You have an inherent right to confront people in your neighborhood

Ladies and Gentlemen, on side opposite I stand for safer neighbourhoods and healthier interpersonal interaction between people living in close proximity to eachother. I will be arguing that what pro suggests is a lesser form of the same evil that created the Trayvon Martin tragedy. "They released the 911 call and it looks as if the neighborhood watch patrol man followed the teenager who was just carrying skittles and shot him because he looked "suspicious." The neighborhood watchman has called police 46 times in the past year. The boy was on his cell phone with a girl and reported that a strange man was following him." While it is completely true that racism plays the main hand in this type of behaviour, the claim of an "inherent right to confront someone in your neighbourhood" facilitates this type of violence, territorial stupidity and intolerance. Rebuttals: 1. Freedom of Speech If this debate was specified to be in America, this point would hold merit, however the question of this debate isn't THAT someone has the right to confront, it's WHY, why they would choose to. Actions must be justified so this point holds no ground. 2. " Christian obligation" What on earth does "suspicious" mean in this context? Most of the time this is just a display of prejudice. Mark Zimmerman, leader of the neighbourhood watch, and murderer of Trayvon Martin considered "suspicious behaviour" being an African-American. I agree-one should never call the police just because they happen to not like the way someone looks or acts, and one does not have the inherent right to confront someone in their neighbourhood just because they think someone might be looking to commit a crime-that's when we experience prejudice. How about I adopt Buddha's golden rule on this? "The greatest wisdom is seeing through appearances". 3. "Neighbourhood Watch" Thanks for that paragraph right out of Santorums handbook. The issue is this doesn't promote safer neighbourhoods, it promotes confrontation that has a high chance of leading to violence that wouldn't have happened if the home owner had kept to his own business without bothering everyone who looked like they might be a member of Al'Quaeda. 1. This creates unneeded Conflict So what happens when people believe they have an inherent right to confront people in their neighbourhoods? On the large part nothing. Most people will just live their normal lives. But the select few of aggressive, territorial people who usually have some sort of prejudice will use it to harass innocent people. As seen with Trayvon Martin the inherent right to confrontation leads to acts of confrontation that have no grounds or reason, aggressive people will do it simply because they can, and for all the wrong reasons. There is no way to tell if someone is a criminal, no outward appearance-this fact largely cripples Pros case that the right to confront will lead to safer neighbourhoods.Again, it will lead to needless and frivolous confrontation. 2.When does someone have the right to confront someone? I agree that when someone is doing something border line criminal-such as standing in the empty parking lot outside a school on a weekend, the right to confront exists. But that is because there is physical evidence. People only have the right to confront when there is physical evidence of trouble-doing, there is no inherent right. There is no way to tell if someone is going to engage in criminal behaviour, so an inherent right to confront will only facilitate rashness, aggressiveness, territorial stupidity and racial profiling.