Murdered For seeking help after car accident

AMERICA’s race relations are being strained — again — by the Detroit trial of a 55-year-old white man accused of the murder of a 19-year-old black woman.

Theodore Wafer says he shot Renisha McBride in self-defence early in the morning of November 2 last year when he heard noises outside his suburban Detroit home.

He has been charged with second-degree murder and could be sentenced to up to life in prison with the chance for parole, if he’s convicted.

On Monday, Wafer told the court that he was afraid when an unknown woman showed up on his porch before dawn, but that he refused to be a victim in his own home.

“I wasn’t going to cower in my house,” Wafer told the jury.

McBride was drunk but unarmed at the time, and was apparently seeking assistance after being involved in a car accident.

Prosecutors argue that Wafer could have stayed safely behind his locked doors and called police instead of confronting McBride, whom he didn’t know.

Wafer told jurors how he followed loud bangs from his front door to his side door and back to the front again before fetching his 12-gauge shotgun.

He said he opened the front door slightly and saw that the outer, screen door was damaged. He then opened the inner door further and “this person came out from the side of my house so fast. I raised the gun and shot,” he told jurors after taking the stand on the seventh day of testimony.

Wafer also said he thought there could have been more than one person outside his home

He pulled the trigger “to defend myself. It was them or me.”

When police arrived, McBride lay in a pool of blood just off the porch.

In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, civil rights activists questioned whether race may have been a factor.

Wafer is white and McBride was black, and some likened the killing to that of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.

Race has not been mentioned as a factor by prosecutors or defence attorneys during court hearings that preceded the trial.

veya_victaous wrote:Not sure if it was because she was Black But the Guy is definitely a Murderer there is no case of Self defence as there was never a threat..

The law can not allow the "Lunatic voices in someone head" to Constitute a threat that allows that Lunatic to shot someone because they are Deranged Coward with no concept threat evaluation
And in this case the Guy has basically said that he Regularly gets his rocks off on the Idea of Shooting Someone in Self Defence like the good old 'merican patriot he is     someone knocks on the at the door.... well that is reason to Shoot them     

Original Quill wrote:Look...this is a case of a young Black woman knocking on a door for help after an auto accident, and a white defendant owner of the home, who shot and killed her.  Duh...America is a racist nation.  Two words: Treyvon Martin...y'all can figure out the rest.

If this were a white on white crime, no question that he would be convicted.  But also, it wouldn't be in the newspapers...

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Look...this is a case of a young Black woman knocking on a door for help after an auto accident, and a white defendant owner of the home, who shot and killed her.  Duh...America is a racist nation.  Two words: Treyvon Martin...y'all can figure out the rest.

If this were a white on white crime, no question that he would be convicted.  But also, it wouldn't be in the newspapers...

Surely the Whole Shooting people that come to the door regardless of skin colour is still an issue..

veya_victaous wrote:This is why I say Ban Guns particularly in suburbia ... Anyone that says they are responsible enough to own one is a Liar.  

veya_victaous wrote:I really can't get my head around the idea that someone could be so racist as to just shoot another human being because they are vaguely given the opportunity to.. By his own emission he got the gun and planed to shoot before opening the door and checking who it was.      

Raggamuffin wrote:There's no comparison with the Trayvon Martin case. Trayvon was physically attacking Zimmerman at the time of the shooting.

Lone Wolf wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:There's no comparison with the Trayvon Martin case. Trayvon was physically attacking Zimmerman at the time of the shooting.

::gnslnger:: 

Bullshit, Ragg's...

THAT defence line (courtesy of false gossip from the NRA's website..) was disproven during the trial !

Zimmerman was safely esconced in his car, got out and approached Martin, calmly drew his gun and shot him at close range..

COLD blooded murder in anybody's language..

EXCEPT in Florida...    ::rambo:: 

Raggamuffin wrote:There's no comparison with the Trayvon Martin case. Trayvon was physically attacking Zimmerman at the time of the shooting.

What is it with Americans who shoot people for knocking on their door? I'm sure I've read of other similar cases.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:There's no comparison with the Trayvon Martin case. Trayvon was physically attacking Zimmerman at the time of the shooting.

What is it with Americans who shoot people for knocking on their door? I'm sure I've read of other similar cases.

Trayvon Martin (TM) was defending himself from a confessed predator, who admits to stalking him (TM) with a gun, and who refused orders by the police to stop.  How much more of a picture do you need?  Any jury in the world would convict Zimmerman of stalking and murder, save that TM was a black male.

Would you blame your (white) daughter for struggling to get away from her stalker?  If he approached her and had a gun?  Of course not!  I offer you as exhibit one in evidence: the script in your mind would be completely reversed had TM been white.  Add what we know about the south, and Georgia in particular, and it is conclusive.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Trayvon Martin (TM) was defending himself from a confessed predator, who admits to stalking him (TM) with a gun, and who refused orders by the police to stop.  How much more of a picture do you need?  Any jury in the world would convict Zimmerman of stalking and murder, save that TM was a black male.

Would you blame your (white) daughter for struggling to get away from her stalker?  If he approached her and had a gun?  Of course not!  I offer you as exhibit one in evidence: the script in your mind would be completely reversed had TM been white.  Add what we know about the south, and Georgia in particular, and it is conclusive.

The jury said otherwise.  

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The jury said otherwise.  

You never questioned a jury verdict??  How about OJ Simpson with the death of Nicole?  Are you all right with that?

I have been a trial lawyer for over 30-years, and frankly I am glad that most cases go by way of plea bargaining.  That leaves rational, thinking people in charge.  

Juries can go wild.  But the most common problem is that juries reflect the prejudices of the community.  For example, wouldn't you approve a conviction of a teacher who messed around with an under-aged school girl?  I've see some guys get 20-years for that.

But, take the case of Debora LaFave:

 

or...



She was charge with child molestation of her 13-year old student in two different jurisdictions: Georgia and Florida.  Only Florida pursued the conviction, Georgia admitted that a jury would never convict so beautiful a woman (IOW, they gave up).  She was convicted, but when it came to sentencing her lawyer argued that so beautiful a woman would be subject to lesbians in prison, so she was sentenced only to wear an ankle bracelet.  Yep, a week later she was seen shopping for clothes in a department store.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You never questioned a jury verdict??  How about OJ Simpson with the death of Nicole?  Are you all right with that?

I have been a trial lawyer for over 30-years, and frankly I am glad that most cases go by way of plea bargaining.  That leaves rational, thinking people in charge.  

Juries can go wild.  But the most common problem is that juries reflect the prejudices of the community.  For example, wouldn't you approve a conviction of a teacher who messed around with an under-aged school girl?  I've see some guys get 20-years for that.

But, take the case of Debora LaFave:

 

or...



She was charge with child molestation of her 13-year old student in two different jurisdictions: Georgia and Florida.  Only Florida pursued the conviction, Georgia admitted that a jury would never convict so beautiful a woman (IOW, they gave up).  She was convicted, but when it came to sentencing her lawyer argued that so beautiful a woman would be subject to lesbians in prison, so she was sentenced only to wear an ankle bracelet.  Yep, a week later she was seen shopping for clothes in a department store.

I watched the Zimmerman trial and came to the same conclusion as the jury.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I watched the Zimmerman trial and came to the same conclusion as the jury.

But--and I say without hesitation--you are a racist.  So were those jurists.  Of course like minded people will agree with one another.

The real juxtaposition is when you place extreme examples side-by-side. Black, white.  Male, female.  Capitalist, worker.  

Not you, and other racists.

Had George Zimmerman been a black man, and Trayvon Martin been a suburban white male walking back from a trip to the Quik-Mart, Zimmerman would have been convicted in a heartbeat.  In fact, all black males in Florida have seen this firsthand.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But--and I say without hesitation--you are a racist.  So were those jurists.  Of course like minded people will agree with one another.

The real juxtaposition is when you place extreme examples side-by-side. Black, white.  Male, female.  Capitalist, worker.  

Not you, and other racists.

Had George Zimmerman been a black man, and Trayvon Martin been a suburban white male walking back from a trip to the Quik-Mart, Zimmerman would have been convicted in a heartbeat.  In fact, all black males in Florida have seen this firsthand.

You think I'm racist because I say that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman?

In that case, you're racist towards Hispanic people.

I watched the evidence and I used common sense. I have to say that the prosecution didn't do themselves any favours.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You think I'm racist because I say that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman?

In that case, you're racist towards Hispanic people.

I watched the evidence and I used common sense. I have to say that the prosecution didn't do themselves any favours.

Why did you put the victim on trial instead of the accused?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Why did you put the victim on trial instead of the accused?

I didn't. I told you - I watched the evidence, and it was clear to me that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman beating his head on the floor. Did you actually watch it or are you just being histrionic?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't. I told you - I watched the evidence, and it was clear to me that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman beating his head on the floor. Did you actually watch it or are you just being histrionic?

Yes you did.  You framed the question so that the victim would be on trial.  

You are still doing it.  You aren't dealing with what Zimmerman did at all.  You are accusing the victim: "Trayvon was on top..."  "[Trayvon was] beating his head on the floor..."

I think we all know that if Zimmerman had been black, and Trayvon white, what the jury verdict would have been.  It happens every day in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi...throughout the South.  It's just the unspoken reality, that we all acknowledge, but only some of us don't want to admit.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes you did.  You framed the question so that the victim would be on trial.  

You are still doing it.  You aren't dealing with what Zimmerman did at all.  You are accusing the victim: "Trayvon was on top..."  "[Trayvon was] beating his head on the floor..."

I think we all know that if Zimmerman had been black, and Trayvon white, what the jury verdict would have been.  It happens every day in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi...throughout the South.  It's just the unspoken reality, that we all acknowledge, but only some of us don't want to admit.

It was Jonathan Good who said that Trayvon was on top, and he was a credible witness. The injuries on Zimmerman's head also point to that being the case. I take it you didn't follow the evidence at all. It's always best to do that before you start getting hysterical and accusing people of being "racist".

You know nothing - you're just guessing. The situation didn't occur the other way round so there's no way of knowing what a jury would have decided in that case.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It was Jonathan Good who said that Trayvon was on top, and he was a credible witness. The injuries on Zimmerman's head also point to that being the case. I take it you didn't follow the evidence at all. It's always best to do that before you start getting hysterical and accusing people of being "racist".

You know nothing - you're just guessing. The situation didn't occur the other way round so there's no way of knowing what a jury would have decided in that case.

This isn't about me, Raggs.  You are a much more effective advocate if you stick to the subject.

I read about all of the evidence in the press, and followed it in on NBC.  It's not in the specifics you argue, but in the weight you give each fact.  And it is in the evidence you completely ignore.

This guy (Zimmerman) knew he had a lethal weapon, he stalked a man, confronted him  and killed him.  Against that, you are sorting through his hair to find a teeny-tiny scratch (I saw), and picking which witnesses you want to believe.  How do you deal with all the stalking and police orders to cease and desist?  You ignore it.  Anyone on that jury should be embarrassed...and they are, as evidence by how they all shut up when questioned by the press, as the press properly did.

Had Zimmerman been black, and Trayvon been white, the jury's verdict would have been the opposite.

That's how prejudices work.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

This isn't about me, Raggs.  You are a much more effective advocate if you stick to the subject.

I read about all of the evidence in the press, and followed it in on NBC.  It's not in the specifics you argue, but in the weight you give each fact.  And it is in the evidence you completely ignore.

This guy (Zimmerman) knew he had a lethal weapon, he stalked a man, confronted him  and killed him.  Against that, you are sorting through his hair to find a teeny-tiny scratch (I saw), and picking which witnesses you want to believe.  How do you deal with all the stalking and police orders to cease and desist?  You ignore it.  Anyone on that jury should be embarrassed...and they are, as evidence by how they all shut up when questioned by the press, as the press properly did.

Had Zimmerman been black, and Trayvon been white, the jury's verdict would have been the opposite.

That's how prejudices work.

You're the one who made it personal. You appear to be saying that Zimmerman must be guilty because Trayvon was black. That's a strange kind of "logic", and rather racist too.

Raggamuffin wrote:Where's the evidence that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon?

Raggamuffin wrote: Do you not think that Trayvon could have run home easily by the time Zimmerman went down that path and finished the phone call?

Raggamuffin wrote:Zimmerman did stop following when he was advised to, but he was already down the path by that time. You are ignoring the evidence, not me. You clearly didn't watch any of the witnesses or any of the trial.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're the one who made it personal. You appear to be saying that Zimmerman must be guilty because Trayvon was black. That's a strange kind of "logic", and rather racist too.

Not at all.  What I'm saying is the jury put the victim on trial.  If it had been a black girl, Zimmerman would have been acquitted of rape...saying she invited it.  It's that kind of nullification.  When you ignore the accused and his actions, and you put the victim on trial, you usually end up with an acquittal--if only because the jury hasn't even paid attention.

Raggamuffin wrote:Where's the evidence that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon?

It was all admitted to the police.  There is also the evidence of the phone call that Trayvon was making at the time of the accosting.

Raggamuffin wrote: Do you not think that Trayvon could have run home easily by the time Zimmerman went down that path and finished the phone call?

No, Zimmerman would have gunned him down.  Indeed, that is one of the possibilities that might have happened.

Raggamuffin wrote:Zimmerman did stop following when he was advised to, but he was already down the path by that time. You are ignoring the evidence, not me. You clearly didn't watch any of the witnesses or any of the trial.

Not true.  And Zimmerman admits it.  Zimmerman was told by the police dispatcher not to follow Trayvon, and he ignored the order.  He admits it and the 911 call recording confirms the facts.

Original Quill wrote:But Zimmerman did confront Trayvon and he admits it.  The shouting is actual proof of the confrontation.

Yes, Zimmerman admitted to the police that he followed Trayvon after the dispatcher ordered him not to.  And the woman Trayvon was on the phone with confirmed it.  And, of course, look what happened...obviously he continued to follow.

Most importantly, do you see how you writhe and struggle when trying to get out of the affirmative evidence?  This is why a jury, when it wants to acquit, moves away from the evidence on the accused, and switches to putting the victim on trial.

There's no way that Zimmerman would have been acquitted if the jury had been doing its proper job.  Rather, they switched to putting the victim on trial, and letting the murderer walk.  And why did they do this?  The only reason was race.

The same thing is going on in the case in the OP.  The homeowner would never have shot if the woman had been white.  He would have given her aid and assistance.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:But Zimmerman did confront Trayvon and he admits it.  The shouting is actual proof of the confrontation.

Yes, Zimmerman admitted to the police that he followed Trayvon after the dispatcher ordered him not to.  And the woman Trayvon was on the phone with confirmed it.  And, of course, look what happened...obviously he continued to follow.

Most importantly, do you see how you writhe and struggle when trying to get out of the affirmative evidence?  This is why a jury, when it wants to acquit, moves away from the evidence on the accused, and switches to putting the victim on trial.

There's no way that Zimmerman would have been acquitted if the jury had been doing its proper job.  Rather, they switched to putting the victim on trial, and letting the murderer walk.  And why did they do this?  The only reason was race.

The same thing is going on in the case in the OP.  The homeowner would never have shot if the woman had been white.  He would have given her aid and assistance.

No, he didn't admit that he confronted Trayvon. Trayvon was running up the path when Zimmerman got out of his car, so how could Zimmerman confront him? Look at a map of the area, listen to the phone call again. The shouting is not proof that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon at all - it just indicates that someone was calling for help. Rachel Jeantel testified that Trayvon told her he was near his father's house, so why did he hang around waiting for Zimmerman? There's no way Zimmerman could have caught up with Trayvon when he was on the phone with the dispatcher, and he couldn't even see Trayvon by then.

Use your common sense instead of assuming that Zimmerman must be guilty just because he's not black.

By the way, what did you think of the prosecution? Did you not find it strange that they called defence witnesses themselves?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, he didn't admit that he confronted Trayvon. Trayvon was running up the path when Zimmerman got out of his car, so how could Zimmerman confront him? Look at a map of the area, listen to the phone call again. The shouting is not proof that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon at all - it just indicates that someone was calling for help. Rachel Jeantel testified that Trayvon told her he was near his father's house, so why did he hang around waiting for Zimmerman? There's no way Zimmerman could have caught up with Trayvon when he was on the phone with the dispatcher, and he couldn't even see Trayvon by then.

Use your common sense instead of assuming that Zimmerman must be guilty just because he's not black.

By the way, what did you think of the prosecution? Did you not find it strange that they called defence witnesses themselves?

Well, they weren't really defense witnesses.  They were general witnesses.  Remember, no one saw this and the only real witness was the murderer himself.

That's why this was such an absurd case.  One man dead...another man standing over the body with a smoking gun in his hand...all criminals claim they are innocent...so you can't believe them...under any other circumstances it would have been an automatic conviction.  I mean, it borders on comic book drama.

The case sticks out because of the absurd lengths that the jury went to foreordain an improbable and outlandish outcome.  They did the classic thing...they put the victim on trial and ignored the accused.

victorisnotamused wrote:Ok, so what I'm going to say will seem "harsh"   but aint karma a bitch.....

forget the "race" issue, forget all the hype...

here we have a would be murderer (and that is EXACTLY what a drink driver is, morally if not legally) gets murdered in turn.....

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, they weren't really defense witnesses.  They were general witnesses.  Remember, no one saw this and the only real witness was the murderer himself.

That's why this was such an absurd case.  One man dead...another man standing over the body with a smoking gun in his hand...all criminals claim they are innocent...so you can't believe them...under any other circumstances it would have been an automatic conviction.  I mean, it borders on comic book drama.

The case sticks out because of the absurd lengths that the jury went to foreordain an improbable and outlandish outcome.  They did the classic thing...they put the victim on trial and ignored the accused.

Jonathan Good was most definitely on the side of the defence. There was loads of evidence other than the end result. I think you decided that Zimmerman was guilty of murder before the trial even started - did you not? That makes you rather biased ...

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Jonathan Good was most definitely on the side of the defence. There was loads of evidence other than the end result. I think you decided that Zimmerman was guilty of murder before the trial even started - did you not? That makes you rather biased ...

Well, I will admit it's not a difficult case.  Dead man...standing guy...smoking gun.  If we didn't listen to the criminal whining because he claims he's not guilty--and who ever listens to that guy, anyway--the man is picture perfect. guilty.

Only if you put the dead guy on trial, can you get him off.  And of course, in northern Florida, the guy was black is a defense.

Original Quill wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:Ok, so what I'm going to say will seem "harsh"   but aint karma a bitch.....

forget the "race" issue, forget all the hype...

here we have a would be murderer (and that is EXACTLY what a drink driver is, morally if not legally) gets murdered in turn.....

You can't write it off that easily, vic.  First, the guy did kill a human being, with malice, because of race.  That is a no-no.  

That is true of course, I recon one can be reasonably certain that he would have done the deed even if she was sober....so yes he's the worst kind of creature

Second, the girl was not proceeding with the mens res of murder, and she certainly did not intend to target the homeowner in a murder scheme.

Not denied quill...as far as the home owners was concerned and I would agree the law takes a different view (since murder per se requires the specific intent to kill a particular person does it not, along with "malice aforethought" anything else is various degrees of manslaughter I presume...

 She was looking for help; instead, she got a shotgun blast.  If she had been white, totally different outcome. oh I dont doubt it

Original Quill wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:Ok, so what I'm going to say will seem "harsh"   but aint karma a bitch.....

forget the "race" issue, forget all the hype...

here we have a would be murderer (and that is EXACTLY what a drink driver is, morally if not legally) gets murdered in turn.....

You can't write it off that easily, vic.  First, the guy did kill a human being, with malice, because of race.  That is a no-no.  

Second, the girl was not proceeding with the mens res of murder, and she certainly did not intend to target the homeowner in a murder scheme.  She was looking for help; instead, she got a shotgun blast.  If she had been white, totally different outcome.

victorisnotamused wrote:Ok, so what I'm going to say will seem "harsh"   but aint karma a bitch.....

forget the "race" issue, forget all the hype...

here we have a would be murderer (and that is EXACTLY what a drink driver is, morally if not legally) gets murdered in turn.....

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, I will admit it's not a difficult case.  Dead man...standing guy...smoking gun.  If we didn't listen to the criminal whining because he claims he's not guilty--and who ever listens to that guy, anyway--the man is picture perfect. guilty.

Only if you put the dead guy on trial, can you get him off.  And of course, in northern Florida, the guy was black is a defense.

So you just ignored the evidence leading up to the shooting then. You're the one who keeps on bringing race into it. Do you have something against Hispanic people?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You can't write it off that easily, vic.  First, the guy did kill a human being, with malice, because of race.  That is a no-no.  

Second, the girl was not proceeding with the mens res of murder, and she certainly did not intend to target the homeowner in a murder scheme.  She was looking for help; instead, she got a shotgun blast.  If she had been white, totally different outcome.

There's nothing to suggest that he killed her out of malice because of her race.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You can't write it off that easily, vic.  First, the guy did kill a human being, with malice, because of race.  That is a no-no.  

Second, the girl was not proceeding with the mens res of murder, and she certainly did not intend to target the homeowner in a murder scheme.  She was looking for help; instead, she got a shotgun blast.  If she had been white, totally different outcome.

There's nothing to suggest that he killed her out of malice because of her race.

Yes, there is Raggs.  Experts have established not only was the shotgun loaded, but he had to have known it was loaded.  He himself has admitted that he intended to shoot when he approached the front door.  He hadn't even looked at her...all he could tell about her was by her accent.  She was speaking in ebonics, and that's the only thing he knew.

Now, either he thought that killing people for sport was the game, or his determination to shoot was triggered by the only thing he knew about the victim: her black accent.  

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you just ignored the evidence leading up to the shooting then. You're the one who keeps on bringing race into it. Do you have something against Hispanic people?

The stalking?  No, that proves that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There's nothing to suggest that he killed her out of malice because of her race.

Yes, there is Raggs.  Experts have established not only was the shotgun loaded, but he had to have known it was loaded.  He himself has admitted that he intended to shoot when he approached the front door.  He hadn't even looked at her...all he could tell about her was by her accent.  She was speaking in ebonics, and that's the only thing he knew.

Now, either he thought that killing people for sport was the game, or his determination to shoot was triggered by the only thing he knew about the victim: her black accent.  

veya_victaous wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:Ok, so what I'm going to say will seem "harsh"   but aint karma a bitch.....

forget the "race" issue, forget all the hype...

here we have a would be murderer (and that is EXACTLY what a drink driver is, morally if not legally) gets murdered in turn.....

Not Fair,
we don't know how drunk or if just mildly intoxicated and she was seeking help for the accident thus doing the right thing afterwards and taking responsible actions(not running away from scene).

victorisnotamused wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Not Fair,
we don't know how drunk or if just mildly intoxicated and she was seeking help for the accident thus doing the right thing afterwards and taking responsible actions(not running away from scene).

stone blind drunk or mildly intoxicated, you are in no fit state to be in charge of a one ton guided missile...
she could have killed someone (out of a "i dont give a toss" attitude...negligent manslaughter---ought ti be murder) either way...
If someone killed another even without malice, whilst drunk in charge of a firearm there would be holy hell to play...about how guns should be totally banned because people are not responsible enough to own them etc etc etc...(at least in the uk....)

so should we apply the same standards to vehicles.......

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The stalking?  No, that proves that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

No it doesn't. It indicates that he was a bit of a busy body who felt the need to protect the neighbourhood. If he intended to kill Trayvon he would hardly have called the police to report a suspicious person.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, there is Raggs.  Experts have established not only was the shotgun loaded, but he had to have known it was loaded.  He himself has admitted that he intended to shoot when he approached the front door.  He hadn't even looked at her...all he could tell about her was by her accent.  She was speaking in ebonics, and that's the only thing he knew.

Now, either he thought that killing people for sport was the game, or his determination to shoot was triggered by the only thing he knew about the victim: her black accent.  

There's nothing about that in the article.

I think it's quite possible that race is not a factor, and that the bloke didn't shoot out of malice. However, there are too many incidents of this kind - shoot first and ask questions later. The trial is ongoing and I haven't read all the evidence, but my first impression is that he should be convicted of something at least just for being too trigger happy.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No it doesn't. It indicates that he was a bit of a busy body who felt the need to protect the neighbourhood. If he intended to kill Trayvon he would hardly have called the police to report a suspicious person.

The police were the ones who told Zimmerman that it was much ado about nothing.  Zimmerman then let drop that he was fallowing Treyvon, and that's when the police ordered him to stop stalking him.

What is significant about that phone call, is that Zimmerman disobeyed a direct order to cease and desist.  He knew he had a handgun, he was told not to follow TM, contrary to orders he followed, confronted and shot TM.  Is that what busy bodies do nowadays?

He was a cold-blooded murderer bent on stalking and killing any black man he sees.  We don't need to speculate about his psychology.  The facts speak for themselves.

Zimmerman had been fighting with his wife earlier that day, we know, and it left him with a murderous mood (his wife was leaving him).  He was looking for someone to murder when Treyvon happened along.  If you want psychological speculation, there is one that conforms to the facts.