You have an inherent right to confront people in your neighborhood

Thank you Con for your argument. Even as kids we are taught that the first person to utilize violence has crossed the threshold from right to wrong. A confrontation is not inherently violence as con suggests. My opponent speaks of pages out of handbooks, but must personally keep a copy of Rev. Al Sharptons, immediately pointing to a tragedy to justify their own narrative. 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. The question of this debate is whether you have the right to confront someone else in your neighborhood exactly as accepted by Con. Why they would choose to is beyond the scope of this debate as any human motivation could be used to justify a confrontation. If it is a beautiful woman, she might be confronted by a bachelor, or a rapist, or a girl scout, or someone that needs directions. If it is the joker, he might be confronted by Batman, or a Jehova's Witness, or the self appointed neighborhood watch. The debate is whether a person has the right to confront someone else. In a world where no one has that right, the world would be worse off. In that world even though innocent (and guilty) males in hoodies (and bell-bottoms) would get harassed less, so would criminals. There are all kind of responses to confrontation. Responses range from silence, calling the police, running away, or the absolute wrong choice, which is violence. What on earth does "suspicious" mean in this context? … Suspicious is subjective, it is up to the individual. Suspiciousness is an extension of fear. Fear is felt, not rationalized. It is a survival instinct and it merits itself. Do we want our neighbors to confront suspicious people or hide from them? 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. How is standing in an empty parking lot physical evidence of trouble making? Take the case of Jason Rosenbloom. Jason’s neighbor, Kenneth Allen, lodges a formal complaint against Rosenbloom for putting out 8 bags of trash instead of 6 that is the maximum allowed. Rosenbloom goes to Allen’s house to confront him about his complaint, Allen shoots him twice on the porch, as he is wearing shorts and flip flops, right there on the porch, and then gets away with it because of the stand your ground law. http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com... http://www.sptimes.com... Rosenbloom was obviously the victim in this case, had the inherent right to confront his neighbor, and was denied that right by someone that chose violence over peaceful, albeit heated, confrontation. The person who chooses violence FIRST should be considered the aggressor, and the law should empower and protect the victim to meet that force with superior force. Just because Kenneth Allen was being harassed by his neighbor, who was very obviously breaking the maximum trash limit rule, does not give him the right to shoot him down in cold blood.