• 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

The simple fact that these laws contain the wording "feel threatened" instead of "are threatened" give the level of certainty away to an emotional state and creates a fuzzy non-specific reason to kill.
When the weight of reason is applied only to a feeling and not to solid evidence of a real threat the law panders to those who like the idea of knee-jerk shooting instead of well considered responsible defense.
The wording matters. Any form of the word "feel" has no place in any law concerning life and death.


You haven't read the law, apparently. I have. It doesn't say "feel".


It says:

"If the person was in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm, or believed himself to be in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm, and if a reasonable man in the same circumstance would also believe himself to be in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm..."


This is a necessary and ESSENTIAL provision that is in almost every state's laws. It is necessary to deal with situations where, for instance, a robber points what appears to be a real gun at you and says "your money or your life!"... and it turns out to be a fake gun after he's shot dead. Yes, this has happened. This is why the "reasonable man test" is there for "believed there to be a threat."


It would be nice if people would try to have a little knowledge about a topic before pontificating on it.
 
What kind of world are you endorsing here. One where a person can't approach a strangers house without fear of being shot dead?! Really? It's an absurd overreach.

The problem is the way some of these laws are written and promoting the idea that they be cleaned up so that we don't just create a whole new group of victims is not the same as opposing the concept of people having the right to protect themselves against an "actual" threat


What kind of world are you promoting? Where homeowners fear to defend their home and family perhaps.

No one is promoting that you can just shoot someone for walking up to your door in the normal fashion. That is already illegal; furthermore it isn't what happened in this case. Having someone pounding on your doors and windows in the middle of the night, and damaging them apparently, is not the same as capping the Avon lady for ringing the door bell.
 
And we object to your pleas to give home invaders a safe working environment.
Suddenly the guy stealing your leaf blower from the shed is invading your home?
That is a quantum leap in logic, perception and reason.
Theft is not a threat to life and should never be met with deadly force.
 
The simple fact that these laws contain the wording "feel threatened" instead of "are threatened" give the level of certainty away to an emotional state and creates a fuzzy non-specific reason to kill.
When the weight of reason is applied only to a feeling and not to solid evidence of a real threat the law panders to those who like the idea of knee-jerk shooting instead of well considered responsible defense.
The wording matters. Any form of the word "feel" has no place in any law concerning life and death.


Absolute nonsense.

Of-course you should be able to defend yourself if you FEEL threatened.

What a joke.

What ? Are the Cops supposed to be the ones who determine the threat level ? A jury ? And when are they supposed to do this ? While they're trying to figure out who killed you ?

A uninvited stranger entering into your home while you are home constitutes a threat towards you and your Family.
 
Suddenly the guy stealing your leaf blower from the shed is invading your home?
That is a quantum leap in logic, perception and reason.
Theft is not a threat to life and should never be met with deadly force.

Most homes have attached gargages that access into you Kitchen and or Laundry area.

Its not the 1940s you know.

But speaking if quantum leaps in logic, is the victim supposed to know that that leaf blower is all that criminals interested in ?

Or should the home owner just ask the nice burglar ? " Are you just interested in my lawn equipment sir, or something more " ?
 
Last edited:
No one is promoting that you can just shoot someone for walking up to your door in the normal fashion. That is already illegal; furthermore it isn't what happened in this case. Having someone pounding on your doors and windows in the middle of the night, and damaging them apparently, is not the same as capping the Avon lady for ringing the door bell.
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.
 
Suddenly the guy stealing your leaf blower from the shed is invading your home?
That is a quantum leap in logic, perception and reason.
Theft is not a threat to life and should never be met with deadly force.

If you enter my property with the intent to steal my stuff, it had better be worth your life. Sorry, facing an armed homeowner is an occupational hazard of burglary and residential theft.
 
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.


I've already informed you that this "feel" thing you've fixated on, is NOT what the law says.
 
You haven't read the law, apparently. I have. It doesn't say "feel".


It says:

"If the person was in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm, or believed himself to be in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm, and if a reasonable man in the same circumstance would also believe himself to be in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm..."


This is a necessary and ESSENTIAL provision that is in almost every state's laws. It is necessary to deal with situations where, for instance, a robber points what appears to be a real gun at you and says "your money or your life!"... and it turns out to be a fake gun after he's shot dead. Yes, this has happened. This is why the "reasonable man test" is there for "believed there to be a threat."


It would be nice if people would try to have a little knowledge about a topic before pontificating on it.

Actually the law is not devoid of the notion of "feeling" and I don't think most would want them to be. Assault laws require, at least, the victim feel pain. Actually inflicting feelings of pain and/or terror, are in and of themselves offenses and should be.
 
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.
 
Most homes have attached gargages that access into you Kitchen and or Laundry area.

Its not the 1940s you know.

But speaking if quantum leaps in logic, is the victim supposed to know that that leaf blower is all that criminals interested in ?

Or should the home owner just ask the nice burglar ? " Are you just interested in my lawn equipment sir, or something more " ?


This is more how it should go....


hellsinghelpyou.jpg
 
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.



His actions were certainly questionable. That is why there is going to be a trial, with questions. :)



Unfortunately certain people want to use a handful of incidents as an excuse to curtail the self-defense rights of millions.
 
No one is opposing self defense laws. But those laws have to be written in a way that doesn't create a whole new class of victims
Hello, life ain't perfect. Pounding at someones door in the middle of the night in a crazed state isn't bright and you have to take into account that reality not just "Well it turns out afterwards she was not a threat!!"

Don't give a ****, you pound on my door, and I repeatedly tell you to calm down and you pound more I'm gonna shoot your ass.
 
.................

Where homeowners fear to defend their home and family perhaps.
No. You're putting words in my mouth

No one is promoting that you can just shoot someone for walking up to your door in the normal fashion.
unless of course you think they look threatening?

Having someone pounding on your doors and windows in the middle of the night, and damaging them apparently, is not the same as capping the Avon lady for ringing the door bell

Now you're just being silly
 
Most homes have attached gargages that access into you Kitchen and or Laundry area.

Its not the 1940s you know.

But speaking if quantum leaps in logic, is the victim supposed to know that that leaf blower is all that criminals interested in ?

Or should the home owner just ask the nice burglar ? " Are you just interested in my lawn equipment sir, or something more " ?

So all you feel you need is a "hunch" that the thief of your lawn equipment may want to hurt someone in your family and that is all the license you need to blow him away?
What if your "hunch" is wrong and you just killed your brother-in-law who came over to borrow the thing because his is broken and wife forgot to tell you?
Do you get off free because you had a hunch and a feeling of a threat and you chose to shoot first and ask questions later?
 
Hello, life ain't perfect. Pounding at someones door in the middle of the night in a crazed state isn't bright and you have to take into account that reality not just "Well it turns out afterwards she was not a threat!!".

How do you know she was in a "crazed state"? Because the guy who wants to avoid going to jail said so? There's an objective voice for ya.

Don't give a ****, you pound on my door, and I repeatedly tell you to calm down and you pound more I'm gonna shoot your ass
If this is true then you need have your guns confiscated
 
Oh good grief G


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


 
Vin Diesel would shoot first and then ask.



Oddly enough I prefer not to shoot people if I can help it.


Hard to believe I know... but just scaring the **** out of them is much more fun, and doesn't get one talked about at church quite so badly. :lamo
 
Hello, life ain't perfect. Pounding at someones door in the middle of the night in a crazed state isn't bright and you have to take into account that reality not just "Well it turns out afterwards she was not a threat!!"

Don't give a ****, you pound on my door, and I repeatedly tell you to calm down and you pound more I'm gonna shoot your ass.
So now door knocking is a capital offense?
BTW McBride was shot in the face.
 
So all you feel you need is a "hunch" that the thief of your lawn equipment may want to hurt someone in your family and that is all the license you need to blow him away?
What if your "hunch" is wrong and you just killed your brother-in-law who came over to borrow the thing because his is broken and wife forgot to tell you?
Do you get off free because you had a hunch and a feeling of a threat and you chose to shoot first and ask questions later?


Actually, a " hunch " is all I need if the perpetrator is currently in my home or my garage stealing my possessions.

Remember, he's a criminal, and just because I asked him nicely not hurt me or my family and to please just take my leaf blower doesn't mean he's not going to do just that because remember, HE'S A CRIMINAL.

In fact, confronting a theif empty handed with your hand in hat begging him not to do worse than rip you off is a full on invitation for him to not stop at your lawn equipment.

Youve just advertized that your'e absolutley helpless and vulnerable.

Why is the onus on me, the homeowner who's responsible for the safety of my me and my family to be so trusting of a total stranger who doesn't even have the decency to respect my private property rights ?

As for identification ? I can make the distinction between stranger or acquaintance in under a second and spend the next few seconds either unloading a clip from a Glock 19 into him if he's a scum thief or telling him how friken stupid it is to rummage through my Garage without first checking with me if he's my brother in law.

Plus, home owners are usually fullly aware of who has legal access to their homes.
 
What kind of world are you endorsing here. One where a person can't approach a strangers house without fear of being shot dead?! Really? It's an absurd overreach.

The problem is the way some of these laws are written and promoting the idea that they be cleaned up so that we don't just create a whole new group of victims is not the same as opposing the concept of people having the right to protect themselves against an "actual" threat

I'm endorsing a just world.

simply approaching a strangers house is fine... it's not an action that can justifiably get you shot.

no, we haven't created a new class of victim.... folks have always been wrongfully killed, and folks have always been killed in self defense.

SYG laws have a simple effect... they did away with the duty to run away when threatened outside your home.. ( yes, you had a legal duty to run the **** away in many states... how insane is that?)
castle doctrine did away with the legal duty to run away while inside your home.

that's it in a nutshell.


will people kill other people wrongfully?.. oh hell yeah... no law will change that.
but now you at least have an option of defending yourself or your family without having the retarded legal duty to run away.

but again, you don't have a duty to defend yourself... anyone is free to run away, or lay down and die.
you have more choices legally available to you now.
 
This is more how it should go....


View attachment 67170136
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.
 
So now door knocking is a capital offense?
BTW McBride was shot in the face.

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 ?

 
Back
Top Bottom