• 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!

Suburban Detroit homeowner convicted of second-degree murder in porch shooting

Buck Ewer said:
No such intent was demonstrated in this case.
She was murdered because she knocked on his door and she was black.
Nothing else could be shown.
Click to expand...
Knock off the nonsense. She wasn't killed because she was black.
And no, it wasn't shown in trial or anywhere else.
 
danarhea said:
Justice has been served, and the asshole who shot the unarmed woman, whose only crime was to seek help after her car broke down, is going to do hard time.

Article is here.
Click to expand...
The "article" you linked to is only 1 sentence long.
 
Kreton said:
And? What does the conviction have to do with your false spin?
There was no evidence that she was seeking any help.
So what is it you do not understand about that claim being spin?


Odd, it is almost like you are trying to find information to back up your spin.
Sorry, the only thing that exists are opinions that she may have been looking for help, which is not evidence.
Which also flies in the face of the evidence that she turned down offers of help.
Click to expand...
None of that really mattered in the trial. Largely the case was made on the fact a person shot an unarmed person. Not for breaking into his house, but for knocking or beating on his door early the morning. They made their case that her actions, based largely on his account, did not warrant lethal force.
Click to expand...
What exactly is it you think you are refuting?
I know what was presented, which is why I was able to correct the other poster.
There was no evidence that she was seeking help at Mr.Wafer's residence. The only such evidence was that she refused assistance when it was offered earlier.

And no one said she did break-in. But it was evident that she was trying to get in, nor was she simply knocking.

Juries get things wrong all the time. This is just another example of it.

Had he not changed his account, it would have been a straight manslaughter verdict.
 
Last edited:
First of all, that's not a white guy. He looks Spanish/Italian to me.

Secondly, the jist is he was startled awake and shot through his front door, right?
 
Jerry said:
Secondly, the jist is he was startled awake and shot through his front door, right?
Click to expand...

Shot through the outside screen door after she jumped up and startled him.
 
Excon said:
Justice served?
Click to expand...
 :lamo
1.) He wasn't an asshole.
2.) Someone calling him one though?

There was no evidence that she was seeking help. None. So stop with the spin.

That said; He should have stuck with what he initially said. Accidental discharge, as that could only be manslaughter.
Click to expand...




If you have a problem with it, let's see you change it.

The man had his day in court and he lost.

Think about the results of this incident the next time that anyone pounds on your door.

Think hard.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
Shot through the outside screen door after she jumped up and startled him.
Click to expand...
So she hadn't broken his noes, she hadn't knocked him to the floor, she wasn't raining down MMA style blows, she wasn't smashing his head against a hard surface, at no point did she plug his noes & mouth and say anything to the effect of "you're gona die tonight mothuh****er"?

Just being startled doesn't justify shooting someone. You have to posativly identify the threat. So what threat was this girl?
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
Think about the results of this incident the next time that anyone pounds on your door.
Click to expand...
Or the next time you want to smoke weed, drink vodka, and drive. There's a lot of ways this girl could have ended up in the morgue that night. She makes a poor gun controle poster-child. The danger to the public this guy represents is accidental, but her public danger was on purpose.

I'll take the startled trigger finger over the drunk driver anyday.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Or the next time you want to smoke weed, drink vodka, and drive. There's a lot of ways this girl could have ended up in the morgue that night. She makes a poor gun controle poster-child.
The danger to the public this guy represents is accidental,
Click to expand...
but her public danger was on purpose.

I'll take the startled trigger finger over the drunk driver anyday.
Click to expand...




Since he's going to be locked up for a while, what danger is he right now?

Explain that to us.

The lesson from this is that if you don't want to end up behind bars-don't shoot everyone who pounds on your door, no matter what color their skin is.




Anyone who doesn't get that message is out of touch with reality.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
So she hadn't broken his noes, she hadn't knocked him to the floor, she wasn't raining down MMA style blows, she wasn't smashing his head against a hard surface, at no point did she plug his noes & mouth and say anything to the effect of "you're gona die tonight mothuh****er"?

Just being startled doesn't justify shooting someone. You have to posativly identify the threat. So what threat was this girl?
Click to expand...
You asked a question and I answered it. Now all you are doing is playing a game.

It appeared as though she was trying to break-in, when he went to investigate, she jumped up at him which startled him, and he fired.
He originally stated that the gun accidentally fired. That would make it manslaughter under Mich law.
 
shrubnose said:
Since he's going to be locked up for a while, what danger is he right now?

Explain that to us.
Click to expand...
I said the danger he represents, not the danger he is.

shrubnose said:
The lesson from this is that if you don't want to end up behind bars-don't shoot everyone who pounds on your door, no matter what color their skin is.
Click to expand...
I saw no evidence indicating that race was an element in his decision process.
 
Jerry said:
First of all, that's not a white guy. He looks Spanish/Italian to me.
Click to expand...

Secondly, the jist is he was startled awake and shot through his front door, right?
Click to expand...




Spanish/Italian people aren't white/Caucasian?

I'm sure that will come as a shock to millions of Americans.
 
shrubnose said:
If you have a problem with it, let's see you change it.

The man had his day in court and he lost.

Think about the results of this incident the next time that anyone pounds on your door.

Think hard.
Click to expand...
Being twice held responsible for the same actions, wait and see if he has another day in court.


shrubnose said:
no matter what color their skin is.
Click to expand...
Wtf does skin color have to do with it?
 
Excon said:
What exactly is it you think you are refuting?
I know what was presented, which is why I was able to correct the other poster.
There was no evidence that she was seeking help at Mr.Wafer's residence. The only such evidence was that she refused assistance when it was offered earlier.

And no one said she did break-in. But it was evident that she was trying to get in, nor was she simply knocking.

Juries get things wrong all the time. This is just another example of it.

Had he not changed his account, it would have been a straight manslaughter verdict.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




And if your aunt was a man then s/he would be your auncle, eh?

The court decided this case based on reality, not on what might have been.

Remember this case the next time that someone pounds on your door.
 
shrubnose said:
The court decided this case based on reality, not on what might have been.
Click to expand...
:doh
The jury decided this issue.
"Juries get things wrong all the time. This is just another example of it."​
 
shrubnose said:
Remember this case the next time that someone pounds on your door.
Click to expand...
She was trying to get in.

So the only thing you appear to be saying is, that one should keep in mind when confronted with a person who is trying to get in, is to invite them in first before pulling the trigger.
 
shrubnose said:
I'm going to let you figure that out, if you frickin' can.
Click to expand...

Your display of a racist attitude is nothing to figure out, especially as race played no issue in this case.
 
Excon said:
She was trying to get in.

So the only thing you appear to be saying is, that one should keep in mind when confronted with a person who is trying to get in, is to invite them in first before pulling the trigger.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Those are your words.

That's not what I said.

Do whatever you think that you can get away with, but be prepared to bear the consequences if the court sees it a different way.
 
Cryptic said:
Wow, Michigan has a strange penalty for second degree murder:

Michigan Legislature - Section 750.317

Michigan defines a life sentence as 25 years. But... the Court can evidently sentence him to any lesser penalty that it sees fit. In short, it appears possible (though not very likely) to get a one year sentence.
Click to expand...

I don't know enough of the facts of this case, but I remember discussion it when it happened. I don't understand the second degree verdict. I can understand voluntary manslaughter, but not second degree murder.
 
Good i hope he rots in prison for a very long time!!

Matter of fact he probably won't get out alive once the Brothas get him alone in there, LOL...

F@cking piece of ****, you just can't go killing people that knock on your door.
 
apdst said:
"Attention crooks: do what you want. If someone tries to stop you, we'll put their asses in prison".

Look for a sharp increase in burglaries and home invasions.
Click to expand...
That's not the message. He over reacted by shooting through the door.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Excon said:
Your display of a racist attitude is nothing to figure out, especially as race played no issue in this case.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Your opinion might seem valuable to you, but it doesn't mean a frickin' thing to me.



Did you notice that your opinion had zero effect on the way that this case came out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom