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

opendebate said:

Exactly how is this young girl being shot in the head because she "pounded" on someones door in the middle of the night justice?

Click to expand...

The claim was that the gun accidentally discharged, that is not purposely shooting anybody.

opendebate said:

The problem is that as these laws are written in some states, they can and have been used to get people off the hook for shooting someone for no reason other than they were scared

Click to expand...

You seem to be forgetting that they were scarred by what is considered an actual threat at the time.
No one should have to wait to see how far the threat is willing to go.

Buck Ewer said:

Gee whiz MrVicchio ...How many people have you had to kill for knocking on your door?
Tell us all how clever and macho you are and all the people you have blown away...
We are dying to know...
Thanks for the tip about slugs for my 12 gauge. I'm such a novice when it comes to blasting through door, wall and car bodies to kill people i don't know.
Any more of those pearls of wisdom that will make me a better more efficient killer?
/sarc

Click to expand...

Tips? Please, you're a statistic waiting to happen. Someone robs you they'll have their way with you and your family and your possessions. And I feel bad for you, in your warped view of the world, that makes you the good guy.

Buck Ewer said:

This was not a self defense situation.
The girl was UNARMED, intoxicated and injured on the other side of a locked door, seeking help.
The "self defense situation" was entirely in Wafer's frightened half asleep mind.
...and yours.

Click to expand...

She was causing such a ruckus that it was believed she was trying to break in.
As to the underlined. You do not know that. She had already turned down help down. So to say she was seeking help flies in the face of the evidence.
For all you know she thought she was breaking into her drug dealer house. Or her friends house.

But what is known, is that she caused enough ruckus on the outside of a persons home to cause that person to think she was trying to break in, which is a threat.

Excon said:

WTF? :doh
Is that what I said? No it wasn't, was it?

I was pointing out your racism and what you ignored in your zeal to cast such aspersion.
The racist shoe is clearly on your foot.


Yes you do.


You had to go outside of the provided article to find that. :lamo
Some Stated have to charge lesser included offenses. He can not be found guilty of both.
He is over charged as I pointed out earlier.


How idiotically absurd a thing to say. Especially since it is claimed as an accidental discharge.

Click to expand...

If nothing else you are remarkably consistent...
Any news story where a white guy shoots and kills an unarmed black kid, I can be absolutely sure what side excon is going to take regardless of the circumstances.
We understand your position and we understand why you take it.

MrVicchio said:

Tips? Please, you're a statistic waiting to happen. Someone robs you they'll have their way with you and your family and your possessions. And I feel bad for you, in your warped view of the world, that makes you the good guy.

Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question ... How many people have you had to kill for knocking on your door?
You are such an expert on this subject there must have been dozens...
Please tell us.

Buck Ewer said:

If nothing else you are remarkably consistent...
Any news story where a white guy shoots and kills an unarmed black kid, I can be absolutely sure what side excon is going to take regardless of the circumstances.
We understand your position and we understand why.

Click to expand...

Stop with your false claims and personal attacks.
You are wrong.
You are the one who was being racist and were checked for it, and not just by me.

Buck Ewer said:

You didn't answer my question ... How many people have you had to kill for knocking on your door?
You are such an expert on this subject there must have been dozens...
Please tell us.

Click to expand...

Your question is irrelevant, as she was not killed for knocking on anybodies door.

Excon said:

She was causing such a ruckus that it was believed she was trying to break in.
...
But what is known, is that she caused enough ruckus on the outside of a persons home to cause that person to think she was trying to break in, which is a threat.

Click to expand...

We need to kill all these "ruckus causers" ...the only good ruckus causers, are dead ruckus causers. Especially black, unarmed teen ruckus causers...right excon?

Excon said:

Stop with your false claims and personal attacks.
You are wrong.
You are the one who was being racist and were checked for it, and not just by me.

Click to expand...

I'm not attacking you excon ...I'm just making an observation.

Excon said:

Your question is irrelevant, as she was not killed for knocking on anybodies door.

Click to expand...

I was asking our resident door, wall, car body blaster to kill people expert.
That level of wisdom and expertise couldn't have come from book learnin'. He must have had to kill someone through a door before .

Buck Ewer said:

I was asking our resident door, wall, car body blaster to kill people expert.
That level of wisdom and expertise couldn't have come from book learnin'. He must have had to kill someone through a door before .

Click to expand...

The number of notches on my gun belt is irrelevant. You cannot stand the thought of a free citizen using lethal force. Here's the thing Buck, I have not nor ever will lose sleep over the thought or act of self defense. I have no desire to shoot ANYONE, but I won't hesitate to do so should the need arise.

MrVicchio said:

The number of notches on my gun belt is irrelevant. You cannot stand the thought of a free citizen using lethal force. Here's the thing Buck, I have not nor ever will lose sleep over the thought or act of self defense. I have no desire to shoot ANYONE, but I won't hesitate to do so should the need arise.

Click to expand...

I don't care if you notched your gun belt or not ... or how much sleep you get ... how many did you have to kill?
Surely with your level of expertise you must have had to defend your home against ruckus causers. That 12 gauge slug through the door or wall thing does work ...right?
Don't try to tell us it's all talk and bluster ... come on, there had to be a few...

Buck Ewer said:

We need to kill all these "ruckus causers" ...the only good ruckus causers, are dead ruckus causers. Especially black, unarmed teen ruckus causers...right excon?

Click to expand...

You are going to extreme exaggeration in the defense of the indefensible.
:doh

What part about her ruckus causing, leading to his belief that some one was trying to break in, do you not understand?

Buck Ewer said:

I'm not attacking you excon ...I'm just making an observation.

Click to expand...

:doh
No, an observation is what I made based on what you said.

You made a false claim. So no, you are not making an observation, and can the bs.
Especially as you didn't even understand what you read.

Buck Ewer said:

I was asking our resident door, wall, car body blaster to kill people expert.
That level of wisdom and expertise couldn't have come from book learnin'. He must have had to kill someone through a door before .

Click to expand...

The question is still irrelevant to the topic, as that is not what happened in this case.
How in the world could you not understand that?

Excon said:

:doh
No, an observation is what I made based on what you said.

You made a false claim. So no, you are not making an observation, and can the bs.
...

Click to expand...

Wrong. You didn't observe me making the observation that you claim to have observed me observing.
Wong.What part of observing an observation don't you understand?
How idiotically absurd a thing to say...
Your claim of observing my observation of you observing me is irrelevant.:doh
The racism on my foot is clearly in your other shoe so can the left foot / right foot bs :doh
Clearly this level of ruckus causing is not life threatening ruckus causing because that level of observed ruckus causing would require sobriety and an observable false claim of such an aspersian .:doh
You can't wait around to see if a ruckus causer will carry through with their ruckus causing threat...especially if they are an unarmed, black teen, ruckus causer... accidental discharge is the only solution ...duh:doh How in the world could you not understand that?

It's been wonderfully entertaining reading your predictable attempts at debate excon ...
buh bye...

Buck Ewer said:

Wrong. You didn't observe me making the observation that you claim to have observed me observing.

Click to expand...

Yes you are wrong.

Buck Ewer said:

Wong.What part of observing an observation don't you understand?

Click to expand...

Yes you are wrong. Again!
You made a false claim. Not an observation.

Buck Ewer said:

How idiotically absurd a thing to say...
Your claim of observing my observation of you observing me is irrelevant.
The racism on my foot is clearly in your other shoe so can the left foot / right foot bs
Clearly this level of ruckus causing is not life threatening ruckus causing because that level of observed ruckus causing would require sobriety and an observable false claim of such an aspersian .
You can't wait around to see if a ruckus causer will carry through with their ruckus causing threat...especially if they are an unarmed, black teen, ruckus causer... accidental discharge is the only solution ...duh

Click to expand...

You got that right. What you just said is an idiotically absurd and pretty much an incoherent thing to say.
You made a false claim, not an observation.
And the observation of your racism wasn't just pointed out by me.

Only solution? Odd. Seems like something a racist would say.
Only solution? No, factual claims of this case, evidence, that will have to be shown to be otherwise in court.
Which obviously can't be shown by you to be untrue. :lamo

Buck Ewer said:

It's been wonderfully entertaining reading your predictable attempts at debate excon ...
buh bye...

Click to expand...

:lamo
You cannot transfer your infirmities onto another. It doesn't work that way.
So you go ahead and run. The thread will do much better without false claims and ignorance of the evidence.

TurtleDude said:

you don't really have much understanding of self defense do you

warning shots

a) can harm others

b) leave you with less ammunition

c) did I say can HARM OTHERS

Click to expand...

Also depending on where you live they are illegal.

Buck Ewer said:

Or maybe she was unconscious in her car wreck ...
You might make up anything to try to justify a killing in the name of SYG right?

Click to expand...

Now you just hold on there a minute. You have absolutely no idea what my view of SYG is because I've never posted about it. And I haven't posted about it on this thread either.

You clearly haven't read what I sourced from the NY Time's article I linked. Eyewitnesses say that McBride was out of the car and that they asked if she needed help. To repeat[bolding mine]: "Neighbors along the street testified that they had offered assistance to the young woman, who appeared to be injured and seemed disoriented, but that Ms. McBride had refused help and wandered away. Several hours later, and six blocks from the crash site, Ms. McBride appeared on Mr. Wafer’s front porch."

Excon said:

He claimed the gun accidentally discharged. That is nothing more than manslaughter.

Click to expand...

I had forgotten that. If that turns out to be true then you're right, it's manslaughter and not murder.

opendebate said:

I think these laws are dangerous and empower people to act on irrational fears. Irrational fears that seem to consistently provoke them to shoot black people. IMHO, unless they consider that sector of our population dispensable these laws need to be changed in consideration of these real world outcomes.

Click to expand...

Yep. These laws leave too much discretion in the hands of gun owners. And there are too many gun owners whose discretion is based in irrationality. Beyond that, such gun owners believe that their irrational worldview is an accurate worldview which makes reasoning with them nearly impossible. That's why it's up to the rest of us to get these laws off the books. They can keep their irrational views of the world, but their desire to act on those beliefs violently should not be allowed by law. They don't get that privilege anymore.

ThePlayDrive said:

Yep. These laws leave too much discretion in the hands of gun owners. And there are too many gun owners whose discretion is based in irrationality. Beyond that, such gun owners believe that their irrational worldview is an accurate worldview which makes reasoning with them nearly impossible. That's why it's up to the rest of us to get these laws off the books. They can keep their irrational views of the world, but their desire to act on those beliefs violently should not be allowed by law. They don't get that privilege anymore.

Click to expand...

You're right. Let's just do away with the concept of self defense completely. From now on, you always have a duty to cower and retreat. Not all of us want to be like you, TPD.

Good luck getting the 2nd A repealed.

Excon said:

She was causing such a ruckus that it was believed she was trying to break in.
As to the underlined. You do not know that. She had already turned down help down. So to say she was seeking help flies in the face of the evidence.
For all you know she thought she was breaking into her drug dealer house. Or her friends house.

But what is known, is that she caused enough ruckus on the outside of a persons home to cause that person to think she was trying to break in, which is a threat.

Click to expand...

I was staying in a drive-up motel with my 74-year-old mom (at the time). The manager didn't stay on property overnight. They didn't have phones in the rooms. My cell couldn't get a signal in the mountains. This was in a little coal town called Manchester, KY. Population? One McDonald's. I was awakened at 2 AM in the morning to some jamoke banging on the door yelling, "Open this ****ing door!!!" Bang-bang-bang-bang-bang!!!! "****ing hell. Open the God-damned door, bitch!!!!" More banging. I had a loaded .38 on the nightstand.

So I opened the door and shot him in the head. I was scared.. Oh, wait, or was it I opened the door and damn! My gun accidentally shot her in the head. Yeah, that's it. My gun did it.

Not.

Hell, I could even imagine the conversation with the sheriff when he finally came: "Sheriff!! I was scared to death!!! So I threw open the door and shot him. Anybody would have done it. Are you nutz??

What did I do? I shook off the cobwebs, figured he was drunk, turned on the light, picked UP my gun and yelled, "YOU'VE GOT THE WRONG ****IN' ROOM. GET THE **** OUT OF HERE."

My reasoning? Even scared and half asleep? I've got all the power in my hand here. There's one of you, drunk. And one of me, armed. Come thru that door and you're dead. Open the door to him? Really???? Not on his life.

Please to tell me how a gun accidentally discharges unless there's a struggle for it. I think that tactic is a mistake. He'll still go to jail. We don't get to kill someone and say "Oops." So, was he afraid and shot her in self-defense? Or did the gun go off by itself? Or is he throwing **** against the wall to see what sticks?

No, by the accounting we had thus far, this lady would want to find him guilty of something. He hadn't called the cops; he opened the door to what he perceived as a threat; he shot her in the head. He's going to jail. I hope.

How many people reading this have accidentally discharged their gun? And then add, "and killed someone in the process?" That'd be an interesting statistic.

People who think as you do shouldn't own guns. You're a menace.

Actually this cannot both be an accident and self defense. Self defense is, "yes I did it intentionally but here's why it's justified". The defense trying to claim both makes me believe it was neither.

It is her fault she is dead. Drunk, too drunk to figure where she was. He should have called the cops simply because he had the shotgun in hand he had little to fear, but it all boils down to her being out of control. He may do time but hopefully not much because if she had not been a loser he would not be in this predicament.

Buck Ewer said:

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.

Click to expand...

The warning shot ?

First there were SHOT(S ), not shot and second a warning shot isnt typically aimed directly at the bad guys through a window.

Those were NOT warning shotS, they were meant to hit the goons trying to break through the window.

So again, was the homeowner justified in doing what he did ?

opendebate said:

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

Remember this story? From the article

..... latest trial to test the role of expansive self-defense laws in racially charged deaths by gunfire.

In statements to the press, he called the shooting “justified” and “reasonable,” invoking language from Michigan’s “Shoot First” laws that allow immunity for some self-defense shootings.

....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.”

Wafer’s lawyer Cheryl Carpenter argued in opening statements Wednesday morning that Wafer shot McBride out of fear. To bolster that argument with legal support, she will have two options under Michigan’s expanded self-defense laws that grew out of NRA lobbying. In addition to passing a “Stand Your Ground” law in 2006 that expands the sanctioned use of deadly force outside the home, Michigan also expanded the so-called “Castle Doctrine,” which allows deadly force to protect one’s dwelling, to include areas around the home such as a yard or porch.

For Wafer to successfully invoke the “Castle Doctrine,” he would have to show that McBride was “in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling.” Prosecutors said there no evidence of forced entry. And the autopsy report shows McBride was not shot at close range.

Wafer could also use the state’s Stand Your Ground law to show that he reasonably believed force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

I think these laws are dangerous and empower people to act on irrational fears. Irrational fears that seem to consistently provoke them to shoot black people. IMHO, unless they consider that sector of our population dispensable these laws need to be changed in consideration of these real world outcomes.

Click to expand...

These self defense laws have a far greater effect on black people, who more often find themselves in the position of having to defend their own lives. The situation of white people defending themselves from black people is relatively uncommon, and you could probably count the instances in which these self defense laws are evoked in such a situation on one hand. But if any group needs the right to defend themselves from black people it's black people.

Good luck convincing people that a person who is defending himself from a violent attack is acting irrationally.