not a “wannabe cop.” He was a member of neighborhood watch, highly valued and respected in the community and by his neighbors. He had been doing this for a long time and had never had any violent encounters with anyone. The number of calls you mention he made in six years turns out to have been an average of 7.5 per year. In a fairly high-crime neighborhood such as his, that seems rather low to me. He “followed” Martin only long enough to get a bead on him and report him to police. He stopped “following” him when it was suggested he do so, and waited for the police to arrive.
Who knows whether other crimes had been stopped in the past because people saw the patrolling of the neighborhood and ran away? You haven’t a clue, but that doesn’t stop you from making statements about it. Who knows how many people he (or others) had called the police on, where the police arrived too late to stop a crime? Who knows how many criminals avoided that neighborhood because they knew there was an active neighborhood watch? Certainly not you.
Time for you to do some thinking outside the MSM box.
This is slightly OT, but I wonder if anyone has an opinion about whether Holder will actually bring federal hate crime charges against Zimmerman, or if he’ll just make considering noises for as long as possible in order to keep the issue alive.
Mizpants:
The case for a federal hate crime is even weaker than the Florida case was.
Holder and Obama would like nothing better than to bring those charges against Zimmerman. But I predict, for what it’s worth, that try as they may they will be unable to do so, unless they make up some evidence.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155918/more-evidence-released-in-trayvon.html#.UeRAJdLvvId
ON DRUDGE
After interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, records released Thursday show.
This case helped get Obama elected.
And it presented a win win scenario. Win the case, win approval. Lose the case, win approval.
But the latter not so much because in exposing a real life situation to a trial, the facts were exposed. Of course the media limited that, but there will be some changers made out of this because they like to go directly to the source.
Now, back to gun violence.
Yeah. I support gun violence. I support using guns to execute capital criminals. I support using guns to protect my family and property. I support using guns to instill fear in gangs, thugs and criminals. I support gun violence to stop mass murderers at schools. Gun violence. Vote yes.
Team Obama needs as many distractions as the MSM can invent to deflect attention from their numerous scandals, Obamacare crumbling, immigration ‘reform’ teetering, a Middle East in turmoil, and a flagging economy. Holder will make a serious effort to keep the Trayvon mob boiling and lusting for blood. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Mitsu
New York City (where I live) is currently the safest large city in the country. I live in a poor neighborhood that used to be rife with crime. Improved policing methods have worked here.
Interesting that you did not include another method used by NYC police to reduce crime: stoip and frisk Why did you not mention that? Didn’t want to admit that among the successful methods that NYPD used involved targeting minorities? Hizonnah da Mayuh has a different take on stop and frisk:
It might be said that Zimmerman was merely following NYPD-approved tactics in following Trayvon Martin. He profiled, like the NYPD.
Neo.
Mitsu, like Silencio Dogood and John Dunne, knows better. The assertions are, at best, without foundation and some are known to be false. Mitsu knows this. Our flurrying around trying to “prove” something is the goal.
He knows, for example, that the NW coordinator at Sanford PD said Z was doing exactly as instructed in NW activities. Mitsu knows that Z was offered a “citizen on patrol” status (COP) complete with uniform and car with lights and turned it down.
Mitsu hopes either we don’t, or that, knowing it, we try in good faith to correctly inform him so that he will know what actually happened.
Wrong.
Getting us tripping over ourselves is the goal
EKBA, Mitsu. And that includes we know you know.
Old gig, but St. Saul said to keep it up.
Richard Aubrey:
As I think I wrote in a previous comment, I do it not so much for Mitsu (although I actually think he’s ignorant of a lot of the facts in the case) as for other readers who might be following the discussion and actually want the facts.
There are a lot of people—and a lot of my friends fit into this category—who simply don’t know, and just parrot back a few headlines or lede paragraphs from the newspaper or from NPR or the like. They actually have minds that are open to learning more information if exposed to it. What percentage of the public this represents (and whether Mitsu is among them, which is within the realm of possibility although doubtful) I don’t know.
But I’m writing for them.
After all, I used to be one of them.
One’s choice of words is instructive. To the Left, Zimmerman “followed” Martin. To the Right, Zimmerman “watched” Martin, something a Watch Captain is entitled to do.
What infuriates blacks and other minorities is that such “watching” is done often and merely because of color. This seems pretty close to the crimes of the past when many whites felt no restraint against blacks and other minorities.
Now, truly, the shoe is on the other foot. Too many blacks feel no restraint against white people. The true amount of violent crime visited upon whites by blacks generates a response and that response ranges from outreach and aid to profiling and injustice upon innocent black people.
The best and noblest response is endurance which means defense through strength and information. Guns provide strength and their informed use will deter not only black on white crime, but the response which blacks fear: whites profiling and harming innocent blacks.
Until the family is restored to and by the black community, until the race hustlers lose influence as well as their justification for black on white crime, and until progressive whites keep justifying and teaching “white evil America,” we will need endurance.
neo.
Good point. I sometimes forget that there are more readers than commenters. “Lurkers” I think they’re called.
I stand by my point that Mitsu and his ilk know better. You could tell when, for example, Silencio referred to “a few tweets”. It meant he knew exactly what was on those phone calls and other messages and was seeking to discredit them in advance.
IOW, he knew. However, now that I think about it, their misrepresentations do form a useful template for structuring replies to educate those who have not been paying attention but are willing to listen.
Neo: In response to your point about how Obama and Holder would have to make up evidence in order to bring hate crime charges: Well, that’s a relief. We know this administration would never just invent a narrative out of whole cloth!/
Many on the left are simply uninformed and willing to accept the talking points served up by the MSM. It takes self-reflection and curiosity to investigate issues and search out diverse sources of information. But there are others on the left who are obsessed with power. They are deeply committed to erecting a European style bureaucracy behemoth to control every aspect of daily life in the name of protecting us and making us safe. These people believe they are superior to the peasants and they have a divine right to rule.
Mitsu would be comical, except that he is articulating a position about a serious matter that is all too common. Never mind that it is based on ignorance and prejudice; it is worrisome.
With regards to whether the Feds will bring civil rights charges, I have a general opinion on this issue. I would like to lay it out for consideration.
Briefly. I believe that charging a person with a federal crime for the same offense–under different wording and a different statute–after the person has been acquitted in state court is a distortion and corruption of our Constitutional rights.
I know the practiced was legalized and commenced during the civil rights campaigns because some states were considered untrustworthy. Well, that was decades ago. Whatever practices were targeted then, do not persist now. In fact given the changed climate, and the demographics, the targeted states are more likely to have minorities in their justice systems and in the make up of juries, than do others. Bringing an acquitted person to trial a second time is in point of fact inflicting punishment without a conviction; consider the stress, the limitations on freedom of movement, and the cost of a defense.
At one time it was common practice for state and federal prosecutors to confer and bring charges in the system, and under the laws that were most appropriate. And that was it.
I am writing to my Congressman and to Speaker Boehner to outline these points. No, I am not so naive as to expect them to do anything unless a very large number of people take up the argument.
This overhanging threat of double prosecution is a travesty in my opinion. The particulars of the Zimmerman situation simply brings it the the fore.
“had a gun”: carrying lawfully for his own defense, same as any cop. We don’t question wny cops carry guns, and yet tney are no different than any other law-abiding citizen. We the People (except in NYC) are allowed to arrange for our own protection (“bear arms”), especially when the police won’t. And as it proves, a firearm equalizes a doughboy who can’t fight, with a thug-in-training who can.
“playing cop”: Making up for the dearth of police protection in his nieghborhood, where there was far too much crime, and the police and City refused to do anything about it. Whattaya gonna do when the police won’t or can’t protect you? Lie down and let the thugs prey upon you? Which New Yorkers did until they got sick of it, and elected Giuliani to put the thugs back in their place.
He was not playing cop. He volunteered to a duty to protect his neighbors when the government failed. You impugn his motives without cause.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/14/coulter_media_continuing_narrative_that_all_of_america_is_mississippi_burning.html
Ann Coulter on why offering sacrificial lambs does not work.
Peace through strength and love.
Coulter is right about the media narrative.
The Zimmerman case reaffirmed that, if you have a reasonable fear of death or grave injury, you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force.
Of course the left will continue to attempt to characterize the use of a gun, under any conditions, as unjustified. The second amendment is the legal and constitutional bulwark against that characterization and must be preserved.
The DOJ has no case of civil rights violation whatsoever with the FBI finding that Zimmerman was NOT a racist and much exculpatory evidence in support of that finding.
All of that may not matter at all for Holder and Obama and, if the DOJ does bring charges, it is a clear barometer of just how committed the Obama administration is to racial division, as a political tool in advancing their agenda.
This is the poll by Crain’s Business in NY.
Was justice served by the George Zimmerman verdict?
July 15, 2013 | 2:27 pm by Crain’s New York Business
In a nationally watched case, a Florida jury of six women this weekend acquitted neighborhood-watch volunteer George Zimmerman of murder and manslaughter in the death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager whom Mr. Zimmerman shot after mistaking him for a prowler. Even though Mr. Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, jurors agreed with defense lawyers who said the shooting was justified under Florida’s “stand your ground” law because Mr. Zimmerman was beaten up by Mr. Martin and feared for his safety. Prosecutors argued that the defendant ignored a 911 operator’s instructions not to pursue the 17-year-old, who was returning from a store with Skittles candy and a drink. But prosecutors were hampered by a lack of witnesses and the burden of proof placed on them by the controversial law.
Was justice served in the acquittal of George Zimmerman?
I leave to you,dear reader, to decide whether these people are simply dishonest ,or whether they are so stupid that they shouldn’t be allowed to use metal cutlery while eating.
renminbi,
Zimmerman never used the ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law as a defense. He went for the straightforward ‘self-defense’. The only people talking about Stand Your Ground are the race hustlers who want it gone.
I would love to see a media report on this case that is truthful. I won’t hold my breath.
Mitsu,
The ‘If you see something, say something’ or ‘If see anything suspicious, call’ practice normally has a much higher miss rate than hit rate. That’s the nature of it, but it’s still an essential tool for proactive policing. NYPD uses it.
NYPD isn’t infallible today, of course. Crime still happens. People are still being hurt. But you’re right the city is more secure now, thus allowing more peace of mind, than before the Giuliani administration.
There was a time, though, not that long ago, when NYers understood well the fears and frustrations of Zimmerman and his neighbors, and possibly those of the Florida wives and moms who served on his jury.
‘Death Wish’ wasn’t based on nothing.
What kind of self-help measures do you think scared NYers, at least those of the exposed working middle class like Zimmerman and his neighbors, resorted to back in the day to protect their homes and neighborhoods when the police weren’t trusted to keep them safe?
Do you believe, perhaps, some NYC wives and moms and husbands and fathers got together with their neighbors and agreed to keep an eye on things, to *check* on things, and to report anything – anyone – suspicious?
A neighborhood watch is a rational choice. If Zimmerman and his neighbors were as pleased with the effectiveness of his local police as you are with yours, I’m sure they would weigh the choice differently. Which isn’t to say they wouldn’t organize a neighborhood watch alongside a trusted police presence anyway. A neighborhood watch is a healthy civic expression of social cohesion and responsibility, especially masculine social responsibility.
We need more Zimmermans in America, not less, including black Zimmermans, not just white and Hispanic Zimmermans.
By the way, that group of teens that beat me up and mugged me – they happened to me on a NYC subway. Until the moment they attacked me, they weren’t doing anything wrong either. In fact, they were smiling and talking to me. (They also surrounded my seat while smiling and talking, but that’s not hard proof of anything, right?) The attack was sudden and over quickly – minutes, maybe only seconds. It probably seemed longer to me than it actually was. They all ran off when the doors opened at the next stop.
When I reported it to the cops, they wrote down what I had to say but warned me it was unlikely they’d be caught. And they weren’t.
I wonder what they’re doing today?
RickiZ, have you ever tried to pee up a rope? Neither have I, but I suspect that it is easier than debating someone who has developed a firm opinion based in ignorance. However, I support your efforts.
The “stand your ground myth” and the picture of the 12 year old Trayvon Martin are two of the cherished icons of the ignorant.
Kind of like Obama and how this relates to the need for increased gun control. Let no crisis…. (blah, blah) Who recalls as a matter of curiosity how long it took the police to respond to the various calls, including to 911?
The proximate cause of the gunshot GZ defending himself from TM’s ground and pound. This is supported by eye witness account, GZ’s injuries and TM’s injuries.
“Provoking” by following is irrelevent, you have no right to attack someone for following you.
I’ll also point out that SYG is rather irrelevent when you are subject to ground and pound. You can run away, walk away, or crawl away.
Don,
Mitsu is either setting a low bar for what constitutes a provocation, certainly lower than any legal standard for excuse or justification, or he’s taking wide liberties in imputing Zimmerman’s ‘provocative’ actions.
Oldflyer Says:
July 15th, 2013 at 3:25 pm
It’s a sort of blood libel against certain states, particularly Southern states. As is the persistence of the Voting Rights Act, which applies only to certain states, particularly Southern states.
But it has the effect of increasing Federal power over the states.
sharpie: “One’s choice of words is instructive. To the Left, Zimmerman “followed” Martin. To the Right, Zimmerman “watched” Martin, something a Watch Captain is entitled to do.”
Mitsu used “stalked”.
I’m not saying that Zimmerman acted in a criminal fashion — acting foolishly and recklessly and with poor judgement is not necessarily criminal. It was, however, foolish, reckless, and with poor judgement. If you guys fail to see that (or at least admit that as a possibility), you’re quite biased.
One of the jurors said exactly the same thing I am saying, and presumably she DID follow the case very closely: “And I think both were responsible for the situation they had gotten themselves into. I think both of them could have walked away. It just didn’t happen.”
”If anything, Zimmerman was guilty of not using “good judgment,” the juror said.
“When he was in the car, and he had called 911, he shouldn’t have gotten out of that car,” she said.”
Mitsu,
“Getting out of his car” = foolish, reckless, and with poor judgement?
Getting out of his car.
Not pulling out and waving his gun. Not swaggering with fighting words in a machismo show of bravado. Not a bar-brawl shove to the chest. Not “stalking”. Not even challenging and/or confronting.
Merely getting out of his car.
Think about it.
It’s what NYers used to tell tourists in the bad old days, not so long ago, about driving through Bed-Stuy, the South Bronx, or Harlem:
Don’t get out of the car.
Except Zimmerman was in his own neighborhood.
Do you know what that kind of logic applies to?
Wild predatory animals on the loose.
Is that what you think of Martin?
I think Martin made stupid mistakes that got him killed. I think Martin *could* and should have acted smarter.
But you believe Martin was the same as a wild predatory animal on the loose, and Zimmerman should have recognized that and stayed in his car.
I hesitate to explain the obvious, but apparently it needs to be said. What the juror (and I) meant was quite simple. Nobody knows exactly how the confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman actually went. Did Zimmerman approach Martin and talk with him? Did Martin just jump Zimmerman out of the blue? We can’t know for certain, but given Zimmerman’s own record (arrested for shoving a cop, constantly calling 911 frivolously, restraining order for domestic violence) I’m going to bet that he didn’t handle the situation with Martin very soberly. He shouldn’t have gotten out of the car — i.e., shouldn’t have gone to pursue Martin or follow him, leading to whatever it was that happened.
If you take an extremely generous view of Zimmerman you can believe every word he said about how the confrontation went. I think the truth is that he probably followed Martin and came up to him and they exchanged words in which Zimmerman was not careful, and their mutual fear of each other resulted in disaster. That seems to be the juror’s impression as well, and she is the one who voted to acquit, and she followed the trial more closely than any of us.
Mitsu:
Those offenses Zimmerman is supposedly guilty of are bogus. See this for a discussion of the supposed “assault” on the officer (charges that were immediately dropped).
The restraining order was mutual; both sides were granted restraining orders against each other when they split up, and I have seen nothing indicating violence had actually been involved, although it was alleged. The whole thing is standard for breakups and/or divorces, and has no meaning whatsoever in terms of Zimmerman’s actual behavior towards the woman. There is no evidence, for example, that the fiancee had ever been beaten or treated for a beating, or that he had been arrested for hitting her. Nothing of that sort has come out. The two simply had asked for dueling restraining orders, not an unusual thing during an emotionally heated breakup.
Also (and by the way, this is the last time I will address you on this matter, which you stubbornly persist in believing against the evidence)—
You write:
“He shouldn’t have gotten out of the car – i.e., shouldn’t have gone to pursue Martin or follow him, leading to whatever it was that happened.”
Do you even have a clue when and why Zimmerman left his car? It was during his 911 call to the police (see this for a transcript). In a nutshell, Zimmerman got out of his car after Martin had run away. He got out of the car only after the dispatcher asks him which way Martin was running. He gets out of the car in an attempt to answer the question.
Note that Zimmerman says “Okay.” The rest of the call is taken up with a discussion of where police should meet him.
There is no indication Zimmerman followed him again. In fact, the fight occurred very near where Zimmerman had made the call, and very near his car. The most logical conclusion is that Martin came back to where he had seen Zimmerman earlier, before Martin ran away, and then proceeded to sucker punch Zimmerman. The rest, as they say, is history.
Mitsu,
Really now – the juror, unstated, is implying the provocations you’ve imputed on Zimmerman – based on no testimony or evidence – after he exited his car? That’s a leap.
What’s obvious within your imagination is not obvious to everyone else.
As I responded to another comment, your position relies on a link in the causal chain that simply doesn’t exit, so you’ve invented one from your imagination. And now you’re imagining the juror is endorsing your imagination based on … nothing she said but what you imagined she meant.
In terms of habit, from available evidence, Zimmerman was experienced with a solid record as a conscientious neighborhood watchman who was not foolish nor reckless. He knew how to be a neighborhood watchman and did it that way.
But leaving the relative safety of his car did make Zimmerman vulnerable to an attack by Martin. Unknown to Zimmerman (but known to Rachel Jeantel), Martin’s anger was building merely from being watched by the neighborhood watchman – before any physical or even verbal engagement with Zimmerman. The juror knows that after Zimmerman left the relative safety of his car, the angry Martin attacked him.
“calling 911 frivolously”: You seem have difficulty grasping how neighborhood watch or proactive policing in general works.
Eric:
See my comment above yours for the reasons why Zimmerman left his car, and when he did so.
Neo,
That’s helpful. Thanks.
Fix: As I responded to another comment, your position relies on a link in the causal chain that simply doesn’t exist …
Mitsu probably wished he was allowed to bring a gun to a conservative’s fight. Right.
I’m sure Mitsu also didn’t know Obama was a Leftist that believed in Perfect Utopia either, when Mitsu supported Obama for so many years.
A lot of things people “don’t know” that are convenient for their bank accounts.
If I was running a ring in a subway for theft, I would generally use an interview process and have my hoodies surround the potential mark. Right before the train stops at the new stop, the theft would either be over or it would never start.
If the person starts fighting or resisting and telling the teenagers to get away, that is a sign that that person could be dangerous and could produce a fight and prevent escape through the next stop. It is also a sign that that person smells an ambush and has prepared himself against it. Meaning he is not a thief but someone more dangerous, or that he is a thief and is thus “an equal”.
But generally speaking, if the candidate passes the interview ,they will be robbed and the goodies taken out the door of the subway, with the victim too stunned to follow or do anything else to restrain the thieves from escaping.
Crime is a very simple thing, all in all. So is supporting dictators.