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

Goshin said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm happy if charges were filed because it lets the court air the circumstances. When I took my gun classes, one of the things that stuck in my mind was the instructor telling us, "Even if it's a righteous shoot, plan on spending $25,000 in legal fees to sort things out."

MaggieD said:

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.

Click to expand...

Breaking into your shed is not threatening your life, or putting your life in danger.

You'd be reasonably tried for some level of homicide or manslaughter.

Your lawn mower isn't worth killing somebody over.

opendebate said:

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.

Click to expand...

The man is guilty of some level of homicide or manslaughter assuming the story is correct.

The justice system is working. So far.

Buck Ewer said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hell, why do they need a trial at all ?

They could just convict the guy on your opinion alone.

Glen Contrarian said:

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.

Click to expand...

Comparing what goes on in one country to another is apples and oranges; widely differing conditions apply. England, for instance, was far less violent than the US long BEFORE they ever enacted stringent gun control.

Canada has several times as many guns as the UK, and far less restrictive laws... but it's murder rate is comparable, barely any higher.


Half the nations in the world have FAR higher murder rates than the US, DESPITE having far LOWER rates of private gun ownership and in many cases draconian gun control laws.


From my research into the subject, the causes appear to be primarily poverty and wealth inequality, corrupt or inefficient government/police/courts, factions or gangs, and drug trade.

There is also the cultural element. Some cultures are inherently more violent than others regardless of the availability of weapons.

opendebate said:

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.

Click to expand...

Better to die a victim of crime then be empowered with self defense. Got it.

Goshin said:

The attempts to turn a self-defense law into some kind of racist issue is ludicrous and disingenuous.

Click to expand...

In relation to this case? No it's not.
Wafer is white and the murder victim was black.
To pretend that this could not be a factor in this case would be truly disingenuous.

MaggieD said:

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.

Click to expand...

Bull****. If you're on my property, without my leave, you risk a high velocity chunk of lead penetrating vital organs at my discretion (and aim). You try to steal my property, you have said "My life is forfeit". You pound on my door in the middle of the night, and sound incoherent, don't follow directions? See point one. I'm not risking my life, property or family. This isn't the movies, happy endings aren't assured and there is no replacing a dead loved one because I worried about the other persons motives.

You do stupid ****, you get removed, forcibly from the gene pool.

Buck Ewer said:

In relation to this case? No it's not.
Wafer is white and the murder victim was black.
To pretend that this could not be a factor in this case would be truly disingenuous.

Click to expand...

To pretend that Castle Doctrine and SYG are racist is nonsense. It is about self-defense, regardless of the race of the shooter or shoot-ee.


And in this particular case, unless you have evidence that the shooter shot BECAUSE the shoot-ee was black, the race card is not relevant.

Dragonfly said:

Breaking into your shed is not threatening your life, or putting your life in danger.

You'd be reasonably tried for some level of homicide or manslaughter.

Your lawn mower isn't worth killing somebody over.

Click to expand...

Thats ridiculous.

The homeowner is supposed to know the future intentions of the criminal ?

So the benefit of the doubt should be given to the guy who's just been caught destroying your personal property and rummaging through your personal belongings ?

Thom Paine said:

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.

eace

Thom Paine

Click to expand...

That's because this thread has nothing to do with the law; it's about skin color. If this were a white kid, this thread wouldn't exist.

Buck Ewer said:

In relation to this case? No it's not.
Wafer is white and the murder victim was black.
To pretend that this could not be a factor in this case would be truly disingenuous.

Click to expand...

To PRETEND that race IS a factor is just projection.

I told you you had a fetish about race.

Dragonfly said:

Breaking into your shed is not threatening your life, or putting your life in danger.

You'd be reasonably tried for some level of homicide or manslaughter.

Your lawn mower isn't worth killing somebody over.

Click to expand...

Someone invading my private property is worth killing someone over.

Fenton said:

Thats ridiculous.

The homeowner is supposed to know the future intentions of the criminal ?

So the benefit of the doubt should be given to the guy who's just been caught destroying your personal property and rummaging through your personal belongings ?

Click to expand...

It's not ridiculous at all. It's common sense. Your life is not threatened until your life is threatened. Plain and simple.

Fenton said:

To PRETEND that race IS a factor is just projection.

I told you you had a fetish about race.

Click to expand...

Race IS a factor...for the folks that want this guy convicted of a crime.

MrVicchio said:

Bull****. If you're on my property, without my leave, you risk a high velocity chunk of lead penetrating vital organs at my discretion (and aim). You try to steal my property, you have said "My life is forfeit". You pound on my door in the middle of the night, and sound incoherent, don't follow directions? See point one. I'm not risking my life, property or family. This isn't the movies, happy endings aren't assured and there is no replacing a dead loved one because I worried about the other persons motives.

You do stupid ****, you get removed, forcibly from the gene pool.

Click to expand...

And you'll go to jail for life for being an idiot.

apdst said:

Race IS a factor...for the folks that want this guy convicted of a crime.

Click to expand...

No it isn't.

He shot a girl through his front door. (according to the story)

He's guilty of a crime.

Race is NOT an issue.

Dragonfly said:

No it isn't.

He shot a girl through his front door. (according to the story)

He's guilty of a crime.

Race is NOT an issue.

Click to expand...

If it was a white girl, none of you would even care.

apdst said:

Someone invading my private property is worth killing someone over.

Click to expand...

This train of thought is why many people are very staunchly in favor of stricter gun control.

You make it harder for yourself when you spout this kind of nonsense.

apdst said:

If it was a white girl, none of you would even care.

Click to expand...

Your ignorance is astounding.

Dragonfly said:

Breaking into your shed is not threatening your life, or putting your life in danger.

You'd be reasonably tried for some level of homicide or manslaughter.

Your lawn mower isn't worth killing somebody over.

Click to expand...

I'm actually talking more about our discussions on this forum than actual laws. (I agree with you.)

Case on point, Dragonfly:

MrVicchio said:

Bull****. If you're on my property, without my leave, you risk a high velocity chunk of lead penetrating vital organs at my discretion (and aim). You try to steal my property, you have said "My life is forfeit". You pound on my door in the middle of the night, and sound incoherent, don't follow directions? See point one. I'm not risking my life, property or family. This isn't the movies, happy endings aren't assured and there is no replacing a dead loved one because I worried about the other persons motives.

You do stupid ****, you get removed, forcibly from the gene pool.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to say this guy is guilty or not guilty. I do not have all available information, I do not have access to the evidence nor the resources necessary to assess that evidence as reliable or unreliable. All I have is what the news says... which is notoriously unreliable.

Therefore I decline to say whether he is guilty of a crime.


However, given that the circumstances do appear questionable, I am glad there will be a trial with all the evidence presented, so a jury can decide whether the total circumstances added up to the shoot being a reasonable and lawful action, or not.

I will reserve final judgment on his guilt or innocence in the meantime.


The point is that this one incident does NOT justify the attempts to water down self-defense laws; any more than one incident of someone racing a Maserati down the highway at 140mph justifies banning all sports cars, or requiring anyone owning a car capable of breaking the speed limit to have a governor installed, or any such similar nonsense.

This is even more important, though, since driving is merely about transportation; self-defense is about preserving innocent life.

From the NY Times:

The legal issues in the case are complex. In Michigan, a self-defense law allows deadly force only if a person “honestly and reasonably believes” that it is necessary to prevent an imminent death or great bodily harm. Under Michigan’s so-called castle doctrine, there is no legal requirement for a person to retreat if inside his or her own home.

...For months, much had been unknown about the events that unfolded in the hours before Ms. McBride’s death, and prosecutors indicated on Wednesday that the authorities may never know exactly where Ms. McBride was and what she was doing immediately before her death.

In the early morning hours, Ms. McBride, who had been drinking vodka and smoking pot with a friend, was in a car accident on a street within Detroit’s city limits. She had hit a parked car and an autopsy later showed she had a blood alcohol level of more than twice the legal limit. Neighbors along the street testified that they offered assistance to the young woman, who appeared to be injured and seemed disoriented, but Ms. McBride had refused help and wandered away.

Several hours later – and six blocks from the crash site — Ms. McBride appeared on Mr. Wafer’s front porch. Her family has suggested that she may have come to the door seeking help. But Mr. Wafer’s lawyers said she pounded repeatedly on the doors, broke part of a screen and a peephole and may have left a muddy footprint on Mr. Wafer’s air conditioning unit, which might, the lawyers said, have given Ms. McBride a view inside a room where Mr. Wafer had been sleeping. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/u...igan-man-who-shot-teenager-on-porch.html?_r=0

Dragonfly said:

It's not ridiculous at all. It's common sense. Your life is not threatened until your life is threatened. Plain and simple.

Click to expand...

Who the hell are you to define what constitutes a justifiable threat on someone elses property ?

Instead of restricting the actions of the victims, criminals shuld understand that its highly likely that their actions might cost them their life.

If they die over a lawn mower it was because of their foolosh choice to weigh their existence against the cost of a used lawn mower.

But Mr. Wafer’s lawyers said she pounded repeatedly on the doors, broke part of a screen and a peephole

Click to expand...

I hadn't heard this before. This is substantially more than merely "being in the yard at night". The bolded portion might well have been evidence of attempted breaking and entering.