That’s not condescending at all.
“Daddy, what does that skull-and-crossbones sign next to the waterhole mean?” :rolleyes:
If it was anyone else you could complain to a mod or an admin or something.
I believe I did. Hole in one. 
It’s not condescending. If you take a situation where the fault appears to lie entirely with one person and say “I believe they’re both responsible,” you’re putting undue blame on the victim. So saying “ahem, I said they’re both responsible!” does not affect what Ferret Herder said. While she did do some things wrong, they don’t affect the circumstances of the shooting.
It’s not well-poisoning, it’s a prediction. Do you not think this stuff is coming? Because I’m pretty confident it is.
I don’t know that. I suspect you don’t know the exact circumstances of the shooting either.
But I think we both agree that she didn’t deserve to die.
We don’t know the exact circumstances. We know she was shot around two hours after the accident and several blocks away, so I think it’s not sensible to draw a direct line between those things and the shooting. The homeowner wouldn’t have known about them.
Oh well, if it’s a case of predictions then I predict that as soon as someone manages to dig up anything vaguely racist this guy ever said then it won’t matter if he spends his Sundays running a soup-kitchen for disadvantaged minorities; nothing will do for it but he must have deliberately set out to shoot himself a nigra, and he’d be going down for murder if it weren’t for the whole country’s tacit complicity in his crime. Open season.
I can’t make any predictions about anyone fallaciously claiming this has anything to do with “stand your ground” because we didn’t get past the thread title without that already happening.
When people were passing around fake pictures of previously shot black victims in order to portray them as more “thuggish”, do you really think it’s poisoning the well to expect that same sort of racism? When people on this board were describing previous victims as “feral” and “deserving to be shot”, do you really think it’s not going to happen again? Or do you think we live in some sort of magical, racist-free society?
Good to know. I’m gonna go buy a gun and start shooting random black people for funsies. If the police are ill-informed about it being open season and interfere with my fun I’ll just tell them you said it ok.
Yes, people are often vague on the fine points of the castle doctrine vs. stand your ground. That came up plenty of times in the Zimmerman case, too. How much difference does it make in an informal discussion of this situation?
You’re headed in the direction of trolling. If you want to go that route, take it to the Pit.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
She was (by eyewitness reports) scared, freaked out and “just wanted to go home.” She’d fucked up double (underage drunk and hit-and-run) and was probably out of her mind with worry and fear.
Why did she go up to that door? Who knows. But I have trouble imagining anything about any part of the situation that warranted a faceful of buckshot.
All the guy had to do was tell her to stay there and behave while he called for help, if he didn’t have the balls or heart to do any more.
I have two daughters in that age range. 'Nuf sed.
Marley agrees. It’s hard to tell what you agree with since you keep harping on how this was somehow the victim’s fault.
I don’t know about ghetto, bitch, or ho, but -
[QUOTE=Marley23]
While she did do some things wrong, they don’t affect the circumstances of the shooting.
[/QUOTE]
You don’t think it possible that being pig-ass drunk affected the circumstances of the shooting?
Regards,
Shodan
Beyond the fact that she decided to knock on a door for help?
Hypothetical: if someone is pounding on your door at night and, for the purposes of this scenario, yelling drunkenly, “I’m going to kill you!!” do you think someone has a right to shoot that person?
Because I’m generally inclined to believe that as long as someone is outside the door, that even yelling and pounding don’t justify someone trying to kill that person.
Of course, nobody is alleging that this victim did anything so inflammatory like that, so I’m just playing what-if. I just can’t think of a scenario of where making a ruckus while not apparently armed outside of someone’s house could justify shooting in self defense.
It seems from the more recent articles that McBride was shot through a locked screen door “from a distance” and there were no signs of forced entry.
Yes, obviously, because drunks have a greater than normal tendency to act in ways that sober people can find bizarre or threatening.
Also the fact that, if she were not drunk out of her mind, she is that much less likely to crash her car in a hit-and-run and become hysterical in the first place.
Tell you what, Ravenman - how about if we stick to what we can determine is factual before we start making up hypotheticals?
Regards,
Shodan
Does that mean you’re going to stop asserting that she was “drunk out of her mind” or acting abnormally?
Wafer’s attorney said he feared for his life, and I think it’s been established that he shot her through a locked screen door. He can hardly claim they had a conversation that frightened him into shooting her. So… what could she have door, beyond knocking and making some noise, that threatened him?
Answering the door at night with a weapon is a good idea IMO. Was he legally allowed to posses that weapon? Seems so.
My only question is wither the gun going off was really accidental. Who here can say that with certainty?