• 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 And Killed A Girl On His Porch Found Guilty Of Murder[W:56]

AJiveMan said:
I've seen some of your appalling and illogical posts too.

This girl should never have knocked on this guy's door, she shoulda stopped a passing motorist and asked for help. But, she was young and didn't know the potential hazard of knocking on people's doors after dark. She did what most people would not do, go to someone's door for help. She paid the ultimate price, her life, at the hands of someone who probably shouldn't have owned a gun in the first place. His SYG defense didn't work. Too bad they didn't ask for the death penalty for him.
Click to expand...

appalling? yeah I support honest people owning the same weapons civilian Law enforcement officers own. that is probably appalling to gun banners
 
AJiveMan said:
Only in the movies.
Click to expand...

so if you are standing next to a screen door-you believe you are immune from a knife attack from someone on the other side of the door?

now I agree that the shooting was not proper. but I don't think you an open debate know much about knives or screen doors for that matter
 
opendebate said:
Homeowner Who Shot And Killed A Girl On His Porch Found Guilty Of Murder | ThinkProgress

The Detroit-area homeowner who shot in the head 19-year-old Renisha McBride was found guilty of murder Thursday afternoon. The jury found him guilty on all three charges — second-degree murder, manslaughter, and felony firearm — on its second day of deliberations.

.....Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said her office determined that Wafer “did not act in lawful self-defense.”

During the trial, prosecutors probed Wafer’s inconsistent testimony on whether he intended to fire, and questioned why, if he was shooting in fear for his life, he put his gun down by the front door. They also called upon jurors in closing arguments to consider why he didn’t make a more vigorous effort to call the police before turning to his gun, rather than making himself “judge, jury, and executioner.”

I think this is justice served.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. The shooter is going to get the book thrown at him: he was afraid of a black woman in the middle of the night, so he shot her... A great example of misuse of firearms by such people that should not have them to begin with.
 
jet57 said:
Yeah, I agree. The shooter is going to get the book thrown at him: he was afraid of a black woman in the middle of the night, so he shot her... A great example of misuse of firearms by such people that should not have them to begin with.
Click to expand...

People often have a hard time understanding the racism that exists in all of us simply as a by-product of having grown up in here. They seem to think that because they are not overtly prejudice that it doesn't exist in them and, primarily because of unrecognized or unacknowledged privilege, there is simply not enough at stake for them to confront themselves and insist on any real objectivity. It's this reality that makes it pretty difficult for me to believe that it this had been a little white girl knocking on this guys door in the middle of the night, this never would have happened.
 
opendebate said:
People often have a hard time understanding the racism that exists in all of us simply as a by-product of having grown up in here. They seem to think that because they are not overtly prejudice that it doesn't exist in them and, primarily because of unrecognized or unacknowledged privilege, there is simply not enough at stake for them to confront themselves and insist on any real objectivity. It's this reality that makes it pretty difficult for me to believe that it this had been a little white girl knocking on this guys door in the middle of the night, this never would have happened.
Click to expand...
Racist bs.
"Banging, pounding, and kicking", he said.
He shot immediately and he didn't get a look at the person until after he shot.
So stop with the racist bs.
 
Last edited:
AJiveMan said:
OJ Simpson killed? I thought he was acquitted?

Did he stab someone from behind a screen door? I don't recall seeing that during the testimony given, and I watched it every day on Court TV.

Of course, I'm waiting for the pro gun people to come out and say that if she would have had a gun, she could have defended herself.
Click to expand...

Yeah he was convicted in a trial, remember there was two trials
 
opendebate said:
People often have a hard time understanding the racism that exists in all of us simply as a by-product of having grown up in here. They seem to think that because they are not overtly prejudice that it doesn't exist in them and, primarily because of unrecognized or unacknowledged privilege, there is simply not enough at stake for them to confront themselves and insist on any real objectivity. It's this reality that makes it pretty difficult for me to believe that it this had been a little white girl knocking on this guys door in the middle of the night, this never would have happened.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree it's liberal racism that's always at fault.
 
opendebate said:
and, apparently, in the vivid imaginations of some conservatives
Click to expand...

To them, the only obvious answer would be more guns. or, more knives or cars, depending upon which they want to compare gun use with.
 
TurtleDude said:
so if you are standing next to a screen door-you believe you are immune from a knife attack from someone on the other side of the door?

now I agree that the shooting was not proper. but I don't think you an open debate know much about knives or screen doors for that matter
Click to expand...

I don't think you know 1/2 as much about gunz as you purport to.
 
AJiveMan said:
I don't think you know 1/2 as much about gunz as you purport to.
Click to expand...

actually I know far more. The problem is for people like you is having the ability to comprehend how much I know
 
AJiveMan said:
Convicted on a kidnapping and other charges - the second.

Acquitted in the first trial.
O. J. Simpson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think there's an OJ thread somewhere here in the forum, it might be a bit musty and moldy though, let's go there to discuss OJ, not here, alright?
Click to expand...

You forgot the civil trial where he was found guilty

Oj Simpson Civil Trial Verdict | The second Simpson verdict Civil trial: Jurors hold O. J. Simpson responsible for deaths, now time for closure. - Baltimore Sun
 
Excon said:
Being found responsible under a lesser burden of proof does not mean guilty of murder. Especially as it was nothing but an emotionally driven circus verdict.
Click to expand...

Sure it does.

"Jurors hold O. J. Simpson responsible for deaths" meaning he murdered two people. What is so hard to understand.
 
Born Free said:
Sure it does.

"Jurors hold O. J. Simpson responsible for deaths" meaning he murdered two people. What is so hard to understand.
Click to expand...

No. :naughty It doesn't mean that at all.
A civil trial does not determine who murdered or not.
 
AJiveMan said:
Civil trials don't mean much, those are about dollar amounts, not innocence or guilt.
Click to expand...

it was definitely a moral victory for the families, though. In criminal trials, the standard of proof is "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt." In civil trials, the standard is "More Likely Than Not." (I know you know that, but just wanted to get it out there.)
 
TurtleDude said:
actually I know far more. The problem is for people like you is having the ability to comprehend how much I know
Click to expand...

The problem with people like you is that you think gun use solves problems, they don't, and you know it, but people like yourself are basically sock puppets for the NRA gun lobby.

There are two purposes of/for guns;

1. to intimidate people with them.

2. to kill with.
 
MaggieD said:
it was definitely a moral victory for the families, though. In criminal trials, the standard of proof is "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt." In civil trials, the standard is "More Likely Than Not." (I know you know that, but just wanted to get it out there.)
Click to expand...

I watched that trial from beginning to end, the criminal trial that is, and I thought it was a circus and a travesty of what justice was supposed to be.

Possibly a moral victory, but it would not ever stop the hurt and pain caused. I think the families would've preferred seeing him in prison forever and a day, or executed. The money part means very little to grieving families.
 
AJiveMan said:
To them, the only obvious answer would be more guns. or, more knives or cars, depending upon which they want to compare gun use with.
Click to expand...

That whole car argument makes no sense anyway unless someone is suggesting banning guns. If you compare them in terms of regulation cars are much more regulated. You have have special trainingand get licensed, they much all be registered, if you buy a used on one you must transfer it to your name and their are restrictions on who can and not not drive. So sure, let them use cars as comparison. I'd be pretty happy with the kind of oversight.
 
opendebate said:
That whole car argument makes no sense anyway unless someone is suggesting banning guns. If you compare them in terms of regulation cars are much more regulated. You have have special trainingand get licensed, they much all be registered, if you buy a used on one you must transfer it to your name and their are restrictions on who can and not not drive. So sure, let them use cars as comparison. I'd be pretty happy with the kind of oversight.
Click to expand...


jesus was I drunk when I wrote that?!


That whole car argument makes no sense anyway, unless someone is suggesting banning guns. If you compare them, in terms of regulation at least, cars are much more regulated. You have to get special training and get licensed and have your licensed renewed regularly, they must all be registered, if you buy a used one you must transfer it to your name and there are restrictions on who can and can not drive. So sure, let them use cars as comparison. I'd be pretty happy with that kind of oversight.
 
opendebate said:
jesus was I drunk when I wrote that?!


That whole car argument makes no sense anyway, unless someone is suggesting banning guns. If you compare them, in terms of regulation at least, cars are much more regulated. You have to get special training and get licensed and have your licensed renewed regularly, they must all be registered, if you buy a used one you must transfer it to your name and there are restrictions on who can and can not drive. So sure, let them use cars as comparison. I'd be pretty happy with that kind of oversight.
Click to expand...
Drunk or not you make a lot more sense than the gun fetishists do cold sober.
They should have a double of whatever you are drinking ... ;-)
 
opendebate said:
jesus was I drunk when I wrote that?!


That whole car argument makes no sense anyway, unless someone is suggesting banning guns. If you compare them, in terms of regulation at least, cars are much more regulated. You have to get special training and get licensed and have your licensed renewed regularly, they must all be registered, if you buy a used one you must transfer it to your name and there are restrictions on who can and can not drive. So sure, let them use cars as comparison. I'd be pretty happy with that kind of oversight.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you were or not, but I understood what you meant, even if it took a bit to get to a point.

The other thing about this is that they say people will use knives (already in this thread) or baseball bats, and those two objects should be licensed or controlled too, along with cars... they always compare things that don't fire a projectile. I don't know why that is though. Possibly to inject the fallacy that guns are safe?
 
AJiveMan said:
I don't know if you were or not, but I understood what you meant, even if it took a bit to get to a point.

The other thing about this is that they say people will use knives (already in this thread) or baseball bats, and those two objects should be licensed or controlled too, along with cars... they always compare things that don't fire a projectile. I don't know why that is though. Possibly to inject the fallacy that guns are safe?
Click to expand...

I think they want to make gun regulation seem absurd and ineffective by association. It's ridiculous. I can't kill someone from a rooftop with the twitch of a finger using a baseball bat. Consider this:

"an experienced gunman can fire off a 20-round magazine......in 3.3 seconds. Reloading takes under two. "

Like I said, it's a nonsensical comparison.
 
opendebate said:
I felt the same way. No glee that he will suffer in prison (and no doubt he will) just so sad for this young girl and everyone who loved her. We can only hope that the next time some who is armed finds themselves in a similar situation, this outcome makes them stop and think.
Click to expand...
Hopefully some of Renisha's friends will learn from her mistakes and avoid following in her footsteps. Maybe it will hit home that the thug culture lifestyle ain't what it's all cracked up to be and often leads to your tragic untimely death.

And hopefully some gun owners out there will learn that when you shoot some thug in self defense, you never talk to the police without consulting a lawyer (who will tell you not to talk to the police) because the pigs will try to railroad your ass and get you wrongly convicted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom