• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Suburban Detroit homeowner convicted of second-degree murder in porch shooting

Lursa said:
At what point was she a criminal? Arent gun owners supposed to identify threats before shooting?

Do burglars and home invaders knock first? If they do, if that was your assumption, wouldnt you also assume they were armed and not just throw open the door and become a target?

Weak fool like this hurts all our gun rights.
Click to expand...

Yes, sometimes they do knock first.
 
Lursa said:
You said that now criminals would have less concern of homeowner action.

How was his ability to protect his property taken away? (Well,now it is)

To his knowlege she attempted to take no property and she never gained access to the house. Why did he need to shoot?

*Could* he shoot? Apparently he though so. *Should* he have shot? No....he was in no imminent danger. He had true cover, the ability to retreat, and never called 911. In most states, if not all, (not sure about TX) the person needs to be in the house...not just on the property...or at least breaking in.

While he may have 'believed' she was trying to break in, his fear kept him from perceiving the actual actions and instead of waiting (he still could have), retreating (he could have even if he didnt have to), and he could have called 911.

His poor judgement, for whatever reason...my guess is fear...makes all gun owners look weak and unable to control themselves.
Click to expand...

Right, now it has.
 
TurtleDude said:
as opposed to say far left extremists who think that its always wrong for a white person to shoot a black even if the black is intent on robbery or murder?
Click to expand...
No such intent was demonstrated in this case.
She was murdered because she knocked on his door and she was black.
Nothing else could be shown.
 
I would have figured voluntary manslaughter, but meh. :shrug:
 
I try not to judge trials from a distance.

I did not hear all the evidence nor did I witness the event in question, so I (imo) am not qualified to pass judgement.
 
Excon said:
Justice served? :lamo
1.) He wasn't an asshole.
2.) Someone calling him one though?

There was no evidence that she was seeking help. None. So stop with the spin.

That said; He should have stuck with what he initially said. Accidental discharge, as that could only be manslaughter.
Click to expand...

From the WSJ:

The racially mixed jury deliberated for about eight hours on Wednesday and Thursday before rendering its verdict in a much-watched case that raised questions about whether the race of the victim played a role.The jury also convicted Mr. Wafer of a separate manslaughter and felony firearm charge. He could be sentenced to life in prison at a hearing scheduled for Aug. 21.

Detroit-Area Man Convicted of Second-Degree Murder in Porch Shooting - WSJ
 
DA60 said:
I try not to judge trials from a distance.

I did not hear all the evidence nor did I witness the event in question, so I (imo) am not qualified to pass judgement.
Click to expand...

I hope more info on the evidence heard by the jury will become available. I remember that in a NY Times article, mention was made of a muddy footprint on the a/c unit. Still curious about that and what, if anything, was said during the trial.
 
Goshin said:
I would have figured voluntary manslaughter, but meh. :shrug:
Click to expand...

that is what I predicted back when this issue was first discussed
 
nota bene said:
I hope more info on the evidence heard by the jury will become available. I remember that in a NY Times article, mention was made of a muddy footprint on the a/c unit. Still curious about that and what, if anything, was said during the trial.
Click to expand...

The facts the trial were pretty clear. Neither side argued or disagreed about what happened. The question the jury faced was not what happened but rather whether his actions were justified. He felt he was in danger, however it was determined his feeling threatened was not justified.
 
apdst said:
Yes, sometimes they do knock first.
Click to expand...

That's it? LOL

I anticipated that and added the entire next sentence: If they do, if that was your assumption, wouldnt you also assume they were armed and not just throw open the door and become a target?

I was trying to remain close to the context of the event in question.
 
apdst said:
Right, now it has.
Click to expand...

If he had been found innocent....gun owners would have looked better?

George Zimmerman didnt do cc permit holders any favors.
 
Lursa said:
LOL well someone said 55 but considering that he really did look black on my TV...who knew?
Click to expand...

My bad. I thought the question was how old the girl was.
 
apdst said:
I never she was, however the homeowner thought she was, hence the reason he shot her. Right?

What happened here, is that the ability for citizens to protect their property has been taken away. Any time that happens, crime goes up.
Click to expand...

You did know he was intoxicated at twice the legal level and had been smoking pot right? What a great combination with a firearm!

Btw since when is it a good idea to shoot first and ask questions later?
 
This whole thing is confusing to me. The teen crashed her car, according to the media, several hours earlier, yet all of a sudden she is knocking on a stranger's door, drunk and high, asking for help? She rear-ended a car a few hours before she landed on the man's doorstep, and it was a half-mile away. What the hell was she doing during that time? The woman whose car she ran into said she was going to call for help for her, and McBride said she was going to walk home and didn't need the woman's help.

Several hours, and a half-mile later, she ended up at the home of the man who shot her.

Things just seem off - like something isn't adding up.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
You did know he was intoxicated at twice the legal level and had been smoking pot right? What a great combination with a firearm!
Click to expand...

Where did you read that the shooter was drunk and high? From what I read, he was asleep at 430am, when he heard a knock on his door. I know that she was drunk and high, but I've not read anything (yet) that said that the shooter was.
 
Superfly said:
Where did you read that the shooter was drunk and high? From what I read, he was asleep at 430am, when he heard a knock on his door. I know that she was drunk and high, but I've not read anything (yet) that said that the shooter was.
Click to expand...

I thought I read that on the CNN page but must have read it wrong. Must have been reading too fast.
 
Im kinda torn over this- I fully support the right to defend your home but at the same time the girl wasnt trying to break in but she was banging loudly on the door and in the wee morning hours too so the homeowner was probably jolted out of sleep thinking WTF was going on. What he did was wrong but I can understand what he was going through getting woken up like that and making a life or death decision while half asleep. I would have supported a lesser charge say involuntary manslaughter but not murder. The conviction should be appealed on those grounds.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Excon cares not about convictions or trials.
As far as Excon is concerned, a white guy shot an unarmed black teen...so he should go free.
Click to expand...
:doh

Maybe you haven't heard, but this topic isn't about me or your lies.
 
Last edited:
nota bene said:
:lamoJustice served?
1.) He wasn't an asshole.
2.) Someone calling him one though?

There was no evidence that she was seeking help. None. So stop with the spin.

That said; He should have stuck with what he initially said. Accidental discharge, as that could only be manslaughter.
Click to expand...
From the WSJ:

The racially mixed jury deliberated for about eight hours on Wednesday and Thursday before rendering its verdict in a much-watched case that raised questions about whether the race of the victim played a role.The jury also convicted Mr. Wafer of a separate manslaughter and felony firearm charge. He could be sentenced to life in prison at a hearing scheduled for Aug. 21.

Detroit-Area Man Convicted of Second-Degree Murder in Porch Shooting - WSJ
Click to expand...
:doh
That in no way refutes what you quoted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom