• 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

Yes they are. Based upon what you appear to be saying. Or did you not get that?


:doh
What you said and appear to be saying, can be two different things.








Now it appears as though you think folks don't know that? Weird your thought processes appear to be.




Only in your sick mind.

I say what I mean, and i mean what I say.
 
Your opinion might seem valuable to you, but it doesn't mean a frickin' thing to me.
Just as your absurd opinion matters not to most as well.
Funny that you don't realize that is a given on these type of boards.


Did you notice that your opinion had zero effect on the way that this case came out?
:doh Says the one who's opinion mattered not to the outcome as well. D'oh!
 
Only in your sick mind.
Now you want to go and get all personal. What a shame.
Well :naughty, that reality exists only in your mind with it's racist thoughts.
 
Last edited:
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.
Guns don't "accidentally" fire themselves.
He had to pull the trigger.
The jury realized that fact.
They found that he is a murderer.
 
Guns don't "accidentally" fire themselves.
He had to pull the trigger.
There you go not understanding reflexive responses again.
Figures.
 
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.
No . If someone is knocking on your door ...don't murder them.
 
As we now already know, he is a convicted murderer.
Which matters not to the arguments made.
So you have no point. :doh
:lamo
 
Not gonna happen in Mich prisons.


Unlikely. But your comment does say far more negative about you.



She wasn't simply knocking, but trying to get in.
I live in Michigan, so i know a little more about the state than you do, yea he's gonna do some hard time here, the prisons in this state are really bad.
If you think he's going to have an easy time with the Blacks your incredibly naive or just dumb, especially a trial of this importance and magnitude, with tensions extremely high after the Zimmermann situation.

Either way his life is ruiuned, which i am extremely greatful for.
 
I live in Michigan, so i know a little more about the state than you do,
No you don't.


yea he's gonna do some hard time here, the prisons in this state are really bad.
Clearly you don't know. But for Gladiator School, which he wont be going to, you don't know jack.



If you think he's going to have an easy time with the Blacks your incredibly naive or just dumb, especially a trial of this importance and magnitude, with tensions extremely high after the Zimmermann situation.
iLOL
The naivety is all yours.
Rarely do such things happen in Michigan prisons for adults, as the MDOC has their prisons pretty much under control.
Which is not me saying it can't happen, only that it is rare. And once he makes it down to the lower security levels the chances of it happening are fewer and farther between, because the population is intent on going home, not doing more time.


Either way his life is ruiuned, which i am extremely greatful for.
Again speaking more to the type of person you are.
 
Last edited:
There you go not understanding reflexive responses again.
Figures.
Wafer's testimony in court;
15:21 "I raised the gun and shot."

He opened his front door.
He saw a person.
He raised the gun and shot.
 
Last edited:
Wafer's testimony in court;
15:21 "I raised the gun and shot."
[video=youtube;fJ9PRIvcO2E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ9PRIvcO2E[video]
:doh
He originally stated that the gun accidentally fired. That would make it manslaughter under Mich law.
Guns don't "accidentally" fire themselves.
He had to pull the trigger.
Again.
We are speaking to his first statements of what happened. And you know that, so you have no point as it is invalid to that being discussed.
 
:doh
Again.
We are speaking to his first statements of what happened. And you know that, so you have no point as it is invalid to that being discussed.
:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Yes. Laugh off you being wrong again. It is funny and pretty much all you got.
What I've "got", as you like to put it, is, the jury in his trial has agreed with what I said weeks ago ... that he is a murderer.
Yeah, that's pretty much all I've "got"...:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Last edited:
What I've "got", as you like to put it, is, the jury in his trial has agreed with what I said weeks ago ... that he is a murderer.
Yeah, that's pretty much all I've got...
:screwy
No :naughty. All you have was being wrong in response to that being discussed, as shown. You were wrong. :doh

:2rofll::2rofll:
 
He is a murderer and I was correct about that weeks ago.
:screwy

iLOL
That has nothing to do with what you replied to.:2rofll: As shown.
Do you not understand that?:2rofll:
You were wrong.:2rofll: As shown.
Stop deflecting with irrelevancy to that being discussed.:2rofll:
 
That has nothing to do with what you replied to. As shown.
Do you not understand that?
You were wrong. As shown.
Stop deflecting with irrelevancy to that being discussed.:
We are discussing a murder.
 
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.

None of that is evident. There was no evidence she was trying to break in. At least none that was presented at the trial. He openly stated he was worried she might try to break in and he was worried that there might be multiple people out there. Again, this was not a case built around speculation. His account of what happened was accepted. The jury found that based on his account the shooting and lethal force was not warranted.
 
None of that is evident. There was no evidence she was trying to break in. At least none that was presented at the trial.
Wrong. The broken screen and the boot mark combined with the banging (of not only the door) is evidence of trying to get in. Trying to get into a place she did not belong.


He openly stated he was worried she might try to break in and he was worried that there might be multiple people out there. Again, this was not a case built around speculation. His account of what happened was accepted. The jury found that based on his account the shooting and lethal force was not warranted.
:naughty.
No it wasn't accepted.
Had it been, you would have seen a not guilty of murder verdict.
Not a screwy guilty of both, which is really an impossibility.
 
Back
Top Bottom