Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, August 08, 2014

A suburban Detroit homeowner who opened his front door and blasted an unarmed 19-year-old woman on his porch has been found guilty of second-degree murder. The jury returned their verdict against Theodore Wafer, 55, after less than two days of deliberations. Renisha McBride showed up drunk at Wafer's door at around 4:30 a.m. on Nov. 2, 2013, several hours after she crashed her car into a parked car and left the scene. He was awakened by her banging on his front and side doors, he testified, and grabbed his 12-gauge shot after not finding his phone.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

That didn't take long.

#1 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-08-08 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

When emotions rule the courts.

#2 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-08 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

Apparently you're not allowed to shoot people's faces off because they are being loud on your porch early in the morning.

Learn something new every day.

#3 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-08 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Apparently you're not allowed to shoot people's faces off because they are being loud on your porch early in the morning.

Move to Florida
-George Zimmerman

#4 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-08-08 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Apparently you're not allowed to shoot people's faces off because they are being loud on your porch early in the morning."

Restating in inaccurate terms does not a point make.

#5 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-08 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Learn something new every day."

Yeah, like pointing your unloaded gun at someone could get problematic.

#6 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-08-08 12:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Restating in inaccurate terms does not a point make.

#5 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-08 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

What I said is what happened.

Nobody bought the "I was so scared even though I opened the door and didn't call police" defense. That's the only emotional garbage here.

#7 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-08 12:15 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

But I am glad that Sal found a case that taught him that jury decisions don't really establish facts. Even if he did so in an ass-backwards way.

#8 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-08 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"What I said is what happened."

Yup leave out pounding on the door for no reason. Leave out the attempt to gain entry. Leave out the lack of calling for help, leave out the incredibly intoxicated part. Leave out the destruction of evidence by the police. Leave out the contradictions of the prosecution . Just boil it down to the simplest terms that can elicit an emotional response and accuracy be damned.

#9 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-08 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But I am glad that Sal found a case that taught him that jury decisions don't really establish facts."

Never thought they did, only that most of the time they will employ a bit of common sense and reason. They did in Zimmerman but obviously not here.

However it smells of a successful appeal. I just don't see how you can convict someone when even the police acknowledge they did not collect and destroyed exonerating evidence because they did not see it as a crime. That is actually very scary.

#10 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-08 12:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Shooter found not guilty: Justice served.

Shooter found guilty: Justice not served.

That about cover it?

#11 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-08-08 12:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Shooter found not guilty: Justice served.
Shooter found guilty: Justice not served.
That about cover it?"

Has nothing to do with that. See, it's about truth and reason, not guilty or guilty should be about what happened not how much you hate someone. See the difference? Because unfortunately there are a ton of people who are ruled by their lust to see someone punished regardless of what actually happened.

#12 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-08 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

"...it's about truth and reason, not guilty or guilty should be about what happened..."

And the jury decides that. And they did. I think that concept is written down somewhere.

#13 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-08-08 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Never thought they did, only that most of the time they will employ a bit of common sense and reason. They did in Zimmerman but obviously not here."

Oh OK. So only decisions you agree with establish facts. Sounds fair.

#14 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-08 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

" So only decisions you agree with establish facts. Sounds fair."

No only decision based on reality.
It's simple, once there is no denial of logic it will become clear.
Remove the absurd and see what you have left.

The prosecution and defense set out the case the jury can be fooled or susceptible to emotion only as it would appear to be the case here.

#15 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-08 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

And the jury decides that. And they did. I think that concept is written down somewhere.

#13 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-08-08 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

See OJ trial - it's all written down.

#16 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-08-08 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not sure if second degree murder is the appropriate charge here. Generally 2nd degree denotes some sort of malice or criminal intent. Voluntary manslaughter seems more appropriate:

"States sometimes also define voluntary manslaughter as a homicide that occurs with the mistaken belief that the killing was justified...voluntary manslaughter can also encompass a homicide that occurs based on the defendant's honest but unreasonable belief that a situation requires deadly force."

Seems about right in this case.

criminal.findlaw.com

#17 | Posted by bartimus at 2014-08-08 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

#17 "Voluntary manslaughter seems more appropriate:"

I' d agree with that. This was a senseless, preventable tragedy.

#18 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-08 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yup leave out pounding on the door for no reason. Leave out the attempt to gain entry. Leave out the lack of calling for help, leave out the incredibly intoxicated part.

You leave out the part where any of those things justify killing someone.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-08 04:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

I had a suspicion about the races of the kids from the start.

#11 | Posted by MUSTANG

#20 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-08-08 06:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

the jury can be fooled or susceptible to emotion only as it would appear to be the case here

But not in Zippy's case!

Got it, Sal.

I'm not sure, other than under sharia law, where being a drunk woman is a capital offense. Even if the woman is black.

#21 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-08-08 08:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

grabbed his 12-gauge shot after not finding his phone.

Maybe if he had kept his phone under his pillow, next to his shotgun...

#22 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-08-08 08:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pros "You were behind a locked, steel door why did you not shout out you had a gun?

"Wafer"I did not want to give my location"

Snipers always like to hide.

#23 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-08-08 08:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hypothetically if the demographics of this case were reversed what would be the outcome? If the outcome changes in any way, the USA is a racist nation. The definition of racism is different outcomes, treatment and advantages based upon demographics.

#24 | Posted by Robson at 2014-08-08 08:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

The fact that he kept significantly changing his story indicates this was not self defense.

#25 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-08-08 09:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

21
Who was punished? No one tried or convicted her. You are the one who brought up race. Why bother if all you have is the same asinine appeal to emotion. If you cared you would see that justice was not done but you need to see someone punished. That truly is morbid. Especially when you seem to be cool with destruction of evidence so they had any chance of conviction. How would you feel if the evidence to exonerate you of a crime was not collected or destroyed and so you were left out to dry?

#26 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-09 01:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

25
Even as such, there was a lot of evidence destroyed that could have proved she tried to gain entry. There was evidence that she may have been trying to collect money from the wrong house for prostitution that was not allowed. This guy did not get a fair trial. Yup his story changed but that should not preclude him from a legitimate trial.

#27 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-09 01:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

#27 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR AT 2014-08-09 01:58 AM | REPLY | FLAG

I dunno man. You are making suppositions you could not possibly know anything about. You weren't at the trial. Do you think his lawyers didn't reach for everything?

You're as bad as Rogers on the Zimmerman thing. I think in both cases justice has been served. If a woman comes pounding on your door at 4am and your first instinct is to blow her head open then tell conflciting stories... you have issues and are a danger to society. Your first reflex should be to call the cops, not to open the door and shoot.

It really seems like you're just reaching as hard as possible to defend the guy with the gun simply because he USED a gun.

#28 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-08-09 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

there was a lot of evidence destroyed that could have proved she tried to gain entry.

Good thing he opened the door then. That was guaranteed to keep her out!

There was evidence that she may have been trying to collect money from the wrong house

And this justifies shooting her? Can you shoot the mailman too when he delivers a bill to the wrong address? How about those pesky Girl Scouts, always looking for money for some over-priced cookies?

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-09 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

29. No the point is that had she tried to gain entry as the door and ac unit suggest then assuming he should have just waited and hoped the person did not just break a window would be to dumb for even the anti gun lunitics. But unfortunately for him the cops on scene did not bother collecting that evidence because they saw no reason as there was no expectations for prosecution. And that is the issue. Exoneration could have existed and the cops belive it did but he was denied the opportunity for defense because it was not collected. That's like an alibi that was never checked so it could not be used. Anyone who does not have a problem with that is an idiot or a liar.

#30 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-09 03:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

29. No the point is that had she tried to gain entry

You need to say "which justifies opening the door and shooting her" to have a point.

So say it.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-09 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

28. Your first reflex is to be safe. If someone was trying to get in should you just wait it out and hope the cops get there in time?
My defense is based off of poor police work resulting in a denial of a fair trial. The gun does not matter. It could have been a bat or a knife or just a fist. If there is evidence that was not collected as the police say, then how in the world could anyone claim she did not attempt to break in with anything remotely resembling beyond a reasonable doubt?

