Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not? [W:44:185]

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Summerwind said:

I didn't catch the sarcasm. And to your suggestion that it's presumptuous... WHY? It's f'ing 2am and I'm going to answer a door or open a door to a stranger when I live alone and all the neighbor houses are either dark or too far away to know, and I'm going to be STUPID enough to do that without calling 911....sorry but that's just plain stupid, unless I'm a 6ft+ 220lb+ well trained in some form of defense person. Iirc, the man was elderly and the impression is given that he was frail-ish, though I'm not sure where I have that opinion from.

Click to expand...

He actually is over 6ft and 200+
and he is only 54, not "edlerly" at all

but i do agree with you if i thought there was a real threat i call 911 BUT that doesnt really mean much.

But i also agree i would never just open my door either without being able to see whats going on, but again just our opinion.

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

AGENT J said:

at this moment its factually not because theres no evidence that shows the "banging" was anything aggressive, theres no signs/evidence of forced entry or attempted forced entry. At this point its a meaningless acronym.

COuld that change? yes if theres MORE evidence and facts we dont know about but unless that happens it holds zero weight.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how this works though - can his defense just put him on the stand and have him say "I heard banging, and went to the door with my shotgun, which accidentally discharged"?

And then the prosecution has to poke holes in his claim? I think that's how it works...so whether his claim is reasonable or not, it has to be proved wrong in order to convict him of something?

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

The Mark said:

I'm not sure how this works though - can his defense just put him on the stand and have him say "I heard banging, and went to the door with my shotgun, which accidentally discharged"?

And then the prosecution has to poke holes in his claim? I think that's how it works...so whether his claim is reasonable or not, it has to be proved wrong in order to convict him of something?

Click to expand...

So in your mind he's guilty of manslaughter. Accidental discharge is akin to killing someone with a vehicle because you were texting or such, ie manslaughter, not "innocent"

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

The Mark said:

1.)I'm not sure how this works though - can his defense just put him on the stand and have him say "I heard banging, and went to the door with my shotgun, which accidentally discharged"?

And then the prosecution has to poke holes in his claim? I think that's how it works...so whether his claim is reasonable or not, it has to be proved wrong in order to convict him of something?

Click to expand...

not sure what you are asking me? it seems you think im attacking him going to the door with a gun? i am defintiely not, thats justified, please correct me if i guessed wrong.


yes and im sure thats what will happen but that term is meaningless without evidence of something else

going to your door with your gun at night is a fine action. Im not going against that i have done the same personally.


Without further evidence what will "banging" mean as for a legal standpoint, evidence standpoint? nothing

my daughter has banged on my door in the day, it was agitating and i have told her not to do it, she also did it like 3am one time, she stayed at a neighbors and they had to live to go to the hospital and she cam home. again i was agitated but this time i understood her "harder" knocking was to wake me up and since it was good reason i was no longer agitated.

My point is without MORE evidence and FACTS banging on the door with hand is nothing but a hard knock and legally it doesnt change anything.

she could of lightly knocked, rang the door bell or just be yelling help, going to your own door with a weapon is still justified, its your weapon, your home.


If he sticks to the story that it was an accident then the banging becomes even more irrelevant, he'll just have to explain how the accident happened . . .

and if there is negligence determined he'll probably get IM

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Summerwind said:

So in your mind he's guilty of manslaughter. Accidental discharge is akin to killing someone with a vehicle because you were texting or such, ie manslaughter, not "innocent"

Click to expand...

AGENT J said:

not sure what you are asking me? it seems you think im attacking him going to the door with a gun? i am defintiely not, thats justified, please correct me if i guessed wrong.


yes and im sure thats what will happen but that term is meaningless without evidence of something else

going to your door with your gun at night is a fine action. Im not going against that i have done the same personally.


Without further evidence what will "banging" mean as for a legal standpoint, evidence standpoint? nothing

my daughter has banged on my door in the day, it was agitating and i have told her not to do it, she also did it like 3am one time, she stayed at a neighbors and they had to live to go to the hospital and she cam home. again i was agitated but this time i understood her "harder" knocking was to wake me up and since it was good reason i was no longer agitated.

My point is without MORE evidence and FACTS banging on the door with hand is nothing but a hard knock and legally it doesnt change anything.

she could of lightly knocked, rang the door bell or just be yelling help, going to your own door with a weapon is still justified, its your weapon, your home.


If he sticks to the story that it was an accident then the banging becomes even more irrelevant, he'll just have to explain how the accident happened . . .

and if there is negligence determined he'll probably get IM

Click to expand...

What the hell?

I was just asking for clarification on how the trial bit would work.

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

The Mark said:

What the hell?

I was just asking for clarification on how the trial bit would work.

Click to expand...

LOL

well i had no clue what you were asking thats what i said

I still dont know exactly what you are asking

trial bit?

what specifically are you asking

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Gipper said:

The problem here is that you're wanting to be omniscient. You can't be.

He'll be judged by 12 people who can take into account actual evidence, and determine if he can be convicted on that and that alone.

You're trying to convict on "I think he" or "he probably".

He has a legitimate chance to walk because there just is not enough evidence to return a guilty verdict.

Click to expand...

He should walk because there is reasonable doubt. Why? Because the victim was drunk and on drugs.

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Gipper said:

Click to expand...

OK, now I have seen it, I still have no idea what you were trying to say. Unless you are saying that YOU were the one that missed the day they taught Law at Law school... Please tell me that you are NOT a lawyer... I certainly am not, but I know that I am correct on this aspect.

Please, call your "friends that are cops" and if they REALLY tell you to move the body, I will eat my hat!

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Chiefgator said:

OK, now I have seen it, I still have no idea what you were trying to say. Unless you are saying that YOU were the one that missed the day they taught Law at Law school... Please tell me that you are NOT a lawyer... I certainly am not, but I know that I am correct on this aspect.

Please, call your "friends that are cops" and if they REALLY tell you to move the body, I will eat my hat!

Click to expand...

Oh I've heard it plenty.

I'm saying that without proof, accusations are baseless - and you can move a body and still cover your tracks properly.

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Gipper said:

Oh I've heard it plenty.

I'm saying that without proof, accusations are baseless - and you can move a body and still cover your tracks properly.

Click to expand...

And by covering your tracks, you are "tampering with evidence"....
Then, when you in front of the jury, the prosocution says "why would he do this? because he knew he was wrong in shooting Mr. Smith" and your hole gets deeper and deeper.

You can try to spin it, or you can go back and look at the Michigan Code that I posted. I even highlighted it. You are giving advice that you COMMIT A FELONY in a case where you should be perfectly fine if you had not touched anything!

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

The Mark said:

I'm not sure how this works though - can his defense just put him on the stand and have him say "I heard banging, and went to the door with my shotgun, which accidentally discharged"?

And then the prosecution has to poke holes in his claim? I think that's how it works...so whether his claim is reasonable or not, it has to be proved wrong in order to convict him of something?

Click to expand...

The Mark, his claim of hearing banging goes directly to his thought that someone was trying to break in. Which is why he got his firearm and went to investigate.
And yes, the defense attorney could put him on the stand and he may relate exactly that.
And the Prosecutor will try and punch holes in it.
If they can't punch enough holes in it to discredit it (or in other words, prove to the trier of fact) his version is going to stand as is.


As it is right now, we are discussing what is known.
The only witness said there was banging. That is the evidence that we have to go on. Period.

The Prosecutor said in her press conference that "It's alleged she was shot to death by the home owner after she knocked on his locked front screen door." The only folks who had alleged such has been the family.

The only evidence that would support knocking, would be an eye witness to such, yet none are present at this time.

The only other evidence that may be available, is of her touching the door. Which really would not indicate whether done by knock or bang.

All we really have is the eye witnesses account that she was banging on the door.

---

calamity said:

He should walk because there is reasonable doubt. Why? Because the victim was drunk and on drugs.

Click to expand...

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Excon said:

The Mark, his claim of hearing banging goes directly to his thought that someone was trying to break in. Which is why he got his firearm and went to investigate.
And yes, the defense attorney could put him on the stand and he may relate exactly that.
And the Prosecutor will try and punch holes in it.
If they can't punch enough holes in it to discredit it (or in other words, prove to the trier of fact) his version is going to stand as is.


As it is right now, we are discussing what is known.
The only witness said there was banging. That is the evidence that we have to go on. Period.

The Prosecutor said in her press conference that "It's alleged she was shot to death by the home owner after she knocked on his locked front screen door." The only folks who had alleged such has been the family.

The only evidence that would support knocking, would be an eye witness to such, yet none are present at this time.

The only other evidence that may be available, is of her touching the door. Which really would not indicate whether done by knock or bang.

All we really have is the eye witnesses account that she was banging on the door.

---

​

Click to expand...

Slam dunk on manslaughter then...unless maybe he can show it was an act of self defense coupled with an accident.

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

calamity said:

Slam dunk on manslaughter then...unless maybe he can show it was an act of self defense coupled with an accident.

Click to expand...

And I suspect that is what the defense will try to show, such as she had acted in an hostile fashion causing him to flinch.
I suspect such because the defense attorney has already said he would be cleared/acquitted.

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

calamity said:

Slam dunk on manslaughter then...unless maybe he can show it was an act of self defense coupled with an accident.

Click to expand...

yep seems that way because theres no legal difference between knocking and banging its meaningless and theres zero evidence of anything else. The Country Prosecutor made a statment that the evidence shows the door was locked and she knocked on the door and theres no sign of forced entry.

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Excon said:

And I suspect that is what the defense will try to show, such as she had acted in an hostile fashion causing him to flinch.
I suspect such because the defense attorney has already said he would be cleared/acquitted.

Click to expand...

And therein lies the value to the defense of the fact that the victim had BAC which was over 10x the legal limit for a person under 21. She also left the scene of an accident, showing poor character and supporting any claim by the defense team that she acted erratic. So, considering the victim broke at least three laws that night: DUI, hit and run, and minor drinking, I like his chances.

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not? [W:44]

just want to put everything in one place again and add that theres now curiosty about his story changing and being added too

Current FACT LIST
-car wreck a little before 1am
-cell phone was dead
-911 was called to report accident by passer by/ neighbor
-People stopped to help driver
-driver is a 19yr old woman 5'4"
-driver was disoriented and bloody
-driver left scene
-driver returned to scene, 911 was called again to report this about 1:25
-cops and EMS show up to scene about 1:42, driver is gone
-driver left scene
-County prosecutor (not the family attorney) statement says the evidence shows driver knocked on locked screen door about a mile away and there is no evidence of forced entry
-home owner opened interior door
-home owner is 54yr old man, over 6ft and 200lbs
-driver was shot in the face through locked screen door
-911 was called to report shooting by home owner, home owner claims the following:
"Uh yes... I just shot somebody on my front porch with a shotgun, banging on my door." Wafer gives his address and ends the call by saying "thank you" and hanging up without giving city, even as ---police dispatch continued.
-911 dispatched police
-911 called homeowner back and he confirmed he shot someone he didnt know on his porch
-police arrive find driver on porch with large hole in face

autopsy confirms homicide and shot in face at a distance
toxicology reveals drinking and weed in driver

Murder 2 charges have been filed along with man slaughter and possession of a firearm during the attempted commission of a felony or commission of a felony.

anything else feel free to add with links

also any further audio of the 911 claims please post the official audio or transcript and ill gladly add them

more specifically the call back if anybody has found it.

addition are the two statments are this:

Wafer told police at his home immediately after the shooting that he heard somebody banging on his door and he though maybe somebody was trying to break in, he opened the main front door and the gun went off accidentally shooting through the closed and locked screen door.
Wafer, in his later statement at the Police Department that is on video, said that he had earlier issues with somebody who shot his vehicle with a paint ball gun. He did not report that to the police, he just wiped the paint off.
Wafer also said someone was knocking on his front and side door and he thought it might have been those people.

Theres speculation this could hurt because it impacts credibility, i really dont see this has a big deal but thats just my opinon

also here are the quotes from the County Prosecutor

"evidence showed McBride, of Detroit, knocked on the locked screen door of Wafer’s home and that there was no evidence of forced entry."

" Evidence suggests that Wafer opened the front (interior) door before he fired through the closed and locked screen door"

“Under Michigan law, there is no duty to retreat in your own home. However, someone who claims self-defense must honestly and reasonably believe that he is in imminent danger of either losing his life or suffering great bodily harm, and that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent that harm,”

“This ‘reasonable belief,’ is not measured subjectively by the standards of the individual in question, but objectively, by the standards of a reasonable person.”

“we have examined everything and after examining everything these are the appropriate charges and he did not act in lawful self-defense,”

"We dont feel its relevant to our charges at all in this case" (talking about the driver being intoxicated)

"Race was not a factor in her decision to bring charges against Theodore Wafer for the death of Renisha McBride"

“No matter what kind of pressure you receive to not charge a case or to charge it, you don’t go by that,”

“If the facts and evidence are leading you, then you can’t go wrong. If you are afraid to make those decisions, then you need not have this job. If you are afraid you will lose friends or lose influence or lose whatever — lose traction — then you don’t need to have this job, because you’ll make decisions based on the wrong things.”

"We make our decisions based on the facts and the evidence"


if anybody has any other facts to add with links please do so.

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

calamity said:

And therein lies the value to the defense of the fact that the victim had BAC which was over 10x the legal limit for a person under 21. She also left the scene of an accident, showing poor character and supporting any claim by the defense team that she acted erratic. So, considering the victim broke at least three laws that night: DUI, hit and run, and minor drinking, I like his chances.

Click to expand...

It is either plea or defend.
And everyone knows there is a difference between banging and knocking, as they are defined differently, there is a legal difference, as they are two separate things.
The banging goes directly to his thoughts that someone was trying to break-in.
It is a reasonable thought from hearing such.
So maybe he will get lucky in defending this.

And the Prosecutor made no statement that the evidence was knocking. None. I provided what she said. It is nothing more than an allegation made by others that she used in a press conference. Without an eyewitness, the only possible thing the prosecutor could state is there is evidence that she touched the door, not how she touched it, because she was not there and has no one else who was.

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

AGENT J said:

yep seems that way because theres no legal difference between knocking and banging its meaningless and theres zero evidence of anything else. The Country Prosecutor made a statment that the evidence shows the door was locked and she knocked on the door and theres no sign of forced entry.

Click to expand...

Correct. But. Juries are human. And when the defense paints the victim as a lawless thug on drugs, it won't be pretty.

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

calamity said:

Correct. But. Juries are human. And when the defense paints the victim as a lawless thug on drugs, it won't be pretty.

Click to expand...

It will not get that far. he will plead guilty to manslaughter before it goes to trial.

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

haymarket said:

It will not get that far. he will plead guilty to manslaughter before it goes to trial.

Click to expand...

That really depends on what his lawyers tell him and their confidence in clearing him of the charges.

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

haymarket said:

It will not get that far. he will plead guilty to manslaughter before it goes to trial.

Click to expand...

I think you are correct on this one It was a stupid shooting. He might even be able to get negligent homicide. But I think you are right-it will be pled out

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Gipper said:

Martin was unarmed, last I checked. Also, we don't know if there was a proper "struggle". In Zimmerman and Martin, we had two able-bodied males that are more than capable of defending themselves and inflicting harm upon others. Here, we're talking about a weak old man and a drunk chick. Be it slugfest or slapfight, it's still a struggle.



Aww. <3

I'm not biased though. I have no dog in this hunt. I just see what I see. It's the same reasoning behind my standpoint during GZ/TM the whole time. Zimmerman was wrong. Martin was wrong. I think Zimmerman had ulterior motives. And in the end, Zimmerman will walk. He walked. Of course, anyone with a shred of legal knowledge saw him getting off a mile away. It wasn't a shock to anyone who followed the case and watched Law and Order once a week.

This case isn't a whole lot different, other than - in this case - you actually could argue a limited detail of Castle Doctrine. The defense is going to poke enough holes into the case to get him to walk (witnesses hearing loud knocking at an ungodly hour, victim's tox screen, location of the incident, etc.).

I think race played some role in this (whether he just plain didn't like black people or just made an assumption about a black person on his doorstep in the middle of the night), but that alone isn't enough to convict.

Click to expand...

I agree with you.

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

calamity said:

Correct. But. Juries are human. And when the defense paints the victim as a lawless thug on drugs, it won't be pretty.

Click to expand...

in my opinion it would have to be a jury full of morons because nothing factual paints her that way :shrug:
could that be who she was, is? absolutely but no facts make that so yet

the county prosecutor said they feel the toxicology as it is was meaningless, that doesnt mean other wont, but im just saying. They did wait for its results before charges so it seems and this is ME totally guessing they did think it could be important until it was just drinking and weed. Like if they would have found PCP or something they wouldnt have pressed charges but they did.

ALso its a tough picture to pain unless she has criminal history and she did in fact interact with people earlier in the night, she wasnt aggressive or defensive just disorientated and injured.


and the family lawyer has actually already made statments that say they plan on using it to show she was even less of a risk. Again that doesnt make it true just saying i dont see anybody honest buying the "lawless thug on drugs" sell

not to mention ALL OF THAT is meaningless if he sticks to his story of "accident"

so far he claimed the gun accidentally went off, not that he was scared or panicked and it went off so he will have to elaborate on that also.

was it a complete accident of did she do something to make it happen


but getting back to you main point juries are human and there could be morons that buy the sell.

and of course im just going off of what we have NOW, later some fact/evidence could be presented that totally changes everything, currently theres not.

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

haymarket said:

It will not get that far. he will plead guilty to manslaughter before it goes to trial.

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

I think you are correct on this one It was a stupid shooting. He might even be able to get negligent homicide. But I think you are right-it will be pled out

Click to expand...

Agreed...

I have to say, the planets must be aligned in some radical way when TD and Haymarket agree on a gun issue.... :mrgreen: eace

Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Chiefgator said:

Agreed...

I have to say, the planets must be aligned in some radical way when TD and Haymarket agree on a gun issue.... :mrgreen: eace

Click to expand...

Its really not a gun issue. Its far more of a person going off half cocked and acting irresponsibly no matter what the weapon of choice.

And yes - the day of the apocalypse must be near at hand. :lol: