• 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

notquiteright said:
CON poppycock...

The message is simple, an intruder INSIDE your home is DRT. YOU open your front door and shoot through a screen door you SHOULD hesitate BEFORE you open the door and remove a solid protective barrier.

People should 'hesitate' and EVALUATE the person for a threat before using deadly force.

Firearm owners should ALWAYS 'hesitate' before using deadly force outside the home and take time to ensure the use of deadly force is warranted.

But as far as a home invader scenario is concerned, nothing changed, as far as shooting people standing outside your home.... :peace
Click to expand...

Reminds me of a sick joke I heard years ago, now I'm showing everyone how aged I am.

Ever hear the one, what crawls and goes ding dong?

a wounded avon lady.

I know, maybe inappropriate, may be tavern material, but no, stupid people shouldn't be shooting through doors.

 
nota bene said:
The facts of the trial are not at all clear to me yet. I would've guessed voluntary manslaughter too and am surprised by the second-degree conviction.
Click to expand...

The trial was pretty well covered and while there was evidence, there wasn't a ton of it. The damning evidence was his telling what happened. He (the shooter) stated that there was someone beating loudly on his door and moving around outside his house. They started beating on his door again. He was afraid they were going to break in, and was worried there were multiple people out there. So he shot. She died. As I keep saying there was not much arguing about the facts. The defense and prosecution argued about her intention but in the end he didn't know who she was, where she broke down or any thing else like that. The jury ruled that you cannot kill someone for banging on your door or walking around to the side of your house. That itself is not a threat that warrants lethal force. He was not in immediate danger.

I was surprised by the 2nd degree verdict as well, but I cant really say the jury got it wrong.
 
Excon said:
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.


: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.
Click to expand...

Yes it was accepted. At no time in the trial was his account of the night brought into question. Everyone understood what happened. this trial was not about what happened, it was about whether his reaction to the situation was legal or not. It was not.
 
Texmex said:
Don't forget stupidity. Only a fool would do what this Neanderthal did and shoot this girl through the door.
Click to expand...


Does it make you feel better to call names? Two peoples lives are ruined because Detroit is a cesspool. The girl who got killed, and the man who was scared enough to grab a weapon in response to pounding on his door...
 
Excon said:
Justice served? :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...

:lol: :lol:

IOW, Excon, you were wrong. Just don't want you to miss that. Know what I mean?
 
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...

Great news, people like that need to be punished for their misdeeds.
 
notquiteright said:
CON poppycock...

The message is simple, an intruder INSIDE your home is DRT. YOU open your front door and shoot through a screen door you SHOULD hesitate BEFORE you open the door and remove a solid protective barrier.

People should 'hesitate' and EVALUATE the person for a threat before using deadly force.

Firearm owners should ALWAYS 'hesitate' before using deadly force outside the home and take time to ensure the use of deadly force is warranted.

But as far as a home invader scenario is concerned, nothing changed, as far as shooting people standing outside your home.... :peace
Click to expand...

Go ahead hesitate if you want. Give the bad guy a vouple seconds head start on you.
 
American said:
I'm surprised that racism hasn't reared it's ugly head in this.
Click to expand...

They beat the brakes off of that in the half dozen other threads about this.
 
nota bene said:
And then there's the muddy footprint on the a/c unit that wasn't properly processed as evidence. I know I keep going on about this, but it's a game-changer, at least for me. There's pounding on a door in the middle of the night (no testimony, insofar as I'm aware, of McBride hollering "Help me!"), and then there's somebody standing on your outside a/c unit and perhaps looking into your bedroom.

I am not supporting Wafer's shooting. I don't understand his saying that it was an "accident" and that he didn't know the gun was loaded. How irresponsible is this? Why couldn't he find his cell if he were able to locate his weapon? Why didn't he call 9-1-1?

At the same time, somebody beating on my door and on windows too would scare the heck out of me in the middle of the night.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

The fact that he changed his story several times hurt him, as it should.

The fact that they waited 2 weeks, and then charged him due to public pressure was BS.

I do wonder, though, if the guilty verdict was a result of fear by the jury of public retaliation to some degree.
 
>Drunk woman shows up on your porch.
>Shoots and kills her.

I don't understand some people and the folks that defend this sort of stuff. Right wingers pick the wrong people to defend.
 
rocket88 said:
I'm on your side, more or less. You can't shoot everybody who knocks on your door. What's next - shoot anyone on the street who MIGHT be a threat to you?
Click to expand...
Wafer's defense was just that. He was "worried" that she "might" break in... and "worried" that she "might" harm him.
The gun nuts, who defend his murderous actions, would have everyone shooting everyone that worried them about what they might do.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Wafer's defense was just that. He was "worried" that she "might" break in... and "worried" that she "might" harm him.
The gun nuts, who defend his murderous actions, would have everyone shooting everyone that worried them about what they might do.
Click to expand...

I think the guy, as the story was presented, was completely wrong. I agree with the verdict.

Can I see a similar circumstance where it might have been excusable? Yes, I can. But not an unarmed woman against a man behind a locked door.
 
Kreton said:
Yes it was accepted. At no time in the trial was his account of the night brought into question. Everyone understood what happened. this trial was not about what happened, it was about whether his reaction to the situation was legal or not. It was not.
Click to expand...
Again no. Had they accepted it, you would have seen a not guilty verdict.
 
MaggieD said:
:lol: :lol:

IOW, Excon, you were wrong. Just don't want you to miss that. Know what I mean?
Click to expand...
iLOL
Really MaggieD?
Was he, or was he not found guilty of manslaughter as I said he was guilty of?
 
MaggieD said:
He was convicted of 2nd degree murder.
Click to expand...

Again MaggieD, was he, or was he not found guilty of manslaughter as I said he was guilty of?
 
Kreton said:
That's not true at all. They accepted what had happened. What they didn't accept was that his life was in danger.
Click to expand...
:doh
Yes that is true.
Had they accepted it, you would have seen a not guilty verdict.
 
Excon said:
Again MaggieD, was he, or was he not found guilty of manslaughter as I said he was guilty of?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you said. You're saying you said manslaughter. I remember you arguing he wasn't guilty of a thing. *shrug*

However, he was convicted of 2nd Degree Murder. Now, if you're going to argue that manslaughter is the same as 2nd Degree Murder. Argue with yourself.
 
I'm surprised at the ruling. I thought he was gonna get off light. If I could ask him one question, I'd ask why he lied.. Why he changed his story. Would he have felt like a wimp if he just said he was scared and not thinking? He probably would have gotten off lighter if he was just honest... If that was truly the case.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
I have no idea what you said. You're saying you said manslaughter. I remember you arguing he wasn't guilty of a thing. *shrug*

However, he was convicted of 2nd Degree Murder. Now, if you're going to argue that manslaughter is the same as 2nd Degree Murder. Argue with yourself.
Click to expand...
Wow. Your memory of what you think has been said, and that which was actually said is clearly two different things. Why do you constantly do that?

I am on the record from the get saying he was guilty of manslaughter because of his statement saying it was an accidental shooting.
So where you get off with this bs, I have no clue.

And since you obviously do not know, and obviously didn't bother to check when you were asked (which should have been a clue to check :doh), he was also convicted of manslaughter, which is what I said he was guilty of.
 
Van Basten said:
>Drunk woman shows up on your porch.
>Shoots and kills her.

I don't understand some people and the folks that defend this sort of stuff. Right wingers pick the wrong people to defend.
Click to expand...

I think the guy reacted out of fear. He didn't have any priors, and wasn't known to be a violent man. Had he walked down the street and shot her bc she was loud and obnoxious he'd be a cold blooded murderer. Whether we think his fear was logical doesn't negate that it's a plausible reason why he shot her. She wasn't doing anything wrong but he didn't know that. Of course I could be wrong and the guy could be trigger happy but I didn't see any patterns of strange or dangerous behavior brought up.
 
herenow1 said:
I think the guy reacted out of fear. He didn't have any priors, and wasn't known to be a violent man. Had he walked down the street and shot her bc she was loud and obnoxious he'd be a cold blooded murderer. Whether we think his fear was logical doesn't negate that it's a plausible reason why he shot her. She wasn't doing anything wrong but he didn't know that. Of course I could be wrong and the guy could be trigger happy but I didn't see any patterns of strange or dangerous behavior brought up.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think that anybody who lives in the hell that is Detroit should be convicted on a curve, when it comes to protecting their home. Chances are, at 430 in the morning, in Detroit? Something bad is about to happen. I guarantee you that it's not somebody banging on your door with a check from Publisher's Clearing House.
 
Superfly said:
Personally, I think that anybody who lives in the hell that is Detroit should be convicted on a curve, when it comes to protecting their home. Chances are, at 430 in the morning, in Detroit? Something bad is about to happen. I guarantee you that it's not somebody banging on your door with a check from Publisher's Clearing House.
Click to expand...

Speaking of which you may already be a winner
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom