• 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!

Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not? [W:44:185]

Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not based on what we know?

  • Total voters
    25
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

calamity said:
but his actions after opening the door resulted in him shooting her.
Click to expand...
An accidental discharge is not "him" doing anything. And the discharge may have happened as he opened the door.


calamity said:
If she was shot from a distance, it wasn't self defense.
Click to expand...
She was shot from a distance.

What that distance is, remains to be seen.

The Prosecution leaves it up to your imagination to try this person in the media. While the Police report I linked to suggests that the distance was closer, rather than further.
Her feet where still on the porch, and that porch isn't that wide/long.
What ever distance she was from the door on one side, and what ever distance the gun was from the door on the other side, would be the distance. What would that be? About two to four feet?

Police Report
Pg. 15
I observed Decedent McBride lying face up on the porch (feet within a few feet of the front door & head partially obscured by a bush). McBride suffered a large wound to the center of the face/head, consistent with a closer range shotgun blast. ​
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/835676/dearborn-case-report.pdf​
Please keep in mind that the above is an observation, not a measurement.



calamity said:
So...that leaves manslaughter--he killed her, probably on purpose, but not with malice of aforethought.
Click to expand...
No information exists to suggest it was on purpose.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Excon said:
An accidental discharge is not "him" doing anything. And the discharge may have happened as he opened the door.


She was shot from a distance.

What that distance is, remains to be seen.

The Prosecution leaves it up to your imagination to try this person in the media. While the Police report I linked to suggests that the distance was closer, rather than further.
Her feet where still on the porch, and that porch isn't that wide/long.
What ever distance she was from the door on one side, and what ever distance the gun was from the door on the other side, would be the distance. What would that be? About two to four feet?

Police Report
Pg. 15
I observed Decedent McBride lying face up on the porch (feet within a few feet of the front door & head partially obscured by a bush). McBride suffered a large wound to the center of the face/head, consistent with a closer range shotgun blast. ​
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/835676/dearborn-case-report.pdf​
Please keep in mind that the above is an observation, not a measurement.



No information exists to suggest it was on purpose.
Click to expand...
He doesn't respond like it was an accident. There's no, "OMG! My gun went off." Or "I don't know what happened." Lack of excited utterance, indicates that this was not an accident.

Upon opening the door, he probably told her to vamoose. In her drunken state, she maybe mouthed off or even made a threatening move. He blasted her. Maybe that's even understandable given her drunken state.

Her drunken state makes it hard for me to blame the shooter. Even if it looks like manslaughter, I'd probably cut him slack if I was on jury, give him lots of room re: reasonable doubt.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Excon said:
No one said it does.
But it does go to whether or not it is likely she was banging on the door as the only witness said, or if she was knocking on the door which the family perpetrated and the Prosecutor adopted.
Click to expand...

Since when is banging on a door a shootable offense?
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Guilty or not, he has to be incarcerated for some period of time. This isn't middle-class suburban Florida. You know there's a riot if this guy walks. It's inevitable.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Summerwind said:
Since when is banging on a door a shootable offense?
Click to expand...

Why us everyone so preoccupied with the banging??

1- Banging is his word so if it carries any weight with anyone it is really not something that can be proven
2- If the weight it carries for some, that it could be considered more startling and would indicate a higher exhibition of aggression on her part that is not fact either, it is conjecture. It is just as likely that she knocked hard to wake up the homeowner.

Does not sound like something that should even be considered especially given all of the additional meaning that's being heaped onto it.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

opendebate said:
Why us everyone so preoccupied with the banging??

1- Banging is his word so if it carries any weight with anyone it is really not something that can be proven
2- If the weight it carries for some, that it could be considered more startling and would indicate a higher exhibition of aggression on her part that is not fact either, it is conjecture. It is just as likely that she knocked hard to wake up the homeowner.

Does not sound like something that should even be considered especially given all of the additional meaning that's being heaped onto it.
Click to expand...

Homeowners get the benefit of the doubt on their own property. I'll even give you some numbers to old cop buddies of mine who will tell you that if you shoot someone, drag them inside your house and you're golden.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

opendebate said:
Why us everyone so preoccupied with the banging??

1- Banging is his word so if it carries any weight with anyone it is really not something that can be proven
2- If the weight it carries for some, that it could be considered more startling and would indicate a higher exhibition of aggression on her part that is not fact either, it is conjecture. It is just as likely that she knocked hard to wake up the homeowner.

Does not sound like something that should even be considered especially given all of the additional meaning that's being heaped onto it.
Click to expand...

I believe that's the point I was trying to make in one sentence. I guess I didn't succeed. Thank you for elaborating.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Gipper said:
Homeowners get the benefit of the doubt on their own property. I'll even give you some numbers to old cop buddies of mine who will tell you that if you shoot someone, drag them inside your house and you're golden.
Click to expand...

If you are trying to look at the case in a genuinely objective way however, there is no way to know the truth about whether she was banging wildly on the door or knocking loud to wake someone up at 4:30 in the morning,(which makes sense). If you allow yourself to adopt as fact the homeowners representation of her behavior you are going to have a bias view of the events. Seems wrong.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

calamity said:
He doesn't respond like it was an accident. There's no, "OMG! My gun went off." Or "I don't know what happened." Lack of excited utterance, indicates that this was not an accident.
Click to expand...
An excited utterance would be immediately after the discharge.
This is after the fact, when he called 911. Some folk collect themselves quicker than others.
So his response sounds normal to me.

Listen at the following link.
Renisha McBride 911 call: 'I just shot somebody on my front porch' | MLive.com


calamity said:
Upon opening the door, he probably told her to vamoose. In her drunken state, she maybe mouthed off or even made a threatening move. He blasted her. Maybe that's even understandable given her drunken state.
Click to expand...
Did he say that is what happened?




Summerwind said:
Since when is banging on a door a shootable offense?
Click to expand...
Did I say it was?

Secondly, an accidental discharge is not a purposeful shooting of anybody, for anything.

But banging is reason enough to believe someone is trying to break in, and reasonable cause to arm yourself while investigating.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

opendebate said:
If you are trying to look at the case in a genuinely objective way however, there is no way to know the truth about whether she was banging wildly on the door or knocking loud to wake someone up at 4:30 in the morning,(which makes sense). If you allow yourself to adopt as fact the homeowners representation of her behavior you are going to have a bias view of the events. Seems wrong.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that you're wanting to be omniscient. You can't be.

He'll be judged by 12 people who can take into account actual evidence, and determine if he can be convicted on that and that alone.

You're trying to convict on "I think he" or "he probably".

He has a legitimate chance to walk because there just is not enough evidence to return a guilty verdict.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

opendebate said:
If you are trying to look at the case in a genuinely objective way however, there is no way to know the truth about whether she was banging wildly on the door or knocking loud to wake someone up at 4:30 in the morning,(which makes sense). If you allow yourself to adopt as fact the homeowners representation of her behavior you are going to have a bias view of the events. Seems wrong.
Click to expand...
And yet the only witness we have states it was banging.



opendebate said:
Why us everyone so preoccupied with the banging??
Click to expand...
As already stated.
Banging goes to his belief and why he acted the way he did.
E.g.: Believing someone was breaking in and getting a firearm to check it out.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Summerwind said:
I believe that's the point I was trying to make in one sentence. I guess I didn't succeed. Thank you for elaborating.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was trying to support your point. I understood what you were saying.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Excon said:
Did I say it was?

Secondly, an accidental discharge is not a purposeful shooting of anybody, for anything.

But banging is reason enough to believe someone is trying to break in, and reasonable cause to arm yourself while investigating.
Click to expand...
You may not have "said" it, but you didn't clarify which allowed for misinterpretation. Since this is what you now clarify, I agree as to arming before opening the door, but, and this is a big but,
if he didn't know her, once he looked through the peep hole to determine that, he should've called 911, not opened the door, leaving the one door shut, and he shouldn't have EVER pointed the gun to go off accidentally or on purpose.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Summerwind said:
You may not have "said" it, but you didn't clarify which allowed for misinterpretation. Since this is what you now clarify, I agree as to arming before opening the door, but, and this is a big but,
if he didn't know her, once he looked through the peep hole to determine that, he should've called 911, not opened the door, leaving the one door shut, and he shouldn't have EVER pointed the gun to go off accidentally or on purpose.
Click to expand...

You call the cops every time someone you don't recognize knocks on your door? Damn, Jehovah's Witnesses must hate you. They must just chuck copies of The Watchtower on your front door with a slingshot.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Kreton said:
Why? He shot someone in the face with a shotgun who by what we know so far was not a threat. What about that is not murder?
Click to expand...

That's the words that matter - what we know - and don't.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Gipper said:
You call the cops every time someone you don't recognize knocks on your door? Damn, Jehovah's Witnesses must hate you. They must just chuck copies of The Watchtower on your front door with a slingshot.
Click to expand...
At two in the morning. Yes, I'd have 911 on the line, and of course they wouldn't actually call the police unless there was a need. Didn't you know you could do that? You can call and say, I don't know if I need, will you stick with me on the line in case I do? They surprisingly say, yes.

First y'all nutjobs want to make a big deal about how it was 2am, then when it's convenient you want to dis people by suggesting 2am is the same as the time of day Watchtower idiots ring the bell. No wonder no one with any sensibilities can take y'all seriously.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Gipper said:
..........
Click to expand...

The problem here is that you're wanting to be omniscient. You can't be.
Click to expand...
Says you! (kidding) No, I'm not. I am just saying that it seems wrong to take the word of the only living witness who also happens to be the shooter. You can't really argue with that point.

He'll be judged by 12 people who can take into account actual evidence, and determine if he can be convicted on that and that alone.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between sharing opinions about what may or may not have taken place, what should and should not be considered and how the legal process will handle it. Like Casey Anthony, everyone speculated that she was guilty but because in a courtroom your speculations are filtered through the law the outcome is not guilty. They are different conversations.

You're trying to convict on "I think he" or "he probably".
Click to expand...
Where did I say anything at all about what HE did or did not do?
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Excon said:
And yet the only witness we have states it was banging.



As already stated.
Banging goes to his belief and why he acted the way he did.
E.g.: Believing someone was breaking in and getting a firearm to check it out.
Click to expand...

You're not getting my point.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Summerwind said:
You may not have "said" it, but you didn't clarify which allowed for misinterpretation. Since this is what you now clarify, I agree as to arming before opening the door, but, and this is a big but,
Click to expand...
There was nothing to clarify as it had been made clear previously that it was an accidental discharge, which "is not "him" doing anything".

Which tells me you are not paying attention to that which came before.


Summerwind said:
if he didn't know her, once he looked through the peep hole to determine that, he should've called 911, not opened the door, leaving the one door shut, and he shouldn't have EVER pointed the gun to go off accidentally or on purpose.
Click to expand...
You are assuming facts not in evidence.
You have no idea if he did, or didn't look through a peep-hole. Or whether he did or didn't see anyone if he did.
You have no idea if she was still banging on the door when he opened it or not.

When investigating someone banging on your door which sounds to you like someone trying to break-in, opening the door with the gun pointed in that direction is a reasonable thing to do.

But he does not have to call the cops and is entitled to defend his self and his property.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

opendebate said:
You're not getting my point.
Click to expand...
You made your point by asking.
Your question was answered.

In reference to the other, you go with the evidence you have unless other evidence contradicts it.
We have no contradictory evidence.
So you go with what we have.
 
Last edited:
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Excon said:
There was nothing to clarify as it had been made clear previously that it was an accidental discharge, which "is not "him" doing anything".

Which tells me you are not paying attention to that which came before.


You are assuming facts not in evidence.
You have no idea if he did, or didn't look through a peep-hole. Or whether he did or didn't see anyone if he did.
You have no idea if she was still banging on the door when he opened it or not.

When investigating someone banging on your door which sounds to you like someone trying to break-in, opening the door with the gun pointed in that direction is a reasonable thing to do.

But he does not have to call the cops and is entitled to defend his self and his property.
Click to expand...
He claims accidental discharge, though I do not see that as evidence but instead as a claim not yet proven.
You are assuming that claim as evidence, not me, so I guess it's you who are assuming.
I have no idea what he did, and therefore I was discussing what he should have done if he was intending on answering the door with a weapon in his hand at 2am.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Excon said:
You made your point by asking.
Your question was answered. You have no other point.
Click to expand...

Your bully tactics discredit you you know.
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Gipper said:
Homeowners get the benefit of the doubt on their own property. I'll even give you some numbers to old cop buddies of mine who will tell you that if you shoot someone, drag them inside your house and you're golden.
Click to expand...

No, you are not GOLDEN you are SCREWED! That is an old wives tale. It is called "altering a crime scene" or "tampering with evidence".
A person who is convicted of the crime under federal law may face a prison sentence of not more than 20 years, a fine, or both. (18 U.S.C. § 1519.)
Click to expand...

Evidence Tampering Lawyers | Stephen S. Weinstein PC | New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorneys( yes, I know this is a NJ lawtyer and not Mich, but it does not matter in this case)

Examples of Evidence Tampering

The following examples involve physical evidence that is, or was to be used, in an investigation or official proceeding such as a trial or hearing, or was tampered with during any stage of an investigation or proceeding.
•Deleting emails that could be used in an investigation
•Shredding subpoenaed documents
•Falsifying business records to be used in an official proceeding
•Altering a videotape or photograph depicting wrongdoing or which may be incriminating
•Concealing or destroying illegal drugs while stopped for a traffic offense or while being searched
•Altering, moving, planting or destroying evidence at a crime scene
•Surreptitiously repairing or destroying a vehicle knowingly involved in a hit-and-run accident
•Preparing a false document to deliberately mislead a public official
Click to expand...

Then because the officer will most likely ask about the body, and you say "that is where he fell" or something like that, you have committed another crime "Providing false information to peace officer conducting criminal investigation"

Please stop giving legal advice.

Here is the Mich Code:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/
750.483a(6)(a)

Pub ord

F

Tampering with evidence or offering false evidence

4

(5) A person shall not do any of the following:(a) Knowingly and intentionally remove, alter, conceal, destroy, or otherwise tamper with evidence to be
offered in a present or future official proceeding.(b) Offer evidence at an official proceeding that he or she recklessly disregards as false.
(6) A person who violates subsection (5) is guilty of a crime as follows:
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for
not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.
(b) If the violation is committed in a criminal case for which the maximum term of imprisonment for the
violation is more than 10 years, or the violation is punishable by imprisonment for life or any term of years,
the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more
than $20,000.00, or both.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Summerwind said:
At two in the morning. Yes, I'd have 911 on the line, and of course they wouldn't actually call the police unless there was a need. Didn't you know you could do that? You can call and say, I don't know if I need, will you stick with me on the line in case I do? They surprisingly say, yes.

First y'all nutjobs want to make a big deal about how it was 2am, then when it's convenient you want to dis people by suggesting 2am is the same as the time of day Watchtower idiots ring the bell. No wonder no one with any sensibilities can take y'all seriously.
Click to expand...

I was being a smartass intentionally. However, my premise is that it's very presumptuous that you would have 911 ready in a flash for someone knocking on the door. The fact that she was audibly knocking on the front door is probably his biggest strike against him, since thieves aren't known for announcing their presence before "going to work".

opendebate said:
Says you! (kidding) No, I'm not. I am just saying that it seems wrong to take the word of the only living witness who also happens to be the shooter. You can't really argue with that point.


There is a difference between sharing opinions about what may or may not have taken place, what should and should not be considered and how the legal process will handle it. Like Casey Anthony, everyone speculated that she was guilty but because in a courtroom your speculations are filtered through the law the outcome is not guilty. They are different conversations.


Where did I say anything at all about what HE did or did not do?
Click to expand...

Maybe I didn't read enough of your post(s), but it almost seems like you were manufacturing a motive by trying to read his mind and, therefore, his intentions. It's part of that liberal curse - where you use emotion instead of evidence or rationale. I don't hold it against you. :)
 
Re: Theodore Wafer, shooter of Renisha McBride, conviction or not?

Summerwind said:
He claims accidental discharge, though I do not see that as evidence but instead as a claim not yet proven.
You are assuming that claim as evidence, not me, so I guess it's you who are assuming.
I have no idea what he did, and therefore I was discussing what he should have done if he was intending on answering the door with a weapon in his hand at 2am.
Click to expand...
:doh
His statement is evidence. Period.
Your musings are not.

And you saying what he should have done is absurd.
He trained his firearm in the direction of the threat.
That is normal and fine to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom