• 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

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
DETROIT (AP) — Suburban Detroit homeowner convicted of second-degree murder in porch shooting.

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.
 
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.

Good. I hope he doesn't get parole either.

OpenDebate will be glad to hear this. This case has been an issue that she has been following since it began.
 
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.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
I am from Detroit I still read a lot of the Detroit media outlets. They covered this trial pretty closely.the one thing I took from reading about this case was that he got a fair trial.weather I agree or disagree with the verdict, the prosecution was fair. They made their case and they did it the right way. they didn't continually play the race card and bring up the Trayvon Martin crap like a lot of people are doing in the media and on the forums like this onehave been doing. They made their case with the fact that they had aN the jury found the guy guilty.
 
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.

Spin? He has been CONVICTED, or didn't you read that?
 
Spin? He has been CONVICTED, or didn't you read that?
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
 
This is terrible, some drunk, high big woman beats on an elderly mans doors who eventually shoots her, and its murder?

Nope. Jury effed up
 
"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.
 
"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.

She wasn't a crook. WTF are you talking about?
 
I am from Detroit I still read a lot of the Detroit media outlets. They covered this trial pretty closely.the one thing I took from reading about this case was that he got a fair trial.weather I agree or disagree with the verdict, the prosecution was fair. They made their case and they did it the right way. they didn't continually play the race card and bring up the Trayvon Martin crap like a lot of people are doing in the media and on the forums like this onehave been doing. They made their case with the fact that they had aN the jury found the guy guilty.

They were both black. No race card to play.
 
This is terrible, some drunk, high big woman beats on an elderly mans doors who eventually shoots her, and its murder?

Nope. Jury effed up

He sure didnt look elderly on TV...how old was he?
 
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.

Sad for everyone. I don't know his background, to know if he'd had break-ins before or some reason to be trigger happy. But damn, I read that he OPENED the door (screen door closed). WTH? I did read that she didn't simply knock. She was beating on his door, damaged the screen door, then went to a side door and was banging there. Don't know if that's true. If true, that was a bad idea. You knock, ring doorbell, if no answer, go to the next house. I believe this was a suburban neighborhood.

Still, similar thing happened to me a couple of times. I didn't shoot anyone. I called 911 (although I did get my gun)
 
"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.

At what point was she a criminal? Arent gun owners supposed to identify threats before shooting?

Do burglars and home invaders knock first? If they do, if that was your assumption, wouldnt you also assume they were armed and not just throw open the door and become a target?

Weak fool like this hurts all our gun rights.
 
They were both black. No race card to play.

Just to set the record straight the homeowner was white.

A white suburban Detroit homeowner was found guilty on Thursday of second-degree murder in the shooting of an unarmed black teen on his porch in a case that set off protests and fanned racial tensions.

Theodore Wafer, 55, sat stone-faced, staring straight ahead as the jury delivered its verdict after less than two full days of deliberations. He was also convicted of involuntary manslaughter and firearms charges.

Detroit porch shooting: Homeowner found guilty of second-degree murder - Chicago Tribune
 
She wasn't a crook. WTF are you talking about?

I never she was, however the homeowner thought she was, hence the reason he shot her. Right?

What happened here, is that the ability for citizens to protect their property has been taken away. Any time that happens, crime goes up.
 
Spin? He has been CONVICTED, or didn't you read that?
Excon cares not about convictions or trials.
As far as Excon is concerned, a white guy shot an unarmed black teen...so he should go free.
 
Last edited:
I never she was, however the homeowner thought she was, hence the reason he shot her. Right?

What happened here, is that the ability for citizens to protect their property has been taken away. Any time that happens, crime goes up.
Crime went up when Wafer pulled the trigger.
 
I never she was, however the homeowner thought she was, hence the reason he shot her. Right?

What happened here, is that the ability for citizens to protect their property has been taken away. Any time that happens, crime goes up.

You said that now criminals would have less concern of homeowner action.

How was his ability to protect his property taken away? (Well,now it is)

To his knowlege she attempted to take no property and she never gained access to the house. Why did he need to shoot?

*Could* he shoot? Apparently he though so. *Should* he have shot? No....he was in no imminent danger. He had true cover, the ability to retreat, and never called 911. In most states, if not all, (not sure about TX) the person needs to be in the house...not just on the property...or at least breaking in.

While he may have 'believed' she was trying to break in, his fear kept him from perceiving the actual actions and instead of waiting (he still could have), retreating (he could have even if he didnt have to), and he could have called 911.

His poor judgement, for whatever reason...my guess is fear...makes all gun owners look weak and unable to control themselves.
 
Excon cares not about convictions or trials.
As far as Excon is concerned, a white guy shot an unarmed black teen...so he should be let go.

as opposed to say far left extremists who think that its always wrong for a white person to shoot a black even if the black is intent on robbery or murder?
 
Back
Top Bottom