• 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

Wafer did not have the good sense to do that.
He turned off the lights and the TV so he could not be seen and fired his shotgun at head level through his locked door because he "felt" threatened, as per the law. He felt not only that he should react like that but he felt that he could under the law.
Had he reacted like your silly illustration he would quickly have found out the young woman was in trouble and indeed did need help. He would not be on trial for manslaughter and McBride would be alive.



And you'll find I've never argued otherwise. It would have been far more prudent to have adopted a less aggressive course of action, based on such information as is available.


And regardless of his belief that he could do so under the law, he's been charged and there is going to be a trial... so the system is working as it should, and all the assertions that it isn't are spurious.
 
What? You think I should respond to someone stealing stuff out of my shed with... what? Fresh-baked cookies?
Perhaps I could offer them cake. :D

I think a lot of options lie between shooting them baking for them.
 
I think a lot of options lie between shooting them baking for them.



Yup. Never said otherwise.


But if I end up having to confront thieves, rest assured I will be armed and primed to shoot if need be.... because stealing is not an indication of character which makes me feel that they will respect my right to life and the integrity of my person.
 
Actually, a " hunch " is all I need if the perpetrator is currently in my home or my garage stealing my possessions.

.
Murder by hunch... congratulations you have defined yourself as dangerously reckless... looking for an excuse to murder someone with immunity.
What would be wrong with reacting like Goshin's illustration?
hellsinghelpyou.jpg
Not reckless enough?
Not tough enough?
Not murderous enough?
Not cowardly enough?
 
Here, I went out of my way to find this video for you. Watch it and give me your honest opinion. Was the Homeowner justified in doing what he did which was basically firing on intruders through a window ?

If not, when should he have opened fire ?


The warning shot in the video was warranted and effective.
No one was killed.
You have been arguing that a couple of rounds between the eyes would be the only solution because the laws says you can.
That is the solution of a psychopath.
 
Combine stupid cowboy laws that allow murder based on how someone "feels" with racist paranoia and this is your result.
Gun fetishists see all their perceived fears, no matter how wrong they may be, as targets.
Shoot first and ask questions later castle laws are a recipe for murder.

that's a really stupid attempt to depict stand your ground laws.

you have to establish a reasonable fear of severe bodily harm

as I noted when this story came out, I believe he should be charged. There is no rational argument he could reasonably fear the person he shot
 
Yup. Never said otherwise.


But if I end up having to confront thieves, rest assured I will be armed and primed to shoot if need be.... because stealing is not an indication of character which makes me feel that they will respect my right to life and the integrity of my person.

That's not the debate G. The point is that people who ARE NOT thieves are being shot
 
Just because you're standing on my porch yelling at me doesn't give you the right to shoot me dead because, "I was afraid she was going to force her way into my home." Shut and Lock The Damned Door.
That isn't what happened here, is it?


but showing up at one's front door with a gun in one's hand shows a certain premeditation that makes me nervous. And if you had time to run and get it? You had time to Shut and Lock The Damned Door.
1. WTF? Premeditation? Sure, to defend oneself. It also seems like it would say to the other person; "Behave yourself lest the individual mistake your actions for that of a crook".
2. As people have the right to self defense, no one should be forced or required to "Shut and Lock The Damned Door.", ever.
 
That's not the debate G. The point is that people who ARE NOT thieves are being shot

if they are not thieves but say rapists, murderers or kidnappers

I am ok with that

if they are merely stoned, drunk or lost

I am not
 
Her family has suggested that she may have come to the door seeking help.
And yet there was no evidence to suggest she was seeking any help.
But there is evidence that she previously turned it down.

For all we know, she thought she was trying to get into her drug dealers house.


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. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/u...igan-man-who-shot-teenager-on-porch.html?_r=0
And the initial claim was that the firearm accidentally discharged. Which would make it manslaughter.
 
And you'll find I've never argued otherwise. It would have been far more prudent to have adopted a less aggressive course of action, based on such information as is available.


And regardless of his belief that he could do so under the law, he's been charged and there is going to be a trial... so the system is working as it should, and all the assertions that it isn't are spurious.
As long as the law contains only the requirement of belief or feeling of threat to justify a killing, the concerns of a miscaridge of justice are not spurious
 
That's not the debate G. The point is that people who ARE NOT thieves are being shot


The line of debate zigged towards thievery, so I zagged. :D



In any case.... er, what were we arguing about again? :lamo
 
As long as the law contains only the requirement of belief or feeling of threat to justify a killing, the concerns of a miscaridge of justice are not spurious

... if you completely ignore the "reasonable man standard", as you so ably continue to do.
 
Oh, did not see that in the article. Yeah shooting someone though a door is not self defense in my opinion.
Not what happened.





Oh good, then this man should go to jail because that's what this girl was doing.
No that wasn't what the girl was doing.





You are attempting to make the wrong analysis:

- The proscecution does not need to prove that the shooter did not have "feeling "X" ".

- Rather, the shooter needs to prove that the feeling was reasonable. Nobody is going to question him as to whether or not he actually had feeling "X".

How "reasonable" is defined in regards to self defense can vary from state to state and from county to county. That aside, this idiot would be in trouble in even the most pro gun counties. I hope he gets convicted.
Wrong. It is the Prosecutor who must prove that the defendants actions were not reasonable.
The defendant doesn't have to prove that they were.






stop yelling at maggie for an different opinion than you!!!!
Emboldening or emphasizing, is not yelling.
All caps is yelling. eg: YELLING!, YELLING!


Just make sure you actually ARE a victim before you kill someone. Is that REALLY too much to ask?
By what you mean by that, yes that is way to much to ask.
But the fact that they have already invaded makes them a threat.





I don't think the law is the issue here. I think Wafer's judgment is. I can't think of too many reasonable circumstances under which an unarmed teenage girl on the opposite side of a locked door poses a threat. 2nd degree murder seems about right.
:doh He claimed the gun accidentally discharged. That is nothing more than manslaughter.
 
if they are not thieves but say rapists, murderers or kidnappers

I am ok with that

if they are merely stoned, drunk or lost

I am not

Dude! What took you so long?!
 
In relation to this case? No it's not.
Wafer is white and the murder victim was black.
To pretend that this could not be a factor in this case would be truly disingenuous.
Well if that is the case in your mind, then you seem to have missed the other racial aspect of this case.
It is a black prosecutor choosing to overcharge a white man for his firearm accidentally discharging on a black women who had been acting in a threatening manner.


If the Avon lady got a little too aggressive with the door knocker ...one need only feel she wanted to damage the house...Then it's open fire, I feel threatened. Under the wording of these laws he burden of proof is only on the feeling and not to a real threat.
More irrational hyperbole.


So now door knocking is a capital offense?
BTW McBride was shot in the face.
Door knocking is willful misstatement of the evidence.
She was pounding and causing such a racket that it woke him and sounded to him as if someone was trying to break in.

And she was not "shot" as in a deliberate action. The claim is that the gun accidentally discharged.


Wafer did not have the good sense to do that.
He turned off the lights and the TV so he could not be seen and fired his shotgun at head level through his locked door because he "felt" threatened, as per the law. He felt not only that he should react like that but he felt that he could under the law.
Had he reacted like your silly illustration he would quickly have found out the young woman was in trouble and indeed did need help. He would not be on trial for manslaughter and McBride would be alive.
You clearly know not of what you speak.
 
It's not ridiculous at all. It's common sense. Your life is not threatened until your life is threatened. Plain and simple.
Wrong.
Your life is threatened as soon as they break the law by attempting/or entering, as you have no idea why they are there. Nor should you ever have to wait to find out just how threatening.


He shot a girl through his front door. (according to the story)

He's guilty of a crime.
Not according to the story, or the rest of the evidence.


If she's pleading for help due to being in an auto accident she very well might be knocking on the door rather heavily.
1..) There is not evidence that she was pleading for help, let alone simply asking.
2.) "Knocking on the door rather heavily"? She was pounding on his door, to the extent that it woke him and sounded to him as if someone was trying breaking in.


It is a great thing this case is going to trial and it proves our laws, in this case, are working rather well.
No it is not. Under such circumstances, where it is clear that there was no unlawful intent on part of the gun owner and no willful negligence, it should never be put before the whims of a jury.
Just so we're all clear here.....how much is a human life worth?
What's a reasonable value of something to kill somebody over?
Why don't you read the applicable laws and then you will know.


So a dude walking up to my house is "deemed by me" to be a threat. I kill him. Later I find out he's a Jehovah's Witness, unarmed, and was simply coming to talk about Jesus and the Bible.

Guess I'm off the hook huh? How was I to know he only wanted to talk about Jesus. I thought he was a threat to my home, property, and safety.
I sure as hell wasn't going to let him get right up to my front door. That's damn near suicide.
:roll:
That is nothing more than irrational hyperbole.
 
And the initial claim was that the firearm accidentally discharged. Which would make it manslaughter.
That's all he has been charged with.
Like I previously said; You known not of what you speak.


From the OP's article.
But in announcing she would charge Wafer with second-degree murder, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said her office determined that Wafer “did not act in lawful self-defense.”

Second-degree murder is not the same as manslaughter.
 
That isn't what happened here, is it?

I don't know. You??

1. WTF? Premeditation? Sure, to defend oneself. It also seems like it would say to the other person; "Behave yourself lest the individual mistake your actions for that of a crook".
2. As people have the right to self defense, no one should be forced or required to "Shut and Lock The Damned Door.", ever.

We disagree.
 
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.

For some people, it's as natural as breathing. The sad thing is that, from what I've read, this does not appear, to me, to be a justified shooting so I'd likely agree with many of the condemnations of this man, but, instead, we have to spend our time debunking ridiculous rabbit trail arguments.
 
So now door knocking is a capital offense?
BTW McBride was shot in the face.

Did I SAY knocking on my door was a capital offense, if you refuse to be honest why bother posting?
 
Well if that is the case in your mind, then you seem to have missed the other racial aspect of this case.
It is a black prosecutor choosing to overcharge a white man for his firearm accidentally discharging on a black women who had been acting in a threatening manner.


More irrational hyperbole.


Door knocking is willful misstatement of the evidence.
She was pounding and causing such a racket that it woke him and sounded to him as if someone was trying to break in.

And she was not "shot" as in a deliberate action. The claim is that the gun accidentally discharged.


You clearly know not of what you speak.

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:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom