• 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!

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

Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not based on what we know?

  • Total voters
    25
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

opendebate said:
Your bully tactics discredit you you know.
Click to expand...
iLOL
:doh
I see you are still unable to focus on actual evidence, the topic, and what was said, huh?
Figures.

And that bully tactic of yours, isn't going to work.
 
Last edited:
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Chiefgator said:
No, you are not GOLDEN you are SCREWED! That is an old wives tale. It is called "altering a crime scene" or "tampering with evidence".


Evidence Tampering Lawyers | Stephen S. Weinstein PC | New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorneys( yes, I know this is a NJ lawtyer and not Mich, but it does not matter in this case)



Then because the officer will most likely ask about the body, and you say "that is where he fell" or something like that, you have committed another crime "Providing false information to peace officer conducting criminal investigation"

Please stop giving legal advice.
Click to expand...

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

Gipper said:
The fact that she was audibly knocking on the front door is probably his biggest strike against him, since thieves aren't known for announcing their presence before "going to work".
Click to expand...
Yet banging, which the only witness says it was, can sound like someone is trying to break-in. So it wouldn't be a strike.
But the cause/reason he armed himself.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Gipper said:
I was being a smartass intentionally. However, my premise is that it's very presumptuous that you would have 911 ready in a flash for someone knocking on the door. The fact that she was audibly knocking on the front door is probably his biggest strike against him, since thieves aren't known for announcing their presence before "going to work".
Click to expand...

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

Excon said:
Yet banging, which the only witness says it was, can sound like someone is trying to break-in. So it wouldn't be a strike.
Click to expand...

That'd only pass if the thief was woefully inept which, although fully in the realm of possible, is probably not a fair assumption.

Of course, wasn't she coked and/or liquored up at the time of the incident? I forgot if they did toxicology. If so, that probably helps him out.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Gipper said:
That'd only pass if the thief was woefully inept which, although fully in the realm of possible, is probably not a fair assumption.

Of course, wasn't she coked and/or liquored up at the time of the incident? I forgot if they did toxicology. If so, that probably helps him out.
Click to expand...

Yes, she was pretty plowed.. 3times the legal limit IIRC. This may play in the defendant's favor, I agree.
 
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...

God made men. Samuel Colt made them equal.

Seems like he was protected enough. Having rippling pecs and a six-pack for abs doesn't really defend against a gunshot.

In the end, it's going to come down to who sounds more believable - and there are two defining aspects of the case. The first is that he was home on his property. The second is that dead men (or girls, in this case) tell no tales.

I can easily see this going the way of Trayvon, where the state just cannot prove their case.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Gipper said:
God made men. Samuel Colt made them equal. Seems like he was protected enough. Having rippling pecs and a six-pack for abs doesn't really defend against a gunshot. In the end, it's going to come down to who sounds more believable - and there are two defining aspects of the case. The first is that he was home on his property. The second is that dead men (or girls, in this case) tell no tales. I can easily see this going the way of Trayvon, where the state just cannot prove their case.
Click to expand...
Really!!!! You discourage me, then, if you see similarities between shooting an unarmed woman through a locked door, purposefully or accidentally, and a shot during a known struggle.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Gipper said:
.....


Maybe I didn't read enough of your post(s), but it almost seems like you were manufacturing a motive by trying to read his mind and, therefore, his intentions. It's part of that liberal curse - where you use emotion instead of evidence or rationale. I don't hold it against you. :)
Click to expand...


You might be a little guilty of bias my friend. No worries, I still love you.

I have no idea what his "intentions" were and I don't believe there is a way to know such a thing.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Gipper said:
That'd only pass if the thief was woefully inept which, although fully in the realm of possible, is probably not a fair assumption.
Click to expand...
Thieves are not always quite.
They break in doors and shatter windows to gain access all the time.
That isn't being quite.

Gipper said:
Of course, wasn't she coked and/or liquored up at the time of the incident? I forgot if they did toxicology. If so, that probably helps him out.
Click to expand...
Her being over two times the legal limit hours after her accident would just go to any claim made by him that she was banging instead of knocking.

Unless other evidence comes out, that is what we have, and most likely what it would be applied to.
 
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...

I think he is 54. I wouldn't call that elderly.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

opendebate said:
I think he is 54. I wouldn't call that elderly.
Click to expand...
Okay, thanks for that. As I was typing it occurred to me I didn't know why I had that impression, hence the disclaimer. Evenso, if he felt unsure enough that he had a gun in his hand, he has the obligation to utilize other safety avenues before opening the door and pointing a gun in someone's face, making purposeful or accidental discharge likely to be deadly.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Summerwind said:
Really!!!! You discourage me, then, if you see similarities between shooting an unarmed woman through a locked door, purposefully or accidentally, and a shot during a known struggle.
Click to expand...

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.

opendebate said:
You might be a little guilty of bias my friend. No worries, I still love you.

I have no idea what his "intentions" were and I don't believe there is a way to know such a thing.
Click to expand...

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

Summerwind said:
Okay, thanks for that. As I was typing it occurred to me I didn't know why I had that impression, hence the disclaimer. Evenso, if he felt unsure enough that he had a gun in his hand, he has the obligation to utilize other safety avenues before opening the door and pointing a gun in someone's face, making purposeful or accidental discharge likely to be deadly.
Click to expand...
There you go assuming again.
He had no such obligations investigating a possible or attempted break-in of his home.
And you have no idea if he actually pointed it (a deliberate act) in her face or not.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Through a locked door there's going to be a slapfest? Grasping at straws much? We have evidence in Martin case through both Zimmerman and Martin's girlfriend that a struggle ensued and a shot was fired after or during.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Summerwind said:
Okay, thanks for that. As I was typing it occurred to me I didn't know why I had that impression, hence the disclaimer. Evenso, i
Click to expand...

You probably picked it up here. I have heard it tossed around a bit. It's funny how things like that progress. It started out rather innocent, the comment about age, then evolved into "he's a frail old man". Word of mouth is dangerous.

f he felt unsure enough that he had a gun in his hand, he has the obligation to utilize other safety avenues before opening the door and pointing a gun in someone's face, making purposeful or accidental discharge likely to be deadly.
Click to expand...
At this point I completely agree with you. It seems irresponsible to me at this point.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

I'm not sure about M2 because she literally came to him and he called 911. Manslaughter without question though.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Summerwind said:
Through a locked door there's going to be a slapfest? Grasping at straws much? We have evidence in Martin case through both Zimmerman and Martin's girlfriend that a struggle ensued and a shot was fired after or during.
Click to expand...

So what you're contending is that he kept the chain on the door and only opened it far enough to stick a gun in the crack and shoot her? He was never exposed at any time?
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Gipper said:
....
Click to expand...

I'm not biased though.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the assumptions you made about what I was saying based on my political lean.

I have no dog in this hunt. I just see what I see.
Click to expand...
Well that's reliable..

It's the same reasoning behind my standpoint during GZ/TM the whole time. Zimmerman was wrong. Martin was wrong.
Click to expand...
It was a mistake to drive drunk, a mistake to wonder away from the car, but 19yr olds are prone to those kinds of mistakes. I don't know what we can say that SHE did wrong though. Wrong is a judgement (IE: shooting someone in the face is wrong.)

This case isn't a whole lot different, other than - in this case - you actually could argue a limited detail of Castle Doctrine.
Click to expand...
The problem with that principle is that perceived threat is subjective and just because I THINK you are a threat doesn't mean you actually are. We are talking about the use of lethal force here. It needs some objectively legitimate grounds to justify it's use.

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.).
Click to expand...
That's the problem, there is no one to counter his testimony; he killed her.


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...
Gip....is that you?
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Gipper said:
So what you're contending is that he kept the chain on the door and only opened it far enough to stick a gun in the crack and shoot her? He was never exposed at any time?
Click to expand...
Again, unless I'm entirely not remembering, he never unlocked his security screen door. He shot through the door. Perhaps he actually opened it, but in review of all the news, it says that no forced entry had happened and that she knocked on a locked screen door. At no point by either party is it expressed that the lock or the door were compromised or open/unlocked.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

opendebate said:
The problem with that principle is that perceived threat is subjective and just because I THINK you are a threat doesn't mean you actually are. We are talking about the use of lethal force here. It needs some objectively legitimate grounds to justify it's use.
Click to expand...
:doh
Objectively, believing that someone is trying to break into your home is reasonable, and enough to arm yourself.
Accidental discharge then is where we are at.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Excon said:
As everybody can see, agent j is wrong in his assertion.
Click to expand...

please feel free to point out "my" assertion, i havent made any, i have only stated facts backed up by quotes.

After that id like to talk about your statement that has been factually proven wrong which was this:

"The prosecution, adopted exactly what the family had been alleging (that she had been knocking)"

theres ZERO factual evidence that says the the Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy deviated from evidence/protocol and adopted the family's "opinion" to bring charges against the home owner, she doesn't work for the parents, she doesn't represent the family. Her job is the county proscuter, she brings charges against people for the county.

Gerald Thurswell is the attorney who represents McBride’s family.

Again if you have any factual evidence of this please provide it, currently facts and evidence and quotes and the investigation prove it wrong.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

opendebate said:
The problem with that principle is that perceived threat is subjective and just because I THINK you are a threat doesn't mean you actually are. We are talking about the use of lethal force here. It needs some objectively legitimate grounds to justify it's use.
Click to expand...

Violent (and potentially violent) situations can't be viewed in a vacuum; they often require spur-of-the-moment decisions. You really do it an injustice by looking back on it with 20-20 hindsight and pretend that the same clarity can be used at that moment in time.

That's the problem, there is no one to counter his testimony; he killed her.
Click to expand...

That's often a problem in situations like this.

Gip....is that you?
Click to expand...

That hurts. I know you don't think I take a "black - must be guilty" stance.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

opendebate said:
Why us everyone so preoccupied with the banging??

1- Banging is his word so if it carries any weight with anyone it is really not something that can be proven
2- If the weight it carries for some, that it could be considered more startling and would indicate a higher exhibition of aggression on her part that is not fact either, it is conjecture. It is just as likely that she knocked hard to wake up the homeowner.

Does not sound like something that should even be considered especially given all of the additional meaning that's being heaped onto it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom