Black Woman Killed For Seeking Help

[Gravekeeper]

And there it is again: the presumption that he knew (or thought he knew) what was going on BEFORE opening the door, as opposed to opening the door to *find out*. What, if anything, is that presumption based on, and why is the alternative not even, so far as I can see, even considered?

Oh for Christ sakes, that was not a presumption and I stated nothing of the sort.

My point was that he willingly opened the door to confront what he perceived as a threat. Which undermines his case for self defense somewhat. As it would suggest he did not believe himself in imminent threat of death or bodily harm prior to opening the door. Despite the basis of his argument being that he thought someone was breaking in and thus was under threat.

That means that proving self defense is going to rely more on proving there was a reasonable belief of serious threat of death or bodily harm when confronting an unarmed young woman through a locked screen door. Which necessitated the use of lethal force to prevent.

This could further be complicated by the timeline of the confrontation itself. IE whether he actually engaged her before shooting her or whether the gun went off by accident as he opened the door. Before he had a chance to fully assess the situation.

If its the latter, than it will be a high bar. Because, again, they would have to prove a reasonable belief of an imminent threat of death or bodily harm just from her banging on his screen door. As I said, seeing as he did not call 911 and opened the door to confront the threat that doesn't sound like the action of someone that reasonable believes he's under an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily injury.

[HYHYBT]

Si, you say you never said anything of the sort and then proceed to repeat it the very next sentence.

Whether he thought *after* opening the door that he was in danger and whether he thought so before opening it are separate. How, then, can his opening the door make it not self defense?

[siead_lietrathua]

Si, you say you never said anything of the sort and then proceed to repeat it the very next sentence.

Whether he thought *after* opening the door that he was in danger and whether he thought so before opening it are separate. How, then, can his opening the door make it not self defense?

because if you think someone is breaking in to your home, and not just knocking, you don't open the damn door to check.
if you legitimately think someone is trying to break in, sure, arm yourself. then call 911 and wait for the cops. you don't go outside to confront a would-be robber, and PUT yourself in danger that, to that point, never existed.
the first rule of self defense is to keep yourself out of dangerous situations. not open the damn door and invite them in.
if the robber manages to get into your home, that's a different ballgame. but you don't make it any easier for the robber!

edit: articles where he says he belived she was trying to break in (so saying he thought someone was trying to is not a presumption)
http://www.businessweek.com/articles...r-blunt-points
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/15/theo...nisha_mcbride/


also "The prosecutor said that in Michigan someone who claims lawful self defense must have "honest and reasonable belief of imminent death or imminent great bodily harm" to themselves or another person and that the use of force must be necessary to prevent that."
from this article: http://abcnews.go.com/US/renisha-mcb...ry?id=20899735 (auto-play video on that site)

[Gravekeeper]

Si, you say you never said anything of the sort and then proceed to repeat it the very next sentence.

Whether he thought *after* opening the door that he was in danger and whether he thought so before opening it are separate. How, then, can his opening the door make it not self defense?

You are seriously not grasping what I'm saying at all. Luckily, siead has already repeated it for me.

[HYHYBT]

Not repeated, no. Sied's explanation is different than yours, makes sense, and doesn't contradict itself.

Nonetheless (and setting aside the links because the answer was more general) it pretends that there are no possible situations where it would be sensible to be holding the gun *just in case* and yet open the diir to find out what the noise is. You do not have to already think there is a robber or burglar or whatever before opening the door.

[siead_lietrathua]

Not repeated, no. Sied's explanation is different than yours, makes sense, and doesn't contradict itself.

Nonetheless (and setting aside the links because the answer was more general) it pretends that there are no possible situations where it would be sensible to be holding the gun *just in case* and yet open the diir to find out what the noise is. You do not have to already think there is a robber or burglar or whatever before opening the door.

i said exactly the same thing as GK. just in longer sentences.

however by your reply, you aren't seeming to understand still. this isn't a hypothetical case here.
he thought there WAS a burglar. that is not a grey area. he admitted that.
he was so convinced there was one, he felt the need to arm himself.
and yet not call 911.
and yet (from his own reported statements) did not yell out of his secured home to whoever was there to either scare them off or see what they wanted.
and yet unlocked, and opened his door.


this does not sound like the actions of someone thinking they are in imminent danger of being robbed or assaulted.
not in any sensible 'verse.

i mean, hell, what if it had been some kid banging on his door because he needed help? would we still be having these arguments? or is it because it was some drunk chick that crashed her car that this dude is even worth defending?

[Andara Bledin]

Time for an update:

Homeowner bound over on murder charge in McBride death @Detroit News

Essentially, the prosecution thinks it's ridiculous that he would open the door if he was scared enough to require pointing a gun at whoever was on the other side.

One thing in the article that I don't think was mentioned, and that may or may not be correct, is that McBride might have been at the side door, and not the front. This was from a statement made by one of Wafer's attorneys.

Some of the details that led to this decision are that multiple witnesses, including from after the accident, reported that McBride was not in any way confrontational or aggressive, the gun did not malfunction and would require the trigger to be pulled in order to fire, and his claim is now self defense.

[s_stabeler]

yeah... if the new information is accurate, it's basically a foregone conclusion that it's murder. Having said that, i'm not holding my breath. The Trayvon Martin case looked about as open-and-shut as this, and that case led to an aquittal.

[HYHYBT]

Because totally changing your story a month or so later doesn't in itself make you look guilty at all.

[Gravekeeper]

Looks like there's some disagreement on the range of the shot between the medical examiner and the firearms examiner that tested the murder weapon afterwards. The medical examiner said it wasn't close range due to the lack of stippling. However, the firearms examiner that test fired the weapon afterwards ( A Mossberg shotgun ) said she couldn't have been more than 2 feet from the barrel.

Meanwhile, the shooter testified he was only 3 feet away ( him himself, not the gun barrel ) from the victim when he fired.


Also wow, the audio of the first 911 call he made. The transcription:

Caller: Uh, yes, I just shot someone on my front porch with a shotgun. Banging on my door.
Operator: What's your address?
Caller: My name, uh, my address is 16812 West Outer Drive.
Operator: Okay, what city are you in?
Caller: Thank you
Operator: What city are you in?
Caller: <hangs up>

That seems to settle the side door thing. He himself says front porch.

[Andara Bledin]

That seems to settle the side door thing. He himself says front porch.

This doesn't surprise me. Based on that and other quotes from the woman on his defense team, I really don't think she should be allowed to make statements that her father hasn't vetted...

[Gravekeeper]

This doesn't surprise me. Based on that and other quotes from the woman on his defense team, I really don't think she should be allowed to make statements that her father hasn't vetted...

Yeah, I noticed that. The father and daughter defense team. Bit odd.

Oh wow, get a load of their Defenders Of Justice(tm) website and their bragging about their score cards.

[crashhelmet]

From the My Fox Detroit web site

Jury finds Ted Wafer guilty of second-degree murder in porch shooting

After about 3 hours of deliberation, the jury came back with Guilty verdicts on all 3 charges.

[Gravekeeper]

Only 3 hours of deliberation and the trial only lasted what, a week?