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

[Sweetgrits]

with a handgun you can have a loaded magazine but no round in the chamber so if you pull the trigger it does not fire a round - same with some types of shotguns, you can load in a bunch of shells but not have one ready to fire.

edit - this would be like the scene in every movie where there is a shotgun hehe; gu

y picks it up, pumps it - now there is a round ready to fire. it was sitting there loaded but if the trigger was pulled it would not have fired.

If he was so scared why would he open the door carrying an unloaded weapon?

 

[Sonya610]

If he was so scared why would he open the door carrying an unloaded weapon?

He actually said "I didn't know there was a round in there" which must mean a round in the chamber.

If that were the case that means he probably thought the SIGHT of a shotgun would scare someone, and if it didn't he could pump it and get it ready to shoot (which is just all around stupid).

 

[daisy7]

"i didnt know the gun was loaded" is no excuse anyway.

accidental discharge under duress and self-defense are not mutually exclusive and there is a reasonable scenario where both could be true.

but the "i didnt know it was loaded" statement does not help his case at all imo.

No, it doesn't, IMO. If you have a gun, there is just no excuse for not knowing if it is loaded. There are way too many innocent people and children that are killed each year with the same excuse.

 

[islandmixed]

No, it doesn't, IMO. If you have a gun, there is just no excuse for not knowing if it is loaded. There are way too many innocent people and children that are killed each year with the same excuse.

True, i could understand him saying i picked up gun to scare her, but him pulling the trigger, means he knew somewhat he had a live round, and by that, you wanted to do damage. Not helping him at all...

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Sonya610]

True, i could understand him saying i picked up gun to scare her, but him pulling the trigger, means he knew somewhat he had a live round, and by that, you wanted to do damage. Not helping him at all...

The thing is he probably DIDN'T pull the trigger intentionally. General gun safety says keep your finger OFF the trigger until you are ready to shoot, otherwise if you get startled you could involuntarily tense up and pull the trigger without meaning to (your muscles tense/flex sort of like when someone scares you and makes you "jump").

If he took the shotgun to the open door to see what was outside and then suddenly someone appeared around the corner coming BACK to the front door it could have startled him enough his already tense muscles twitched and caused the him to squeeze the trigger.

And FYI don't EVER use a gun to "scare people", especially one that is not ready to fire. If you feel threatened you have to assume the assailant could be on drugs and not rational/capable of being afraid of a firearm OR they are also armed and will shoot you dead while you are trying to "scare" them. Ideally an assailant will not realize you have a firearm until they are being shot.

 

[liljim]

quality live blog of the trial here;

http://www.freep.com/article/20140730/NEWS02/307300044/1001/news

 

[liljim]

not one thing of any value to the jury has been discussed today imo

 

[AnaTeresa]

not one thing of any value to the jury has been discussed today imo

I think some of Gurka's testimony has been valuable, such as how he evaluated the scene and determined it wasn't a burglary; that Wafer's house was a secure; and no reason to believe that Wafer had been drinking.

I am really surprised the medical examiner is not board certified, though. Still, he testified about the location of her injuries, and about the injuries/lack of injuries to Renisha's hands, which is important if the defense is claiming she tried to break in. He also testified that the injuries indicate she was less than three feet away but no soot/stippling to indicate very close contact between skin and gun, which is also important I think.

 

[liljim]

I think some of Gurka's testimony has been valuable, such as how he evaluated the scene and determined it wasn't a burglary; that Wafer's house was a secure; and no reason to believe that Wafer had been drinking.

I am really surprised the medical examiner is not board certified, though. Still, he testified about the location of her injuries, and about the injuries/lack of injuries to Renisha's hands, which is important if the defense is claiming she tried to break in. He also testified that the injuries indicate she was less than three feet away but no soot/stippling to indicate very close contact between skin and gun, which is also important I think.

ok not nothing but nothing that is going to make or break the case i guess is how i felt.

in a perfect world he would be testifying, but i dont see any way that happens. and i really feel that is what the case is going to come down to - does the jury find him credible.

because there isnt going to be any evidence that completely rules out his story of how it happened.

 

[liljim]

werner spitz on the stand, i have seen this guy many times, at least once i can recall i thought he hurt the defense with his demeanor while testifying. maybe demeanor isnt the right word, i mean the way he chose his words and whether he directly responded to questions etc

 

[islandmixed]

So Wafer is not taking the stand it seems? I know the prosecution has rested but he needs to get up on there pronto!! Need to hear it...

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

 

[AnaTeresa]

ok not nothing but nothing that is going to make or break the case i guess is how i felt.

in a perfect world he would be testifying, but i dont see any way that happens. and i really feel that is what the case is going to come down to - does the jury find him credible.

because there isnt going to be any evidence that completely rules out his story of how it happened.

Ok, gotcha. In that respect, there weren't any bombshells. Just laying out the basic facts.

I don't see him testifying - criminal defendants rarely do so. It has a lot of risk, and most attorneys don't feel that it helps and it opens the door to the prosecution introducing stuff from his past that could sway the jury. That said, if he doesn't have impeachment material in his background, and he can give sincere testimony about his fear, I think that would go a long way with the jury.

werner spitz on the stand, i have seen this guy many times, at least once i can recall i thought he hurt the defense with his demeanor while testifying. maybe demeanor isnt the right word, i mean the way he chose his words and whether he directly responded to questions etc

BBM. We consulted with Dr. Spitz to see if we wanted to use him as an expert in a case a few years ago. We were less than impressed and went with someone else. He's probably a very good at what he does, but we did not think he did a good job explaining things.

 

[ohiogirl]

AnaTeresa, I think his best days may be behind him. jmo

 

[AnaTeresa]

AnaTeresa, I think his best days may be behind him. jmo

I'm not sure why they went with him, to be honest. There are plenty of Midwest experts that are very good, and charge less.

 

[liljim]

hmmm i had to do some work and when i got back the blog had stopped refreshing right after spitz took the stand, when i tried to reload the page it goes to a news story that has no mention of the blog on it :/

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

I'm currently focusing on another local (metro-Detroit) case but noticed that Nancy Grace will cover the Wafer trial this hour on HLN.

 

[islandmixed]

I'm currently focusing on another local (metro-Detroit) case but noticed that Nancy Grace will cover the Wafer trial this hour on HLN.

Great, I hope I can watch clips of this. Wish her show could be streamed live, as I am not in the US. So many people hate this woman lol is she that bad

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk now Free

 

[liljim]

i havent found it yet in the blog records (still looking thru the first 2 days) - was there evidence she hit her head on the windshield? was the footprint on the AC determined to have definitely come from her?

 

[liljim]

ok from what i can find about the footprint - it was not absolutely hers and there is some question whether or not it is definitely a footprint (at least from the testimony of one LE)

 

[HauntsForHope]

i havent found it yet in the blog records (still looking thru the first 2 days) - was there evidence she hit her head on the windshield? was the footprint on the AC determined to have definitely come from her?

There was a mark on the windshield where her head hit it. Carmen Beasley testified that she saw blood on RM right after the crash. She told her to sit down and wait for the ambulance.