#32 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-09 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

No the point is that had she tried to gain entry as the door and ac unit suggest then assuming he should have just waited and hoped the person did not just break a window would be to dumb for even the anti gun lunitics.

#30 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR AT 2014-08-09 03:19 PM | FLAG:

Uhh.. nobody said he should wait. I said he should call the police. But he didn't. He stepped out and shot her in the face. Why are you defending this? He stepped out and shot her in the face. She presented absolutely no threat to his life, and weak claims that she was shaking his air conditioner don't matter.

He stepped out and escalated. He stepped out of safety to engage someone who was no threat. That is not self defense, that is offensive action. Had he used his fist instead of his gun, he would be in jail for assault and battery.

Do you not understand what "self defense" is? This is not an act of self defense. You should read the writings of Massad Ayoob. It will help you udnerstand the difference if you can't comprehend it from me.

#33 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-08-09 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

31, yes it does. No one would claim that killing a home invader is unjustified. Well no one who is remotely honest. And if she was in the process or appeared to be as the evidence that was negligently not collected may have pointed to, then there is no denial of reasonable fear. But of course that does not matter to some, after all you should always assume the person trying to break into your house means you no harm.

#34 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-09 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

And let me make my viewpoint extremely clear on this: if you would have responded to the same situation the same way YOU are also a danger to society. Take Ayoob's Mag 40 course.

#35 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-08-09 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.personaldefensesolutions.n
et

Read. Learn.

#36 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-08-09 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

No one would claim that killing a home invader is unjustified. Well no one who is remotely honest. And if she was in the process or appeared to be

She was invading his home the moment she stepped off the public sidewalk onto the boundaries of his property, is that it?

Let me ask you this: Who opens the door knowing there is someone dedicated to invading their home on the other side?

If she was actually invading his home, all he had to do was wait for her to get inside before gunning her down. Are those rules really too restrictive for you?

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-09 03:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"nobody said he should wait. I said he should call the police."
And then what?
Would everything change if he had been able to find his phone first?
Cause it should not.

" He stepped out of safety to engage someone who was no threat."
There is no safety in a house that is is being broken into. What safety does a door offer when there are windows?

So yes you are claiming that he just should have waited and hoped nothing bad happened.

"That is not self defense, that is offensive action. Had he used his fist instead of his gun, he would be in jail for assault and battery."

That's just not true, and i think you know it. There would be no emotional outburst and the initial reaction of the police would have been the same as it was here. He acted reasonably.

"Do you not understand what "self defense" is? This is not an act of self defense."
It was though. Waiting for the other person to attack removes most of your ability to defend. You take what opportunity you need to prevent harm not wait for it to happen so you can be absolutely sure that they were not just going to stop before you really got hurt.

So ask yourself, is a window enough protection that you would not feel the need to neutralize a threat?

#38 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-09 03:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If she was actually invading his home, all he had to do was wait for her to get inside before gunning her down. Are those rules really too restrictive for you?"

So he waits for the intruder to take the upper hand?
Seems pretty dumb to me.

But then again i am not one of those people that will not investigate noises at night because i am too scared.

#39 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-09 03:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

"www.personaldefensesolutions.
n
et
Read. Learn."

Thanks but i will stick to those who know what they are talking about.

Case in point,
"Depending on the circumstance, a crippling injury can be considered grave bodily harm. For example, if an attacker causes you an injury that would render you incapable of defending yourself, so that they can continue their attack unhindered, that would justify the use of lethal/deadly force."

That is not the law in any state. Specifically the laws are written to avoid the necessity of harm having already happened because it precludes real self defense.

But also note that nowhere does he say that you have to just sit and wait for the police to arrive or that you cannot try to see what is going on.

Stepping outside to find the source of the noise is not an issue. In fact you can be penalized by the police for calling them for no reason. So nothing is out of the norm for a homeowner to see what the source of the racket was.

#40 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-09 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

But then again i am not one of those people that will not investigate noises at night because i am too scared.
#39 | Posted by salamandagator

By "investigate noises" you mean shooting them in the face? Yes, yes you do.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-09 03:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

"She was invading his home the moment she stepped off the public sidewalk onto the boundaries of his property, is that it?"

No she may have been attempting to as the screen may have shown and as the A/C unit may have shown.

This is not just a guy shooting some person for being on the porch it is a guy shooting someone for attempting to get into his house. That is what the cops said it was after seeing the scene. It takes the denial and destruction of exonerating evidence to preclude the most likely story, but that is exactly what happened.

But again, think about it. You here a noise outside your house and step out to see. Maybe it is just a cat going though your garbage. But when you step out there is someone there trying to get in. Are you escalating if you just took a swing or smashed him with the door? No, no one would claim that. But had the evidence been collected then this would be the same scenario. Instead it was not so the guy had nothing to defend from an oversimplification and reduction in terms that made him guilty to those ruled by emotion.

#42 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-09 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

So ask yourself, is a window enough protection that you would not feel the need to neutralize a threat?
#38 | Posted by salamandagator

What threat? A hooker looking for money? Was she armed, perchance?

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-09 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is not just a guy shooting some person for being on the porch it is a guy shooting someone for attempting to get into his house.

Serious question: Someone is attempting to get into your house. Do you open the door?

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-09 03:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

"What threat? A hooker looking for money? Was she armed, perchance?"

Oh, so he should now have made sure she was armed.

"Excuse me could i just do a quick pat down and background check of you before i know if your attempt to break into my house is for nefarious reason? Don't worry i will not do a thing until i know but if it is then i will take action"

Do you understand how stupid that is?

#45 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-09 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But also note that nowhere does he say that you have to just sit and wait for the police to arrive or that you cannot try to see what is going on."

He did a lot more than see what is going on. People don't get convicted of murder for "seeing."

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-09 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Excuse me could i just do a quick pat down and background check of you before i know if your attempt to break into my house is for nefarious reason? Don't worry i will not do a thing until i know but if it is then i will take action"

As I said earlier, had she actually entered the premises, he'd be a free man right now.

You can't shoot someone because you think they might be about to break into your house. They have to actually break in first.

It's a simple enough concept. I'm willing to explain it further if you require additional assistance.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-09 04:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You can't shoot someone because you think they might be about to break into your house. They have to actually break in first."

That is simply not true. Read up on the law because you obviously have no clue as to what you are talking about.

But there is more then just your lack of education on the subject here. If you really believe there is a set line then you should seek so real help.

I mean can you honestly believe that it makes a difference is someone is partially inside, still trying to get inside or all the way in. I mean what if the intruder just had one leg through the window? Is that murder but if he had both then it's fine?
And to seriously think that you can be of no threat unless you are inside is amazingly idiotic.
I'm sorry but i am having trouble taking you serious at all. Is this just a joke, are you trolling or do you have mental issues?

If you are not trolling then i apologize for bringing up your mental issues, it's not your fault.

#48 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-09 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

" Someone is attempting to get into your house. Do you open the door?"

If it is the best or only option yes. I open the door as would any reasonable person. If the person is actively trying to get through the door at that moment then it would not be the best option. But that is not what was happening. The sounds went from the door to the windows.
Note that the neighbors also testified that they went outside to investigate because they heard someone fooling around with their cars. But i guess they are idiots too for not just cowering in fear as you seem to wish everyone would.

#49 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-09 04:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

When is opening the door your "only option???"

Note that the neighbors also testified that they went outside to investigate because they heard someone fooling around with their cars.

So, it's okay to shoot car prowlers now?

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-09 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

I mean can you honestly believe that it makes a difference is someone is partially inside, still trying to get inside or all the way in.

The person who was shot... was none of those.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-09 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks but i will stick to those who know what they are talking about.

#40 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR AT 2014-08-09 03:46 PM | FLAG:

Oh holy crap, really?

Did you just claim MASSAD AYOOB doesn't know what he's talking about?

Can't... stop.... laughing.

Hey everyone, left and right, go Google Massad Ayoob. Then come back here and join me in pointing and laughing at Sala.

#52 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-08-09 04:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Someone's on your porch.
For whatever reason, you think they're trying to break in.
You can open the door and shoot them?
Yes or no.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-09 04:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Did you just claim MASSAD AYOOB doesn't know what he's talking about?"

I claimed he was wrong about the fundamental aspect of the article.
That much is indisputable. It's a reasonable fear in all states. He misstated that fact.

#54 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-09 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So, it's okay to shoot car prowlers now?"

Was that ever brought up?
No, but according to you they should have cowered in fear and waited for the police to arrive too.

#55 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-09 04:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Or, if you're too lazy to do so, claiming Massad Ayoob doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to self defense is like claiming Sir Elton John doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to being a closeted musician in the 70's.

#56 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-08-09 04:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

"For whatever reason, you think they're trying to break in.
You can open the door and shoot them?
Yes or no."

If there is reasonable cause to think they are trying to break in, absolutely.

#57 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-09 04:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Or, if you're too lazy to do so, claiming Massad Ayoob doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to self defense is like claiming Sir Elton John doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to being a closeted musician in the 70's."

Do you need me to post state laws that prove him wrong?

It's easy. I can get 50 of them or you can too.

#58 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-09 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

A door-and-shotgun scenario should be first filtered by a fence-and-dog one.

#59 | Posted by FlyUntied at 2014-08-09 05:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

If there is reasonable cause to think they are trying to break in, absolutely.
#57 | Posted by salamandagator

I doubt many juries would agree with you.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-09 05:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

No, but according to you they should have cowered in fear and waited for the police to arrive too.
#55 | Posted by salamandagator

Why would you cower in fear when you are armed, knowing that you can blow the sucker away at any time?? You're a strange person.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-09 05:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

If a woman comes pounding on your door at 4am and your first instinct is to blow her head open then tell conflciting stories... you have issues and are a danger to society.

I think the conflicting stories are where his defense fell apart. If you don't know whether you shot someone by accident or on purpose in reflexive defense, how can a jury be convinced you did it for the right reasons?

As for Zimmerman, if this homeowner had top-dollar defense attorneys, he'd likely be acquitted too.

#62 | Posted by rcade at 2014-08-09 07:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

And for anyone who cares? I think Zimmerman should have been found guilty of something.... but the media hysterics prevented that. Rather than going for charges of crimes he actually DID commit... they went for the big one. Bad move. He didn't commit the big one.

#65 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-08-09 08:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

64. The noise was gone, she was not pounding on the door when he opened it. Is it not reasonable to look about? Would it not be prudent to be armed? But the issue is not what he did it's what the police did not do. I could not care less if you think he should have just waited inside, destroying and failing to collect evidence should never be acceptable. And if the footprints on the ac unit and the damage to the door were as the police on scene said they would most definitely lean towards defense. Specifically in Michigan you can even use deadly force to stop a felony which breaking and entering is. Because that is the case that evidence, if it was what was stated, would have gotten him off. That is what is inexcusable. I am not saying you are defending the crappy police work but I do not see how there is no agreement that the facts could not come to light because of the police and if the full truth is not known how can we as a society be okay with putting him away for most likely the rest of his life?

#66 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-10 01:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Specifically in Michigan you can even use deadly force to stop a felony which breaking and entering is.

She never "entered," dummy.

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-10 03:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Michigan has the Castle Law.

However, since he fired THROUGH the screen door at her - she hadn't entered the house - his shooting wasn't justified.

#68 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-10 03:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

Michigan has the Castle Law.

However, since he fired THROUGH the screen door at her - she hadn't entered the house - his shooting wasn't justified.

#69 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-10 03:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

This just in:

Michigan has the Castle Law.

However, since he fired THROUGH the screen door at her - she hadn't entered the house - his shooting wasn't justified.

:)

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-10 03:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

On that Castle Law and her not entering his house ... LOL

#71 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-10 04:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

No, but according to you they should have cowered in fear and waited for the police to arrive too.

#55 | Posted by salamandagator

She never made an attempt to enter his house. He could have just closed the (wooden) front door he opened when he answered the door. The screen door was locked. You know, the one he fired the fatal shot through?

You right wing gun people are out of your minds, otherwise you'd use them more often. To, you know, "think".

#72 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-10 04:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

The screen door was locked.

I think there was some evidence the door had been knocked off its frame by her banging on it.

#73 | Posted by rcade at 2014-08-10 09:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

Rather than going for charges of crimes he actually DID commit... they went for the big one. Bad move. He didn't commit the big one.

So you think I'm wrong and you dragged me into this discussion because of that, but we both agree the second-degree murder charge was an overcharge and he was guilty of a lesser charge?

The media didn't make Angela Corey overcharge. It was her call and she blew it. She has a terrible reputation here in Jacksonville, where she's based.

#74 | Posted by rcade at 2014-08-10 09:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

72.

The police on scene disagree. The screen door was damaged before the shot and there were footprints on an ac unit. It's pretty hard to think that was just part of knocking for help 3 hours after your drunken car crash.

#75 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-10 11:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

67

Uh, again with the have to wait till its to late crap. One day you might bother to look up the law. It's prevent not retaliate, let's not start calling people dumb when you cannot even get that one incredibly simple fact right.

#76 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-10 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

73. According to the police on scene there was. Because they thought it was open and shut defense they did not even take a picture of it till it was fixed. Nor did they collect the footprint on the account unit that could have shown that she tried to find another way in. Two very important pieces of information use able by the defense that were stripped away by the state because they were not handled right. We see people get off for a lot less when evidence is mishandled but apparently all the facts were not important enough in this case to grant this guy due process.

#77 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-10 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

But the issue is not what he did it's what the police did not do.

No it's not and it never has been. The only germane issue is the fact that the man opened his door and shot a woman in the face, killing her without stopping to find out who she was and why she was there. This is why we have the term reasonable as it pertains to law.

Excuse me if everyone else knows this but was this house the only one near where the woman wrecked? Did she have other options? And why would anyone propose that doors and footprints indicate that hours after her crash she was intentionally trying to commit a felony?

It's absolutely reasonable that the man would have been frightened by the noise and commotion, but unless he has a personal history of people breaking in, isn't it also reasonable that someone might be in distress and needing help at such an odd hour? I also think it's reasonable for him to be armed for self defense, but if outside lights were on, he could have opened the door, stepped back while still aiming the gun at whomever was at the door and ascertained what in the hell was going on.

It is not reasonable to fire out of fear, and anyone can construct alternate realities to explain-away almost any action based on what you thought was going on when reality was completely different. It is never reasonable or legal to take another person's life just because you're scared when they hadn't yet crossed the physical threshold of putting your own safety in any danger.

#78 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-10 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think there was some evidence the door had been knocked off its frame by her banging on it.

#73 | Posted by rcade

"The 55-year-old homeowner from Dearborn Heights, a Detroit suburb, testified this week that he suspected a break-in when he heard banging on his front and side doors before dawn on Nov. 2. He opened his front door and said he feared for his life when he shot Ms. McBride through the locked screen door as she stood on his porch."

online.wsj.com

#79 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-10 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The airport maintenance worker faces up to life in prison for killing Renisha McBride, 19, with a shotgun blast through his locked screen door after he was awakened in the early hours of Nov. 2 by repeated, violent knocking on his door."

www.chicagotribune.com

#80 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-10 12:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

78.

It was hours after the crash. Neighbors also testified that they heard neighbors and checked it out.
The police said the screen door was out of its frame but did not document that. The footprints were on an ac unit not on the ground. The guy said he heard someone try a few windows. She was not there out of distress that much should be obvious. As far as a locked screen door, it was not documented and as for a screen door being locked that means nothing. These are all things that should have come out in the trial but because the police failed to collect and document them he did not have a chance. What is disappointing is that so many do not care that law enforcement dictated the outcome by not collecting evidence. That is no different then specifically leaving out exoneration evidence because you want guilt even when you know better. So yes it is about cops failing not about Monday morning quarterbacking.

#81 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-10 03:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

80. And? The police who were on scene claimed otherwise. I tend to belive them over a third hand article making something out of what the cops thought was nothing.

#82 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-10 03:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Address #67 please.
Have a nice day.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-10 04:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

One day you might bother to look up the law. It's prevent not retaliate, let's not start calling people dumb when you cannot even get that one incredibly simple fact right.

#76 | Posted by salamandagator

Here's a synopsis of the Michigan law: www.grabellaw.com

For a person to be convicted of breaking and entering, a prosecutor must demonstrate that the person first broke into a building using force, and then entered that building. When defining "breaking" into a building, force can include actions such as breaking down a door, but can also be something as small as opening a door or window, even one that was already partially open. You can also be charged with breaking into a building if police or prosecuting attorneys can demonstrate you fraudulently entered a building.

After you have broken into a building, you must enter in order to be charged with a breaking and entering crime. However, your physical person does not need to enter the building, simply placing an object in the building or putting your hand through the door or window qualifies as entering.


Did she enter? Yes or no.

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-10 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

84 are you that dense? It was addressed. It's prevention you don't wait to hit the wall before hitting your breaks now do you? Well given your demonstration of your capacity I would not put it past you. But to those capable of cognitive though waiting until it's too late is plain dumb.

#85 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-10 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's absolutely reasonable that the man would have been frightened by the noise and commotion, but unless he has a personal history of people breaking in, isn't it also reasonable that someone might be in distress and needing help at such an odd hour?

I've been in the exact situation he was in, with a stranger banging on the door of my mother's house at 4 a.m. and waking me up. I don't think you need a personal history of break-ins to be frightened by the situation.

I didn't open the door. Instead, I watched through a window he wouldn't have been able to see through. The person wandered off and started gesticulating at passing cars on a busy street nearby and then tried to tear down a neighbor's fence, so I called the cops and stayed inside.

If he had stayed at my door I would've probably told him through the closed door I was calling the cops. Opening the door wasn't a move I considered.

#86 | Posted by rcade at 2014-08-10 04:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

84 are you that dense? It was addressed.

You mean this:
One day you might bother to look up the law.

I did, and it doesn't agree with what you want it to be.
The law requires her to enter for it to be breaking and entering.

It's prevention you don't wait to hit the wall before hitting your breaks now do you?
Yes, it's prevention. And in this case, it's also murder. You can prevent people from doing all kinds of things by murdering them!

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-10 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

87. As I said I suggest you look at the law. Specifically it says the exact opposite of what you think it says.www.legislature.mi.gov(S(2jjjutb5mcdhui45qys50jzf))/
mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-780-951

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

So now the time has come for you to just say you were wrong. Go ahead, it's not like we did not know it already.

#88 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-10 04:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

in the process of breaking and entering

She was not in the process of breaking and entering.
She didn't "break" or force open any entryway, and she wasn't entering anything.

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-10 05:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

89

It would be far better if you just admitted that you are wrong but if you want to keep playing ignorant then fine. She broke the screen door according to the forensic witness and the police on the scene. There was a footprint the police be lived was hers on the ac unit. So yes there was breaking and thinking there was any intent other then to enter is ludicrous. It takes a special kind of stupid to think she was looking for help 3.5 hours after the accident. Especially considering neighbors heard her going through stuff and making noise outside other houses. So because no one can be dumb enough to belive she was looking for help what other intent would be reasonable for someone breaking part of an entry, trying a few windows and getting on an ac unit? Can you suggest one?

#90 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-10 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

If he had stayed at my door I would've probably told him through the closed door I was calling the cops. Opening the door wasn't a move I considered.

POSTED BY RCADE

AND, if he had broken in? Call a pacifist?

#91 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-08-10 05:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So now the time has come for you to just say you were wrong."

Now is the time to admit you will always be on the side of the shooter.

#92 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-08-10 05:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

"AND, if he had broken in? Call a pacifist?"

No. THEN you shoot them.

#93 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-08-10 05:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

She broke the screen door according to the forensic witness and the police on the scene. There was a footprint the police be lived was hers on the ac unit.

Did she ever force access? No. No break.
Did she ever enter? No. No enter.
Stay in school, kids!

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-10 05:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

It takes a special kind of stupid to think she was looking for help 3.5 hours after the accident.

Irrelevant.
The only thing that matters is:
Was she breaking and entering?

It takes a special kind of stupid to claim she was breaking and entering when she hadn't forced open an entryway her body could pass through, and she hadn't used that passageway to enter the premises.

Stay in school, kids!

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-10 05:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

95.

Read the law. I posted it. How hard can it be to understand? I could easily explain it to my 6yo. You don't have to wait till its to late. It's very simple and anyone with the ability to get past kindergarten should get it. The law could not be clearer. It specifically says you are 100 percent wrong and yet you claim otherwise. Are the trees pink too? Give it up dude you are embarrassing yourself.

#96 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-10 06:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

You don't have to wait till its to late.

You just have to wait until they are breaking and entering.
She did neither.

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-10 06:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion

How difficult is that for you to understand? That is the law, clear as day. You do not have to wait. So seriously give up on the playing dumb.

#98 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-10 06:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

In the process of establishing the intent of a dead person.

Genius.

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-10 10:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Dead person was not on trial. Assuming, against all reason, that her intent was good does not help anyone. You make the assumption as to her intent, I hold that her intent could not have been known but that her ACTION lends to something other then the odd scenario you would require. You are asking that this guy go to jail most likely for the rest of his life based on your assumption. That should be ridiculous to anyone. Nothing can save her, not even your misplaced lust for punishment.

#100 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-10 10:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's absolutely ridiculous to try and second guess the actions of someone in distress that was trying to get help in the middle of the night. It's even more understandable how intoxication likely played a part in her disjointed actions.

It is simply indefensible to stretch fear and ignorance into a defense against taking the life of someone who had committed no capital crime. Funny thing is that in similar circumstances someone in the South called police about the late night banging of what was an accident victim looking for help and the arriving police shot the man as dead as this homeowner did.

I guess the story here is if you're caught in distress at night in a strange neighborhood, just sit and bleed or whatever until morning. Trying to save your life is now a criminal offense carrying a possible death penalty, particularly if the people or police you look to for help are afraid of you.

#101 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-10 10:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

You are asking that this guy go to jail most likely for the rest of his life based on your assumption.

No, I'm expecting this man to pay for his crime of taking someone's life because he was frightened and decided to fire through his door instead of calling the police and staying in safety behind it until they arrived.

He was held responsible for what he DID, not what you and he are trying to say he thought or how physical evidence supports your theories. His innocence ended the second he fired through that door and ended another person's life without legal cause.

#102 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-10 10:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

101. No the story is that even if you drunkenly crashed your car three and a half hours ago you have no right to expect someone to assume that you are not trying to break in as you actions would lead any reasonable person to belive.

#103 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-11 02:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

102
See you gave yourself away. Anyone that thinks a door is an impermeable barrier and you can just wait it out is as stupid as snoofy. You just want blood for blood and nothing else matters.

#104 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-11 02:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

"AND, if he had broken in? Call a pacifist?"
No. THEN you shoot them.

#93 | POSTED BY REDIAL

With what? Rcade's story had what weapon handy?

#105 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-08-11 02:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

If the arguments Salamandagator presents made sense, the defense would have used them.

But they don't, and they didn't.

Oh well.

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-11 03:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

#90 | Posted by salamandagator

Wow. Your desperation reeks as bad as over-applied drug store cologne.

as you actions would lead any reasonable person to belive.

So the defense was so incompetent they couldn't get at least one reasonable person on the jury?

Anyone that thinks a door is an impermeable barrier and you can just wait it out is as stupid as snoofy.

Dude, I haven't read the entire thread but I can see you're flailing wildly. Show some integrity and just stop posting for a few days and hope snoof doesn't rub your nose in your own pile when you come back.

BTW, you seem to think it such a weak, inconsequential barrier that any action against it requires deadly force.

#107 | Posted by jpw at 2014-08-11 06:35 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

AND, if he had broken in? Call a pacifist?

I've said many times here I support the right of people to defend themselves with a gun in their own home during intrusions.

#108 | Posted by rcade at 2014-08-11 09:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort