Theodore Wafer
Huffington Post
A jury in Detroit found Theodore Wafer guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter in the death of Renisha McBride Thursday, according to the Associated Press.
Wafer, 55, was on trial in Detroit's Wayne County Circuit Court after shooting 19-year-old McBride on his porch in November. McBride appeared at Wafer's house in Dearborn Heights, adjacent to Detroit, around 4:30 a.m. on Nov. 2. She crashed her car nearby earlier that night, and no one knows her whereabout in the several hours between the accident and her death. She was severely intoxicated. She knocked on Wafer's door, potentially looking for help; he came to the door with a loaded shotgun and shot her in the face.
One of the first images the jury saw in the trial was of McBride, lying lifeless on Wafer's front porch.
Wafer pleaded not guilty and his attorney sought to show the shooting was in self defense. According to the defense, Wafer woke that night to loud, intense banging on his front door and side door and feared multiple people were breaking in.
"In the depth of his being, he's never been that scared in his life," defense attorney Cheryl Carpenter said.
Another case of the law being a lot more than "all you need to do is say you felt threatened". It almost like the pro-gun people know what their talking about, while the gun control people don't.
ReplyDeleteThat's bullshit. No one ever said claiming you feel threatened works in every single case. Some of them get what they deserve. But the bigger point is poor frightened guys like Wafer are taking their cues from gun rights fanatics like you. You're the ones telling them they need a gun in the home, that dangerous people are coming to get them from one minute to the next. Here's the result, two lives ruined directly and dozens of family and friends harmed.
DeleteJapete says that. Go read her blog. She repeatedly says "all you need to do is say you felt threatened".
DeleteJapete is correct. And I think you're badly misinterpreting her.
DeleteCastle/SYG is really a license to kill for 2 reasons: first, it gives gunloons the idea that all they need is to feel 'threatened' and they are legally fine to open fire. Given the fact there are many gunloons who just about are wetting themselves in anticipation of shooting someone--this is exceedingly dangerous.
Second, there's little question SYG/Castle has been used to used to justify murder. You see cases where someone isn't in imminent danger but goes and gets a gun and blows away someone over a trivial confrontation.
And... Jade comes in to prove me right. That you guys irresponsibly call it a "license to murder". You're making Mike's life hard. Tell me, what's this guy doing in prison? He said he had never been so scared in his life. You guys say that means he can kill.
DeleteTS, I repeat, no one, not even japete says every single person who claims he felt threatened gets away with murder. Some of them are so obviously guilty that all their claims about legitimate self defense are to no avail. For many others it is indeed a license to get away with murder or manslaughter. My favorite example is the maniac in Georgia who murdered the Alzheimer's sufferer for no fucking reason. He said he felt threatened and the gun-lovin' authorities claimed to believe him.
DeleteMike, I know what your response is going to be. Something about how even when people get convicted of murder, it’s still our fault for promoting the “mentality”. We’ve be around and around on that one before. I can’t see you ever realizing how the gun control side spreads misinformation about what these self-defense laws protect, and then have the audacity to blame us when someone does what you guys say is protected (as they get convicted of murder). But never mind for a minute who is spreading the “mentality” when someone does a non-protected act. Let’s just agree to stop the misinformation. What do you say? As you can see, Castle Doctrine law DOES NOT allow you to shoot anyone on your property for whatever reason- no matter how scared you are. Can you say it with me?
ReplyDeleteCastle Doctrin/SYG does not protect shooting someone who knocks on your door at 2am, even if the shooter is frightened by it.
Agree?
You're still trying to blame others for what you yourself are guilty of. It's not the laws or the misinformation that some people pass around. It's about the mentality of fear that gun fanatics preach. The joke is when you do that, psychologically justifying your own gun ownership, you're doing the bidding of the NRA and the gun manufacturers. And saps like Mr. Wafer (not to mention his innocent victim) pay for it.
DeleteThe other point you keep spinning is that this one conviction and the others that I've posted do not disprove the complaint that these misguided laws, in some cases, are licenses to kill. People do get away with murder and manslaughter behind these laws. I've posted those too.
You point to cases where there is evidence of self-defense, like Zimmerman. You certainly can't call it a "license to kill", when if you blow someone away who knocks on your door and end up convicted of murder. A license to drive means you are allowed to drive. There isn't a crap shoot where it only works some of the time. "License to kill" is very strong wording, and doesn't support reality. How come we're the only ones responsible because we say self defense is a legitimate concern, but you're free to say whatever you want?
DeleteAnd can I get a response to my challenge? Can you at least acknowledge that castle doctrine does not protect shooting someone who knocks on your front door?
DeleteIt didn't protect the Alzheimer's sufferer in Georgia or the others I've posted about.
Delete"As you can see, Castle Doctrine law DOES NOT allow you to shoot anyone on your property for whatever reason- no matter how scared you are. Can you say it with me?"
ReplyDeleteAgain, you're quite wrong, TS. By pointing to the Wafer case and saying, 'see?' is akin to taking an outlier and proclaiming it's the norm.
I can easily cite a number of cases where Castle/SYG was successfully employed to avoid criminal conviction where the victim's sole 'crime' had been to knock on a door.
Go for it Jade. And I'll keep showing all those recent cases where you guys scream "license to murder!!!" as they sit on trial for murder, or rot in prison on a conviction (Marisa Alexander, Michael smith, the load music guy, popcorn throwing incident, the German foreign exchange student, etcetera..)
DeleteAnd remember, it's supposed to be hard to convict people of murder. People getting off every now and then is much preferable to locking up the innocent.
Problem is, the 'innocent' in your logic are folks who are itching to use their phallic substitute. In effect, SYG laws essentially make murder permissible so long as you use a gun.
DeleteAnd the victims, sadly, are those who had the misfortune of running into a gun fetishist.
TS, it seems to me there are more people getting away with murder or manslaughter because of these misguided laws than those who claim them in defense and are convicted anyway. You keep pretending that a handful of failed defenses destroys our argument. It doesn't.
DeleteTo reiterate, Jade, I am asking you in you expert knowledge of self-defense laws to tell us all why it didn't work for this guy. Be specific. What about how the law is written doesn't line up with his actions that morning? In the past, you've claimed "racism", but that card won't play so well this time. Please, Jade, do tell.
ReplyDeleteIt's actually pretty easy to explain. It happened in MI where the SYG law is weaker than in Southern states. Additionally, Wafer did not help his cause by telling responding police he was angry and "full of pis and vinegar" at the time which kind of undermines his contention he was in fear of his life.
DeleteOf course, in Southern states, you can see that SYG laws are dispropotionately racist in nature.
So now you are saying Michigan law is not a "license to murder"? Really, your only complaint is against SYG/castle doctrine laws of the south? Is that your new stance? Care to point out the language of their respective statutes where the distinction is made where you can kill someone who knocks on your door?
DeleteTS, you lost this argument but you're too stubborn to admit it. You're response is now to be as tedious as possible, demanding more and more details from our side and refusing to give in an inch. Notice ssgmarkcr, the only halfway reasonable gun nut I've met lately is conspicuously absent from this thread. That's because you're way out on a limb. All you have left is stubborn refusal and tedium. "Tell me the exact wording of all the SYG laws in Southern states." What a joke.
DeleteHere I am explaining how castle doctrine doesn't allow you to blow away anyone at your front door, and I'm the one who is "way out on a limb". Again, you act like its random that some people get away with it and others don't, not acknowledging that evidence matters, as well as prosecutor's discretion. You don't seem to understand how the justice system works. It the law protected gun owners who shoot anyone on their property, then no one would be in prison for it. If a jury, or prosecutors happen to be sympathetic to an unfortunate situation, doesn't mean they were protected by the law. I repeatedly try to get you guys to acknowledge when something isn't protected by the law, but you won't do it. "Some people get away with it, and others don't", you say, as of a coin flip is part of the law. You won't ever speak to specifics because you don't want to acknowledge there are boundaries on the law. Look, just like in a case of plain old execution murder, some people get away with it. Our justice system makes it hard to lock people up for life- as it should be. That doesn't mean murders are legal.
DeleteAs far as your "what a joke" line, Jade said there are differences in castle doctrine law in the south that do allow you to kill someone the way this guy in Michigan did and get away with it. Naturally, I asked what those differences are. That's a "joke"? We're not supposed to question anything Jadegold says?
DeleteIt's interesting to see which posts the gun loons will comment on, and which they do not. It exposes their agenda and their lack of concern about death from guns.
ReplyDeleteI didn't think it was the post that ssgmarkcr was avoiding, but the ridiculous arguments put forth by TS. Even his allies abandoned him on this one.
DeleteYeah, you guys must be right. Even though Sarge and the other pro-rights people have commented on numerous other occasions that SYG/Castle doctrine has boundaries and is not a “license to murder” as you call it, they must have all changed their minds just now. Because not commenting on a thread obviously means they agree with you.
DeleteWasn't commenting about SS's lack on THIS post, but the gun loons lack of comment on many posts and which ones they comment on, or not.
DeleteIf SYG is defined by "the fear in ones mind" it does promote shoot to kill when shoot to kill is not necessary. The fear in gun loons minds, is a much higher fear than in an average persons mind.
The point that many of us who are not ammosexual perverts make is:
ReplyDelete1) The NRA and ammosexual propaganda continually states "the police cannot help you"
2) The gunsuck idea is you are responsible for yourself
3) The NRA has ginned up the fear and paranoia
4) The NRA continually states that bad guys are everywhere
The result is trigger-happy gunsucks with paranoid fantasies. This results in confrontations. When you get several million paranoid NRA losers with extremely powerful weapons, bad things ARE INEVITABLE in a small proportion of cases.