GUILTY MI - Renisha McBride, 19, shot while trying to get help, Detroit, Nov 2013

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

turaj said:
Despite the extra energy it takes in the courtroom I always think having it "open to view" is important...there will be many on whatever side here that does not prevail saying things were not fair etc. Much smarter to just let anyone that wants to view it. I can't remember ever being so unimpressed with a judge as what I saw in that courtroom yesterday....probably better I cannot see anymore!! She mad me angry just watching her demeanor and paper shuffling like this was a very unimportant case. And then the prosecutor (female) who stood there during her direct exam and wrote notes while everyone waited. What was that about?????
Click to expand...

LOL at first i thought this must be a joke. Then i wondered how are they handling everything in that tiny court room. Looked cramped and very unorganized. Your right, i was not impressed with the prosecutor lady, her questioning seemed very unsure. Very sad, when this case is very complex to me. Really wanted to watch it. Ahhhhhh i am upset.

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2
 
This case reminds me a bit of the Oscar Pistorius case being tried in South Africa. His defense is that he shot his girlfriend in the middle of the night, through the bathroom door, thinking she was an intruder. And the underlying defense is the overwhelming fear that many middle class citizens have concerning potential home invasions.

It seems that is what this defendant is relying upon as well. jmo :moo:
 
katydid23 said:
This case reminds me a bit of the Oscar Pistorius case being tried in South Africa. His defense is that he shot his girlfriend in the middle of the night, through the bathroom door, thinking she was an intruder. And the underlying defense is the overwhelming fear that many middle class citizens have concerning potential home invasions.

It seems that is what this defendant is relying upon as well. jmo :moo:
Click to expand...

Well I guess the defense is similar but the courtroom/judge and lawyers are certainly better in South Africa.

Hope fully when the verdict is rendered here someone will post. No court there on Friday....surprise...surprise.
 
Sonya610 said:
Obviously he felt threatened! He was sound asleep at 4 am when some crazy loud screaming drunk showed up and started banging on his front door demanding to be let in! The fact he grabbed his shotgun SHOWS he felt threatened!

I do believe it was accidental. He almost certainly had his finger on the trigger of that shotgun, one theory is that when she was kept banging on the screen door the door actually came loose (because the hole in the door does not match the correct angle, it looks like it had fallen).

If she was carrying on like a maniac and he was freaking out aiming a shotgun trying to figure out what was going on and the door DID suddenly come loose and fall that could easily have caused enough of an adrenaline rush to squeeze the trigger accidentally.

And as far as it being "just a lone little female" I would have been wondering if she had male accomplices at that moment, I would have been thinking at any second a bunch of guys could jump out and rush the house, then again I never would have opened the door to begin with, much safer to stand back and start shooting the moment the door starts to open, bullets easily go through doors and walls unless he was using bird shot.

(ETA actually if a woman was screaming and begging for help I "might" open the door while being armed, however if she suddenly seemed aggressive/threatening and not like a helpless victim pleading for help that would change things big time.)

I also suspect he was somewhat inexperienced with firearms. He probably thought if he opened the door and the person merely saw the shotgun they would stop and go away OR calmly explain what they wanted. Big mistake assuming that.
Click to expand...

Thank you Sonya. Home invasions are rampant in the Detroit area. Google "Detroit home invasions" and it pulls up page after page of recent home invasions. Detroit residents are fighting back. In fact so many home invaders have been shot and killed that one misguided pastor pleaded for homeowners to stop shooting/killing the criminals who were in the act of robbing people in their homes. Unbelievable!! This pastor seriously criticized the homeowners for shooting the criminals who were there to rob and/or kill them.

So I completely get the mindset of Detroit residents. They live in fear and police response is none too swift. My sympathies lie with Mr Wafer. He was a law abiding citizen, bothering no-one, sleeping peacefully in his own home. I can only imagine the panicked state he was in as he awoke to someone aggressively trying to get in his house. I do not believe that Renisha was there to get help. She actively rejected help at the accident scene. I think she was at his house, because in her inebriated state, thought it was hers. She made quite a few tragic errors on that night and it ended badly. I see no motive or malice on the part of Mr Wafer.

Please don't take this as victim bashing of Renisha, this is simply what I see as a reasonable scenario based upon the facts. I do believe that Mr Wafer in many ways, is also a victim, a victim of some very tragic circumstances. I see that many posters here disagree with me and that is fine. I respect their right to see it differently. But I stand firm in my beliefs and I thank God that I live in a place where I don't have to live in fear of home invasions, rampant crime and violence.
 
I agree with you on this one, SwampMama. A tragic set of circumstances all around. So many mistakes were made that night. I don't think Mr. Wafer knew that it was a young girl outside the door at all. I am thinking he will not get 2nd degree, possibly manslaughter. I'm not sure I could just shoot out into the dark, but I can't put myself in his place, it hasn't happened to me.
And, no, Renisha didn't deserve to die for her actions that night. Guns are dangerous and you better know if they are loaded or not.
jmo
 
Let's not forget his story changed multiple times, no reason for it to change if it was clearly a accident. Not buying none of that at all, I am concerned about why she ended up on that street, very weird indeed. Not concerned about her drug use or alcohol consumption hours prior. Did he need to shoot? HELL NO and he knows that, but be honest from the start, do not change your story. Only reason why I think he's not being honest. So he falls under the same rader as the others who are pulling out guns willie nillie to have that control. Now that this trial has been taking off air, we will never see the full facts. Nothing that girl done that night needed her life taken away from that huge *advertiser censored* gun. Disgusting


Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk now Free
 
islandmixed said:
Let's not forget his story changed multiple times, no reason for it to change if it was clearly a accident. Not buying none of that at all, I am concerned about why she ended up on that street, very weird indeed. Not concerned about her drug use or alcohol consumption hours prior. Did he need to shoot? HELL NO and he knows that, but be honest from the start, do not change your story. Only reason why I think he's not being honest. So he falls under the same rader as the others who are pulling out guns willie nillie to have that control. Now that this trial has been taking off air, we will never see the full facts. Nothing that girl done that night needed her life taken away from that huge *advertiser censored* gun. Disgusting


Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk now Free
Click to expand...

I think this is an important point. We've had a few clients that have fired in self-defense, and when questioned by police, by us, by private investigators - their stories are consistent. Yes, slight details vary, as anyone would when retelling an event, but consistency is key.

If this were an accident, or a shooting in self-defense where he was reasonably frightened - the stories wouldn't have changed like they did. If people truly feel they needed to act in self-defense, they stick to their story, their emphatic about what frightened them. In my opinion, they don't act as he did.
 
islandmixed said:
Nothing that girl done that night needed her life taken away from that huge *advertiser censored* gun. Disgusting
Click to expand...

It is pretty obvious her life style involved a LOT of bad decisions. Many would say being so drunk/high and then DECIDING to drive and crashing your vehicle into parked cars would be one of those decisions.

The other (that we know of) was trying to gain entry into a house that was not her own. Did the homeowner mess up? Did he freak out and not obey all of the many rules expected from "law abiding citizens" regarding the use of his firearm? Yeah, he did.

Mistakes made on BOTH sides, in my mind he only made ONE mistake when he was put under EXTREME pressure in the middle of the night while minding his own business (whether it was an accident or not) whereas she made MANY mistakes, at least one of which that we know of endangered the lives of other people.
 
Sonya610 said:
It is pretty obvious her life style involved a LOT of bad decisions. Many would say being so drunk/high and then DECIDING to drive and crashing your vehicle into parked cars would be one of those decisions.

The other (that we know of) was trying to gain entry into a house that was not her own. Did the homeowner mess up? Did he freak out and not obey all of the many rules expected from "law abiding citizens" regarding the use of his firearm? Yeah, he did.

Mistakes made on BOTH sides, in my mind he only made ONE mistake when he was put under EXTREME pressure in the middle of the night while minding his own business (whether it was an accident or not) whereas she made MANY mistakes, at least one of which that we know of endangered the lives of other people.
Click to expand...

As teenagers do at 19, get high, drink and ride around when they should not. That's not shocking information. Clearly she should have stayed home and lisented to her mother. But there is no way in hell, if someone bangs on your door, you are going to speak out and shout, who are u, what are you doing here?? then u may say, go away, i am calling the police. This idiot shoots her in the face with that damn hunter gun, and you are saying the mistakes are equal on both sides???? Whoa LOL

She is dead, so who knows if she was there asking for help. We are going by what he said as of now, a man in utter terror of his life who changed his story. Not buying it....sorry

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2
 
July 24, 2014 at 6:51 pm

Attorney questions evidence handling in porch shooting trial

Oralandar Brand-Williams/The Detroit News

Detroit —Theodore Wafer’s defense team went on the offense Thursday raising questions about whether key evidence in the murder case against him had been contaminated and why police waited 10 days to dust the crime scene, where 19-year-old Renisha McBride died, for fingerprints.

Wafer’s co-counsel, Cheryl Carpenter, criticized the Dearborn Heights Police Department’s handling of evidence in the case during her cross-examination of Dearborn Heights police officer Mark Parrinello, an evidence technician for the department.

“Days after this incident is when you dusted for fingerprints,” she said to Parrinello as he sat in the witness chair Thursday. “Would you agree with me that that dusting for fingerprints is so important?” Carpenter asked.

Parrinello said he wasn’t instructed by command officers to dust the scene immediately...

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140724/METRO01/307240064#ixzz38Vi1GtZu
 
turaj said:
Well I guess the defense is similar but the courtroom/judge and lawyers are certainly better in South Africa.

Hope fully when the verdict is rendered here someone will post. No court there on Friday....surprise...surprise.
Click to expand...

Kinda OT
I went to Detroit for the prelim. hearing and sentencing for someone that murderered a family member. I did not attend the trial. I found nothing wrong with the courtroom except I preferred recliners instead of bench row seats because her sentencing wasn't 1st and ran late. The prosecution team was spectacular, awesome, at sentencing. Used every law she could to get Guilty defendant LWOP. The Judge was awesome, he was spitting fire at defendant when he threw the book at her, and congratulated the Detectives( everyone showed up, even tho they didn't have to) on a great job on the case. I'm assuming the trial is at the same courthouse. Hope she lives a very long life since she will die in prison.:jail:

If this trial would have been in Dearborn Hgts., I would have went. Costs to much to park all day in Detroit. And Downtown IMO is the only really safe place in Detroit, except certain entertainment venues.

I would probably do as Mr. Wafer did if I owned a gun, but I also live about 1/2 mile from Police Dept. so I would try 911 also, then shoot.IMO
 
"A castle doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any legally occupied place [e.g., a vehicle or workplace]) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend themselves against an intruder, free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1] Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another".
Use of deadly force justified. Specific legislation prevents filing claim against defender of dwelling. Illinois has no requirement of retreat."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
 
Are there any witness' from the neighborhood that heard what, if anything, she was saying while banging on the door?
Why would she be asking for help? She had 6 people attending her at the crash scene. She left while help was coming. She refused the help that was offered by the crash witness. So, why 3 hours later and a 1/4 mile away does she suddenly need such urgent help?

Where was she all that time? What was she doing? Did anyone see her walking around at 2am, 3am, 4am?
Any cameras pick her up? All of the action that night surrounds the victim. The defendant was home asleep.
 
cont'd

"Justifiable homicide[6] inside one's home is distinct, as a matter of law, from castle doctrine's no duty to retreat therefrom. Because the mere occurrence of trespassing—and occasionally a subjective requirement of fear—is sufficient to invoke the castle doctrine, the burden of proof of fact is much less challenging than that of justifying a homicide. With a mere justifiable homicide law, one generally must objectively prove to a trier of fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, the intent in the intruder's mind to commit violence or a felony. It would be a misconception of law to infer that because a state has a justifiable homicide provision pertaining to one's domicile, it has a castle doctrine, exonerating any duty whatsoever to retreat therefrom."
 
I read somewhere, on a trail chat blog I think, that the victim was trying to walk home during those 3 hours and thought the defendants home was her house and that's why she was demanding to be let in and trying to get inside.

How far was the house from the car crash?
 
Years ago in CA the castle doctrine law was very clear! It's fairly simple even now: if a person crosses over your threshold or enters your home even one foot you can shoot. I don't believe for a second she tried to gain entry. And I don't believe he acted I. Self defense, nor should the castle doctrine apply. This is voluntary manslaughter IMO. Poss 2nd degree.
 
Cherry said:
Years ago in CA the castle doctrine law was very clear! It's fairly simple even now: if a person crosses over your threshold or enters your home even one foot you can shoot. I don't believe for a second she tried to gain entry. And I don't believe he acted I. Self defense, nor should the castle doctrine apply. This is voluntary manslaughter IMO. Poss 2nd degree.
Click to expand...

As long as he does not walk cherry, I do not mind. I don't think he intended to shoot anyone that morning. But he knows better, to just shoot like that, without being attacked. Being scarred is a different feeling behind a Damn door, then having someone smash down your door, in your house.

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk now Free
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 76 more.
Total: 1,694 (members: 77, guests: 1,617)

Online statistics

Members online
77
Guests online
1,617
Total visitors
1,694
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,060
Messages
18,103,198
Members
230,982
Latest member
mconnectseo
Back
Top