A tale of two self-defense shootings….
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: A tale of two self-defense shootings….

  1. #1
    ezkl2230 Guest

    A tale of two self-defense shootings….

    The self-defense shooting of 19 year old Renisha McBride in Dearborn, MI, is generating a bit of publicity in Michigan; the people responding to the article published on 11/16/13 by Guns.com about it are almost unanimous that Theodore Wafer, the shooter, broke the law. I'm interested to see what kind of response the situation gets here, but I'm going to present it a little bit differently. I have cut and pasted an edited version of my response to that article here (so if the font is screwed up, there isn't much I can do about it):

    In July, 2001, a drunk, unarmed, hispanic male (he was 2 1/2 times the legal limit) banged on the doors of a home in Cedar Springs, MI, a low crime area (Crime rate in Cedar Springs, Michigan (MI): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers statistics), early in the morning. The home owner, knowing someone was outside his home, stepped out on his porch to confront the man (who was running from the police, although the homeowner did not know this), told him to leave the property, then went back into his home, got his gun, and shot him when he didn't leave. The county prosecutor said there was no evidence that the drunk intended to commit a burglary or a crime of violence, and "The tragedy is, had he [the homeowner] not gone outside to confront him, this kid probably would have simply staggered away. But there is nothing illegal about going outside your house...It is human nature to second-guess how this drunken kid might still be alive if Mr. Clarke hadn't stepped outside to confront him."

    Nevertheless, despite the lack of evidence suggesting that the drunk intended to commit an act of violence, the homeowner was found to have acted in lawful self defense and was not charged.

    Fast forward to Detroit.

    A drunk 19 year old African-American woman (2 times the legal alcohol limit), covered in blood, bangs on the door of a home in Dearborn, a high crime area (Crime rate in Dearborn, Michigan (MI): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers statistics), in the early hours of the morning. She has been in an auto accident and is incoherent, apparently a combination of her drunken state and the injuries from her accident. All the homeowner apparently knows is that an incoherent person covered in blood is banging on his door; he takes Biden's advice and shoots through the door, hitting her in the face. As is the case in the incident listed above, the PA says there is no evidence that she intended to commit a violent act, and charges the homeowner with second degree murder, manslaughter, and a felony firearms charge. The PA observes,
    “There is no duty to retreat if you’re in your own home. Someone who claims lawful self-defense, must have an honest and reasonable — not honest or reasonable — belief of imminent death or imminent great bodily harm of himself or another person, and the use of force that’s used must be necessary to prevent that imminent death or great bodily harm of himself or another person.”

    Does this situation comport with the precedent that was set in the 2001 case?

    Not taking sides, just throwing this out for consideration regarding the legal precedent and its applicability in this instance. Is Theodore Wafer guilty of breaking the law, or is this race-baiting run amok again? The NAACP and Rev. Al are both trying to draw comparisons to the Trayvon Martin case - again.

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Indict them both.
    .
    People need to understand that using a gun in defense is a LAST RESORT. You don't answer the door and then return with a gun. you lock-in and call 911. If he enters do what you must. Mas Ayoob said it best... when you use a gun in self defense, even if you're 100% correct it will ruin your life.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  4. #3
    Didn't the guy in Dearborn state that he didn't know the gun went off at first, that it was an accident it discharged? So a bit different, in that he 'accidentally; shot her thru the locked door.. Just don't open it.

  5. #4
    Meanwhile in Washington State


  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    2,072
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Indict them both.
    .
    People need to understand that using a gun in defense is a LAST RESORT. You don't answer the door and then return with a gun. you lock-in and call 911. If he enters do what you must. Mas Ayoob said it best... when you use a gun in self defense, even if you're 100% correct it will ruin your life.
    Kind of li... I mean, just like Zimmerman.


    I used to be a government-educated stooge. By the grace of God, I repent. -Robert Burris

  7. #6
    Like Mas said "Don't open the door"

  8. #7
    I support the use of a weapon to repel a home invasion, but drunks knocking on your door are no more invading your home than those missionaries that appear every now and then at your front door.

    Call 911 and then prepare to defend yourself if an entry is made. That includes moving the furthest safest location away from the door to give the most amount of time and circumstances possible to avoid the need to use your weapon.

    But if the invader continues to approach you, then I think presumptions have to go on the side of the resident.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    The self-defense shooting of 19 year old Renisha McBride in Dearborn, MI, is generating a bit of publicity in Michigan; the people responding to the article published on 11/16/13 by Guns.com about it are almost unanimous that Theodore Wafer, the shooter, broke the law. I'm interested to see what kind of response the situation gets here, but I'm going to present it a little bit differently. I have cut and pasted an edited version of my response to that article here (so if the font is screwed up, there isn't much I can do about it):

    In July, 2001, a drunk, unarmed, hispanic male (he was 2 1/2 times the legal limit) banged on the doors of a home in Cedar Springs, MI, a low crime area (Crime rate in Cedar Springs, Michigan (MI): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers statistics), early in the morning. The home owner, knowing someone was outside his home, stepped out on his porch to confront the man (who was running from the police, although the homeowner did not know this), told him to leave the property, then went back into his home, got his gun, and shot him when he didn't leave. The county prosecutor said there was no evidence that the drunk intended to commit a burglary or a crime of violence, and "The tragedy is, had he [the homeowner] not gone outside to confront him, this kid probably would have simply staggered away. But there is nothing illegal about going outside your house...It is human nature to second-guess how this drunken kid might still be alive if Mr. Clarke hadn't stepped outside to confront him."

    Nevertheless, despite the lack of evidence suggesting that the drunk intended to commit an act of violence, the homeowner was found to have acted in lawful self defense and was not charged.

    Fast forward to Detroit.

    A drunk 19 year old African-American woman (2 times the legal alcohol limit), covered in blood, bangs on the door of a home in Dearborn, a high crime area (Crime rate in Dearborn, Michigan (MI): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers statistics), in the early hours of the morning. She has been in an auto accident and is incoherent, apparently a combination of her drunken state and the injuries from her accident. All the homeowner apparently knows is that an incoherent person covered in blood is banging on his door; he takes Biden's advice and shoots through the door, hitting her in the face. As is the case in the incident listed above, the PA says there is no evidence that she intended to commit a violent act, and charges the homeowner with second degree murder, manslaughter, and a felony firearms charge. The PA observes,
    “There is no duty to retreat if you’re in your own home. Someone who claims lawful self-defense, must have an honest and reasonable — not honest or reasonable — belief of imminent death or imminent great bodily harm of himself or another person, and the use of force that’s used must be necessary to prevent that imminent death or great bodily harm of himself or another person.”

    Does this situation comport with the precedent that was set in the 2001 case?

    Not taking sides, just throwing this out for consideration regarding the legal precedent and its applicability in this instance. Is Theodore Wafer guilty of breaking the law, or is this race-baiting run amok again? The NAACP and Rev. Al are both trying to draw comparisons to the Trayvon Martin case - again.
    Funny you should mention the Trayvon Martin case, I just read Zimmerman was in jail for threatening his girlfriend with a shotgun and beating her up, and the judge said he cannot ever handle a gun of any kind ever again, along with a $10.000 bail, one problem I see with these cases, and it is a big one (problem) is that we the public never really knows what went on at the time of the shootings we were not there all we know is what we were told, and I sure as hell don't believe all what the media says
    Bad Guys of the world beware the next time you think about jumping on a old guy, because its a fair bet he's to old to fight and probably to fat to run, but can put one in your eye at 50ft with his weak hand

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    2,072
    Zimmerman and the public are being played, while "some" of us, know better than to believe what they are told without question.


    I used to be a government-educated stooge. By the grace of God, I repent. -Robert Burris

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocketgeezer View Post
    Funny you should mention the Trayvon Martin case, I just read Zimmerman was in jail for threatening his girlfriend with a shotgun and beating her up, and the judge said he cannot ever handle a gun of any kind ever again, along with a $10.000 bail, one problem I see with these cases, and it is a big one (problem) is that we the public never really knows what went on at the time of the shootings we were not there all we know is what we were told, and I sure as hell don't believe all what the media says
    It was a $9,000.00 bail and the restriction on weapons possession is only for the duration of his bond. If it goes to trial, which is a pretty big "if" at this point, and he is exonerated (again), his rights are restored to exactly what they were before the arrest, just as they will if the prosecutors don't pursue this case. Or if his rights are not fully restored after a trial, it will be because of some other Florida law having to do with domestic violence cases, or maybe a legal finding by the trial judge as to his mental state, but it won't be because of an order by a judge at a bond hearing.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast