• 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!

Homeowner Who Shot Dead A Teen Girl On His Porch Faces Murder Charges This Week

opendebate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
2,926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...rl-on-his-porch-faces-murder-trial-this-week/

Remember this story? From the article

..... latest trial to test the role of expansive self-defense laws in racially charged deaths by gunfire.

In statements to the press, he called the shooting “justified” and “reasonable,” invoking language from Michigan’s “Shoot First” laws that allow immunity for some self-defense shootings.

....in announcing she would charge Wafer with second-degree murder, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said her office determined that Wafer “did not act in lawful self-defense.”

Wafer’s lawyer Cheryl Carpenter argued in opening statements Wednesday morning that Wafer shot McBride out of fear. To bolster that argument with legal support, she will have two options under Michigan’s expanded self-defense laws that grew out of NRA lobbying. In addition to passing a “Stand Your Ground” law in 2006 that expands the sanctioned use of deadly force outside the home, Michigan also expanded the so-called “Castle Doctrine,” which allows deadly force to protect one’s dwelling, to include areas around the home such as a yard or porch.

For Wafer to successfully invoke the “Castle Doctrine,” he would have to show that McBride was “in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling.” Prosecutors said there no evidence of forced entry. And the autopsy report shows McBride was not shot at close range.

Wafer could also use the state’s Stand Your Ground law to show that he reasonably believed force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.


I think these laws are dangerous and empower people to act on irrational fears. Irrational fears that seem to consistently provoke them to shoot black people. IMHO, unless they consider that sector of our population dispensable these laws need to be changed in consideration of these real world outcomes.
 
Homeowner Who Shot Dead A Teen Girl On His Porch Faces Murder Charges This Week | ThinkProgress

Remember this story? From the article

..... latest trial to test the role of expansive self-defense laws in racially charged deaths by gunfire.

In statements to the press, he called the shooting “justified” and “reasonable,” invoking language from Michigan’s “Shoot First” laws that allow immunity for some self-defense shootings.

....in announcing she would charge Wafer with second-degree murder, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said her office determined that Wafer “did not act in lawful self-defense.”

Wafer’s lawyer Cheryl Carpenter argued in opening statements Wednesday morning that Wafer shot McBride out of fear. To bolster that argument with legal support, she will have two options under Michigan’s expanded self-defense laws that grew out of NRA lobbying. In addition to passing a “Stand Your Ground” law in 2006 that expands the sanctioned use of deadly force outside the home, Michigan also expanded the so-called “Castle Doctrine,” which allows deadly force to protect one’s dwelling, to include areas around the home such as a yard or porch.

For Wafer to successfully invoke the “Castle Doctrine,” he would have to show that McBride was “in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling.” Prosecutors said there no evidence of forced entry. And the autopsy report shows McBride was not shot at close range.

Wafer could also use the state’s Stand Your Ground law to show that he reasonably believed force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.


I think these laws are dangerous and empower people to act on irrational fears. Irrational fears that seem to consistently provoke them to shoot black people. IMHO, unless they consider that sector of our population dispensable these laws need to be changed in consideration of these real world outcomes.

Is this the one where the guy shot through the closed front door?
 
Homeowner Who Shot Dead A Teen Girl On His Porch Faces Murder Charges This Week | ThinkProgress

Remember this story? From the article

I think these laws are dangerous and empower people to act on irrational fears. Irrational fears that seem to consistently provoke them to shoot black people. IMHO, unless they consider that sector of our population dispensable these laws need to be changed in consideration of these real world outcomes.

Maybe I misunderstand something. I recall that tragic story.

Definitive Self Defense Laws have nothing to do with the color of skin... hmmm, I guess your final statement is puzzling to me.

:peace :)

Thom Paine
 
Combine stupid cowboy laws that allow murder based on how someone "feels" with racist paranoia and this is your result.
Gun fetishists see all their perceived fears, no matter how wrong they may be, as targets.
Shoot first and ask questions later castle laws are a recipe for murder.
 
Homeowner Who Shot Dead A Teen Girl On His Porch Faces Murder Charges This Week | ThinkProgress

Remember this story? From the article

..... latest trial to test the role of expansive self-defense laws in racially charged deaths by gunfire.

In statements to the press, he called the shooting “justified” and “reasonable,” invoking language from Michigan’s “Shoot First” laws that allow immunity for some self-defense shootings.

....in announcing she would charge Wafer with second-degree murder, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said her office determined that Wafer “did not act in lawful self-defense.”

Wafer’s lawyer Cheryl Carpenter argued in opening statements Wednesday morning that Wafer shot McBride out of fear. To bolster that argument with legal support, she will have two options under Michigan’s expanded self-defense laws that grew out of NRA lobbying. In addition to passing a “Stand Your Ground” law in 2006 that expands the sanctioned use of deadly force outside the home, Michigan also expanded the so-called “Castle Doctrine,” which allows deadly force to protect one’s dwelling, to include areas around the home such as a yard or porch.

For Wafer to successfully invoke the “Castle Doctrine,” he would have to show that McBride was “in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling.” Prosecutors said there no evidence of forced entry. And the autopsy report shows McBride was not shot at close range.

Wafer could also use the state’s Stand Your Ground law to show that he reasonably believed force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.


I think these laws are dangerous and empower people to act on irrational fears. Irrational fears that seem to consistently provoke them to shoot black people. IMHO, unless they consider that sector of our population dispensable these laws need to be changed in consideration of these real world outcomes.



The actions of a handful of people with poor judgment do not justify needless constraints on the self-defense rights of hundreds of millions of citizens.

If it were so, we would have gotten rid of automobiles long ago.


... and since charges have been filed, one can hardly say the system has failed to act to seek justice in this case.
 
Last edited:
Combine stupid cowboy laws that allow murder based on how someone "feels" with racist paranoia and this is your result.
Gun fetishists see all their perceived fears, no matter how wrong they may be, as targets.
Shoot first and ask questions later castle laws are a recipe for murder.


Your'e the one with the Gun fetish, AND the race fetish.

And apparently you have some Cowboy fetish. TMI, you could have kept that to yourself.
 
I would hate to be a juror in this case. Seems like without any video or audio evidence it would be hard to know whether this was legit self defense or murder.

As far as changing the laws I disagree. Obvious solution would be for people to not step foot on another person's property (especially not high/drunk in the middle of the night). If he did shoot her for simply being black I hope he gets the needle.
 
Your'e the one with the Gun fetish, AND the race fetish.

And apparently you have some Cowboy fetish. TMI, you could have kept that to yourself.
I don't shoot innocent people in cold blood on my front porch out of a paranoid fear because I think the law says I can.
Your attempt at projection is baseless, feeble and very poorly executed.
FYI I happen to enjoy old west movies, but I have the ability to realize that the morals and sensibilities of that historical period no longer can, or should, apply to modern society.
 
Combine stupid cowboy laws that allow murder based on how someone "feels" with racist paranoia and this is your result.
Gun fetishists see all their perceived fears, no matter how wrong they may be, as targets.
Shoot first and ask questions later castle laws are a recipe for murder.
Regardless of race, if you were to see a stranger on you property in the middle of the night I doubt many would say you would be overly paranoid by feeling threatened. Now is that person is on drunk and on drugs there is no telling how the situation went down. She could have been out of her mind at that poimt in time and the old man felt genuinely scared for his life.

Without having been there or seeing all of the evidence to condemn this man as some kimd of racist cowboy is a bit premature. If he is then I hope justice gets served but I believe in innocent until proven guilty or is that no longer acceptable.
 
The attempts to turn a self-defense law into some kind of racist issue is ludicrous and disingenuous.



I assure you, anyone who threatens me will receive my due attention with complete disregard for race, creed, gender, color or nationality. My only concerns at that point will be sight picture and trigger squeeze.
 
Maybe I misunderstand something. I recall that tragic story.

Definitive Self Defense Laws have nothing to do with the color of skin... hmmm, I guess your final statement is puzzling to me.

:peace :)

Thom Paine

Ref post #4
 
The actions of a handful of people with poor judgment do not justify needless constraints on the self-defense rights of hundreds of millions of citizens.

If it were so, we would have gotten rid of automobiles long ago.


... and since charges have been filed, one can hardly say the system has failed to act to seek justice in this case.

Those actions, even if it's just a handful, make those constraints anything BUT needless.

That automobile analogy does not make sense.

As for the charges, great. But those "charges" do little to comfort the loved ones of people who are killed because some cowboy can hold his **** together.
 
Those actions, even if it's just a handful, make those constraints anything BUT needless.

That automobile analogy does not make sense.

As for the charges, great. But those "charges" do little to comfort the loved ones of people who are killed because some cowboy can hold his **** together.


The same could be said for Murder being illegal. Laws written on paper do not stop people from doing stupid ****, and a handful of people doing stupid **** does not justify restricting the peaceable majority.
 
I think these laws are dangerous and empower people to act on irrational fears. Irrational fears that seem to consistently provoke them to shoot black people. IMHO, unless they consider that sector of our population dispensable these laws need to be changed in consideration of these real world outcomes.

I agree with you. It's time some of these broaded castle laws were clarified and narrowed. It should be illegal to shoot someone just for being in one's front yard; or stealing one's car; we should have (and do have) the absolute right to shoot someone if we are physically threatened, but shooting a person requires answering for shooting a person.

Just because you're standing on my porch yelling at me doesn't give you the right to shoot me dead because, "I was afraid she was going to force her way into my home." Shut and Lock The Damned Door.

Years ago, I asked a cop if I could shoot someone on my front porch if he scared me. The cop answered something like, "Well, yeah. But you'd better drag him part-way in the house."

Fingerprints on the door handle, broken glass, more than one person, all of that would enter in . . . but showing up at one's front door with a gun in one's hand shows a certain premeditation that makes me nervous. And if you had time to run and get it? You had time to Shut and Lock The Damned Door.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you. It's time some of these broaded castle laws were clarified and narrowed. It should be illegal to shoot someone just for being in one's front yard; or stealing one's car; we should have (and do have) the absolute right to shoot someone if we are physically threatened, but shooting a person requires answering for shooting a person.

Just because you're standing on my porch yelling at me doesn't give you the right to shoot me dead because, "I was afraid she was going to force her way into my home." Shut The Damned Door.



It is already illegal to shoot someone JUST for being in your front yard!
 
It is already illegal to shoot someone JUST for being in your front yard!

Not if you think they're breaking into your shed it isn't. Or think they might break in your shed. Or think they're stealing a lawn ornament. Or probably a dozen other actions I could think of that supporters of broad Castle Laws could and do point out in discussions on this forum.

I love you, Goshin....!!! ;)
 
Ref post #4


Oh my, I choose not to respond to that type of statement.

I won't let that come between us :lamo I still like ya'

We disagree .. just a feeble attempt at personal levity....

Have a terrific day OD

:peace

Thom Paine
 
Regardless of race, if you were to see a stranger on you property in the middle of the night I doubt many would say you would be overly paranoid by feeling threatened. Now is that person is on drunk and on drugs there is no telling how the situation went down. She could have been out of her mind at that poimt in time and the old man felt genuinely scared for his life.

Without having been there or seeing all of the evidence to condemn this man as some kimd of racist cowboy is a bit premature. If he is then I hope justice gets served but I believe in innocent until proven guilty or is that no longer acceptable.
Since there has not yet been a trial all we have to comment on are the prima facie facts in the case as they present themselves.
Of course the man will get his day in court and will have ample opportunity to defend his lethal reactions that night.
Already the defense has begun siting "stand your ground" and "castle" laws, indicating that it is not very likely that it can be proved that McBride posed any real threat to Wafer... only that Wafer "perceived" a threat.
These laws rely on perceptions and emotional state of the killer to get them off, ... not real threats.
When murder can be legally justified by the "feelings" of the killer, the law is stupid and dangerous to all.
 
It is already illegal to shoot someone JUST for being in your front yard!
Oh good, then this man should go to jail because that's what this girl was doing.
 
Not if you think they're breaking into your shed it isn't. Or think they might break in your shed. Or think they're stealing a lawn ornament. Or probably a dozen other actions I could think of that supporters of broad Castle Laws could and do point out in discussions on this forum.

I love you, Goshin....!!! ;)



I apologize if I seemed to shout.

However, I must point out there is a world of difference between "JUST standing in your front yard" and someone who appears to be attempting to break in or steal.

Many states already do not allow lethal force in defense of property alone.... though frankly I think they should.

And again, in almost all of these questionable cases being so loudly touted, CHARGES WERE FILED and a court will hear the evidence and decide... some are acting as if people are getting off scot free from murder by the scores when it is not so.
 
Since there has not yet been a trial all we have to comment on are the prima facie facts in the case as they present themselves.
Of course the man will get his day in court and will have ample opportunity to defend his lethal reactions that night.
Already the defense has begun siting "stand your ground" and "castle" laws, indicating that it is not very likely that it can be proved that McBride posed any real threat to Wafer... only that Wafer "perceived" a threat.
These laws rely on perceptions and emotional state of the killer to get them off, ... not real threats.
When murder can be legally justified by the "feelings" of the killer, the law is stupid and dangerous to all.


Wrong. Their feelings are held to the "reasonable man standard". As in, "would a reasonable person in the same situation also perceive a serious threat?"

It is NOT simply about the shooter's feelings alone. If their perception of threat is deemed unreasonable by a jury, then they are liable for their action.
 
The actions of a handful of people with poor judgment do not justify needless constraints on the self-defense rights of hundreds of millions of citizens.

If it were so, we would have gotten rid of automobiles long ago.


... and since charges have been filed, one can hardly say the system has failed to act to seek justice in this case.

No, we didn't "get rid of cars" because all we needed to do was regulate them, just like we don't want to get rid of guns - we just need to regulate them.

And to address your last sentence, the key isn't to press charges on the homeowner - the key is to at least try to prevent the crime from happening in the first place...which is what every other first-world democracy on the planet is doing by regulating firearms and firearm ownership...and as a direct result, ALL of them have much lower homicide rates.
 
Back
Top Bottom