• 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!

Homeowner Who Shot Dead A Teen Girl On His Porch Faces Murder Charges This Week

Buck Ewer said:
I don't shoot innocent people in cold blood on my front porch out of a paranoid fear because I think the law says I can.
Your attempt at projection is baseless, feeble and very poorly executed.
FYI I happen to enjoy old west movies, but I have the ability to realize that the morals and sensibilities of that historical period no longer can, or should, apply to modern society.
Click to expand...

DO you have any proof this guy shot through the door because he thought the law said he could?
 
X Factor said:
Plain, simple and wholly incorrect where the law is concerned. You can use deadly force if you reasonably believe that deadly force is about to be used on you. Someone raises what appears to be a gun (that turns out to be a toy) and you blow them away, it's still self defense even though your life was not in danger.
Click to expand...

The problem here of course is that what is and is not reasonable is very subjective and when making the wrong choice results in someone's death it seems unwise to provide wiggle room
 
Naptyme said:
I would hate to be a juror in this case. Seems like without any video or audio evidence it would be hard to know whether this was legit self defense or murder.

As far as changing the laws I disagree. Obvious solution would be for people to not step foot on another person's property (especially not high/drunk in the middle of the night). If he did shoot her for simply being black I hope he gets the needle.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it's not that simple. This guy probably genuinely felt threatened and I highly doubt that he made a conscious choice to shoot her "for being black". There lies the complexity of the issue. This kind of prejudice is so embedded in our (meaning white people) Psyche that we don't see it. He probably has no idea that his fear in part of this unarmed girl was fueled by what he has been taught just by being a part of white america. I think the majority of white Americans inherited it and don't see it in themselves.
 
Naptyme said:
Regardless of race, if you were to see a stranger on you property in the middle of the night I doubt many would say you would be overly paranoid by feeling threatened. Now is that person is on drunk and on drugs there is no telling how the situation went down. She could have been out of her mind at that poimt in time and the old man felt genuinely scared for his life.

Without having been there or seeing all of the evidence to condemn this man as some kimd of racist cowboy is a bit premature. If he is then I hope justice gets served but I believe in innocent until proven guilty or is that no longer acceptable.
Click to expand...

Feeling concerned or possibly curious about whether or not they posed a threat is pretty reasonable. Shooting them in the face without any more information then that they were on your porch after dark and perhaps a little freaked out over something is not.

She was a young girl. I can't imagine that even if she was on drugs or drunk or something that the voice of this girl could not be understood as exactly that...the voice of a young girl. How much of a threat could a man possible consider a young girl on his front porch in the middle of the night to be? Enough to not open the door? That seems reasonable. Enough to just shout through the screen .."I've got a gun you need to go to another door"? That seems reasonable. Enough to shoot her dead? Not so much
 
Goshin said:
The attempts to turn a self-defense law into some kind of racist issue is ludicrous and disingenuous.
I assure you, anyone who threatens me will receive my due attention with complete disregard for race, creed, gender, color or nationality. My only concerns at that point will be sight picture and trigger squeeze.
Click to expand...

Once again no one is challenging your right to defend yourself against a legitimate threat. Legitimate being the critical word there.
 
Goshin said:
The jury will hear the case. One of the judgments they will make is whether the shooting passes the reasonable man test.


Based on the information WE have available (from the news, a notoriously unreliable source), it does not look reasonable. But what other information a jury may yet see, I cannot say. Thus I reserve judgment and decline to accept the notion that he MUST be found guilty or something is wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes, let's wait and see what facts emerge. Crazy idea, I know, but it might just work! ;)
 
Excon said:
:doh No. The case doesn't fit murder.
The jury is going to wonder why she was two times over the legal limit 3½ hours later, and where she had been to get that way.
And being that drunk, they will instinctively know she wasn't looking for any assistance.
Click to expand...
The jury will instinctively know that an unarmed 19 year old girl, so drunk she can barely function would not be much of a threat to anyone and that a shotgun blast to the face is completely unwarranted.
Murder.
 
opendebate said:
Feeling concerned or possibly curious about whether or not they posed a threat is pretty reasonable. Shooting them in the face without any more information then that they were on your porch after dark and perhaps a little freaked out over something is not.
Click to expand...
As you already know she was not purposely shot in the face. So you characterizing it that way flies in the face of the known facts.
Your not recognizing that skews everything you say.


opendebate said:
She was a young girl. I can't imagine that even if she was on drugs or drunk or something that the voice of this girl could not be understood as exactly that...the voice of a young girl.
Click to expand...
:doh
You know not how she sounded, especially out of her gourd like she was.




Buck Ewer said:
The jury will instinctively know that an unarmed 19 year old girl, so drunk she can barely function would not be much of a threat to anyone and that a shotgun blast to the face is completely unwarranted.
Murder.
Click to expand...
:doh
:lamo
No they wont.
Especially with the evidence of her ruckus and trying to break-in.
And being that much out of her gourd, and the evidence as is, it is likely that they will understand how she could create such a ruckus leading him to believe she was trying to break-in, because she was trying to get in.
And your characterization is also off. She was not purposely shot in the face.
 
Yep, totally justified. I mean when someone is banging on my door to where I think it could even be multiple people and I can't find my phone, I grabbed my thought to be unloaded shotgun and open one of the doors.

Didn't the article in the op (or maybe someone posted from it/another) the autopsy showed the shot wasn't from close range?
 
Buck Ewer said:
As long as it is a white guy shooting anyone black and un-armed, it is OK with you eh excon?
You are un****ingbelievable.:roll:
Click to expand...

statistics however show greater cause for concern



Federal Statistics of black on white violence,

with links and mathematical extrapolation formulas.

Ken LaRiveLafayette Political Buzz Examiner


August 1, 2009

The “New Century Foundation” studies Federal crime reports, and found significant differences in crime ratio between races, verified by the FBI’s NCVS, National Crime Victimization Survey, and The Department of Justice’s UCR, Uniform Crime Reports, FBI Communication’s Division, 304-625-4995.

They state emphatically that the Judicial System is not biased against minorities.

Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.

Blacks are three times more likely to use a hand gun, and twice more likely to use a knife.

Federal Statistics of black on white violence, with links and mathematical extrapolation formulas. - Lafayette Political Buzz | Examiner.com
Click to expand...

Its reasonable to be more fearful than normal with these kinds of statistics is it not?
 
Hear Wafer's 911 call here: Audio: 911 call made by Theodore Wafer after he shot Renisha McB - Fox 2 News Headlines

From ABC News:

The suburban Detroit man accused of fatally shooting Renisha McBride told police he didn't know his gun was loaded and said he shot the unarmed teen by accident, according to a recording played to jurors today.

"What happened here?" Sgt. Rory McManmon asked, according to the recording that was played by prosecutors in the second-degree murder trial of Theodore Wafer.

"A consistent knocking on the door, and I'm trying to look through the windows, but every time I look through the windows and the door it's banging somewhere else," Wafer said on the recording. "So I open up the door, kind of like who is this? And the gun discharged."

...Valentine Peppers, a 911 operator with the Dearborn Heights Police Department, told the jury that Wafer told him the same story. Peppers said he called Wafer back after his initial 911 call in order to get more information for the responding authorities.

However, Peppers said that call was not recorded because it was outgoing. Michigan Man on Trial in 'Porch Shooting' Claimed He Shot Unarmed Teen by Accident, Prosecutors Say - ABC News
 
Excon said:
As you already know she was not purposely shot in the face. So you characterizing it that way flies in the face of the known facts.
Your not recognizing that skews everything you say.


:doh
You know not how she sounded, especially out of her gourd like she was.
.
Click to expand...

It's funny how you claim I can't know facts because I wasn't there to witness anything then you claim to know the facts without being there to witness anything :lol:
 
Excon said:
No they wont.
Especially with the evidence of her ruckus and trying to break-in.
And being that much out of her gourd, and the evidence as is, it is likely that they will understand how she could create such a ruckus leading him to believe she was trying to break-in, because she was trying to get in.
And your characterization is also off. She was not purposely shot in the face.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence of an attempted break in. The screen on the still locked screen door was pushed outward by the shotgun blast when Wafer murdered the girl.
There is no evidence that the shotgun went off accidentally while being pointed at Miss McBride's face, other than the word of the guy who is trying to save his ass from a murder conviction.
Why do you want a murderer to go free?
You seem to want to see white guys who murder unarmed black kids to go free. You have a substantial history of staunchly defending this type of murderer.
Why?
 
Last edited:
opendebate said:
It's funny how you claim I can't know facts because I wasn't there to witness anything then you claim to know the facts without being there to witness anything :lol:
Click to expand...
What is funny is you confusing two separate things as a defense.
iLOL :doh
What I have referred to, is the facts that have been provided. No one has to have been there to know them.
You on the other hand spoke of nothing that has been provided. Stuff you do not know, nor could you, as you were not there. Duh!
 
Excon said:
What is funny is you confusing two separate things as a defense.
iLOL :doh
What I have referred to, is the facts that have been provided. No one has to have been there to know them.
You on the other hand spoke of nothing that has been provided. Stuff you do not know, nor could you, as you were not there. Duh!
Click to expand...

You can't take the statement of the guy trying to keep himself out of jail as fact. The only facts we have is that she is dead because he shot her.
 
Buck Ewer said:
There is no evidence of an attempted break in.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
nota bene said:
But Mr. Wafer’s lawyers said she pounded repeatedly on the doors, broke part of a screen and a peephole and may have left a muddy footprint on Mr. Wafer’s air conditioning unit, which might, the lawyers said, have given Ms. McBride a view inside a room where Mr. Wafer had been sleeping.
Prosecutors Sidestep Race as Trial Begins in Shooting of Black Michigan Youth
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Buck Ewer said:
The screen on the still locked screen door was pushed outward by the shotgun blast when Wafer murdered the girl.
Click to expand...
D'oh! Except for the part she damaged when she was trying to get in. :lamo
Nor was she murdered.


Buck Ewer said:
There is no evidence that the shotgun went off accidentally ... other than the word of the guy who is trying to save his ass from a murder conviction.
Click to expand...
D'oh! There is no evidence except the following evidence. That is quite a statement there. iLOL
:doh No evidence, but evidence. Duh! iLOL


Buck Ewer said:
Why do you want a murderer to go free?
Click to expand...
There was no murder.


Buck Ewer said:
You seem to want to see white guys who murder unarmed black kids to go free. You have a substantial history of staunchly defending this type of murderer.
Why?
Click to expand...
1.) Wrong.
2.) Playing the race card means you have no valid argument.
3.) Falsely playing the race card cements the fact that you have no valid argument.
4.) The only substantial history of any such thing exists solely in your racist thoughts.
 
opendebate said:
You can't take the statement of the guy trying to keep himself out of jail as fact.
Click to expand...
:lamo
Yes you can, as there is nothing to counter it.

Secondly; You trying to characterize it as trying to "get out of" is just ridiculous. It was the first thing he said and does not get him out of anything. :doh


opendebate said:
The only facts we have is that she is dead because he shot her.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
That fact is that she is dead because the firearm accidentally discharged.
Not because "he" shot her.
There was no deliberate action on his part.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
:lamo
Yes you can, as there is nothing to counter it.
Click to expand...

That doesn't prove anything. You understand what a fact is don't you?
 
opendebate said:
That doesn't prove anything.
Click to expand...
Proof? iLOL It refutes your nonsense.


opendebate said:
You understand what a fact is don't you?
Click to expand...
Of course I do. I have repeatedly provided the definition of it because some folks only believe it means one thing when it doesn't.
Apparently you are one of those folks.
 
Buck Ewer said:
There is no evidence of an attempted break in. The screen on the still locked screen door was pushed outward by the shotgun blast when Wafer murdered the girl.
Click to expand...

There may be evidence; we won't know until evidence is presented during the trial. But the NY Times article I cited said that there may have been a muddy footprint on the a/c unit.

As for the screen door, "Whether Wafer's screen door was torn from a break-in attempt or if it was damaged from the bullets he allegedly fired at McBride will be a crucial question in the case." Michigan Man on Trial in 'Porch Shooting' Claimed He Shot Unarmed Teen by Accident, Prosecutors Say - ABC News
 
Buck Ewer said:
...And the pages of this forum.
You are not fooling anyone here .
Click to expand...
Wrong again. It is you who are not fooling anyone.

Your racist claim is false.
 
Excon said:
opendebate said:
You can't take the statement of the guy trying to keep himself out of jail as fact.[/QUOTE :lamo
Yes you can, as there is nothing to counter it.

Secondly; You trying to characterize it as trying to "get out of" is just ridiculous. It was the first thing he said and does not get him out of anything. :doh


Wrong.
That fact is that she is dead because the firearm accidentally discharged.
Not because "he" shot her.
There was no deliberate action on his part.
Click to expand...
According to excon law;
Shoot someone and say it was an accident...That accident becomes absolute fact because nothing is there to prove it wasn't...
...WOW!:shock::lamo
Click to expand...
 
Buck Ewer said:
According to excon law;
Shoot someone and say it was an accident...That accident becomes absolute fact because nothing is there to prove it wasn't...
...WOW!
Click to expand...
You are clearly confused as to what I have said.
As I said no such thing.
:lamo:lamo:lamo

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