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

[Sonya610]

I still think it is more likely that she got confused and thought this was her mom's home and that is why she was going back and forth from door to door banging thinking she was waking up her mom to let her in. JMO

While he should have called 911 first I am sure his lawyer will tell the jury that it isn't a law that someone has to call 911 first if they think they hear an intruder.

I have also seen the photograph shown in court of Renisha laying on the porch and if I had not known who it was already at first glance I would have thought it was a heavyset male laying there. I am not in any way trying to disparage Renisha but just being honest. I can see Mr. Wafer really not knowing the gender of the person on the porch banging on his doors.

I agree with everything you have said. I don't think for one minute she was "asking a stranger for help", if she HAD BEEN he would have HEARD HER! Seems as if she was just banging on doors because she expected the occupants to automatically open up because she lived there. Fact is she probably got angry when they did NOT open up because "she knew her mom etc...was home" so she could have easily gotten louder and more aggressive when she wasn't let in.

Secondly they said he did not have a land line and he could not locate his cell phone to call 911. I also find that very believable in the heat of the moment.

Thirdly while she is described as a "young girl" etc....in fact she was not a petite coltish teenager, she weighed 184 pounds. It was also November in Detroit so one can expect heavy clothing may have been involved.

 

[islandmixed]

it is possible that that is what happened, but there is no evidence for almost all of what you say beyond the fact that she did not successfully break into his house (havent seen anyone claiming that anyway, he surely isnt).

there is virtually no critical evidence beyond his story to tell us what happened. there are also many possible, reasonable scenarios to explain what happened, and that is why the case is going to come down to whether or not they believe wafer's account, or his testimony if takes the stand.

this is one of those cases where if truth and justice is really what the system is all about then the defendant should have to take the stand.

Right, and since there is no evidence to say she broke in or stepped foot into his house. His self defense claim should have been denied from the jump. We all know how this game goes, seen far to many cases in the past few years of self defense. All I hope is that he takes the stand and talks. I am more upset that I cannot watch this trial so I can see his demeanor and actions. But since the victim is dead, and as u said, will the jury believe his account and let him off...

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk now Free

 

[islandmixed]

I agree with everything you have said. I don't think for one minute she was "asking a stranger for help", if she HAD BEEN he would have HEARD HER! Seems as if she was just banging on doors because she expected the occupants to automatically open up because she lived there. Fact is she probably got angry when they did NOT open up because "she knew her mom etc...was home" so she banged loudly and aggressively.

Secondly they said he did not have a land line and he could not locate his cell phone to call 911. I also find that very believable in the heat of the moment.

Thirdly while she is described as a "young girl" etc....in fact she was not a petite coltish teenager, she weighed 184 pounds. It was also November in Detroit so one can expect heavy clothing may have been involved.

Now when you are locked out, and your certain you live here, do you not Holla mom, it's me? Surely, i hope this man gets on the stand cause anyone who thinks they live someplace, you would call for someone, after awhile IMO. Maybe she did not, just common sense to me. Now as for her ending up at his door, that's my only logical explanation also, she may have thought she lived there.

I agree on the cell phone part, in the panic moment, u may not even think about it. But why did he aim for her head??? Why not below, legs etc. Come on wafer!!! We not stupid lol

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk now Free

 

[liljim]

Right, and since there is no evidence to say she broke in or stepped foot into his house. His self defense claim should have been denied from the jump. We all know how this game goes, seen far to many cases in the past few years of self defense. All I hope is that he takes the stand and talks. I am more upset that I cannot watch this trial so I can see his demeanor and actions. But since the victim is dead, and as u said, will the jury believe his account and let him off...

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk now Free

the law is on his side regarding self-defense, right up until the trigger is pulled.

after that you have to decide if self-defense still applies even as far as pulling the trigger. but, this is where his story gets tricky (and extremely self-serving) he claims he did not shoot on purpose. and i do not know exactly how this is addressed by the law, unfortunately nobody seems to want to talk about it either. it seems to me that it would be the critical issue to clear up.

if the jury believes his story, and IF this is his final version of events - "i was awoken by pounding on the door, i could not find my phone to call 91 and was afraid a home invasion was about to occur, i decided to arm myself and see what was going on to defend my self and my property. when i opened the door someone appeared out of nowhere and they were headed right towards the door/yelling/trying to open the screen door, i didnt even have time to think and the gun just went off, i did pull the trigger but it was not purposefully, it was an accident, a reflex"

if that is his story and the jury believes it - has he committed a crime under the law?

i can imagine reasonable people disagreeing on whether or not that SHOULD be a crime, again provided that you believe the defendant and do not think he had any ill will, but whether or not that actually is a crime i have no idea and i have not heard anyone address it. they just say "first it was an accident, then its self-defense! it cant be both!"

yes, it can.

 

[liljim]

you are assuming he aimed.

and remember, in any consideration of her actions you have to remember she was extremely intoxicated, black out level intoxicated. it seems clear to me that she was somewhere drinking after the accident, i also strongly believe that someone knows very well that they were with her and is not coming forward because they dont want to get involved. if she was just walking around or was passed out/knocked out somewhere her alcohol level would not have remained so high over 3 1/2 hours later.

and this is not blaming the victim, this is trying to understand what her actions may have been at the scene. i dont blame her at all, people do what she did all the time and do not lose their lives over it, and also i dont think she had any idea what she was doing, she got too drunk, and high, and maybe a slight concussion, and everything went wrong and it cost her her life.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Now when you are locked out, and your certain you live here, do you not Holla mom, it's me? Surely, i hope this man gets on the stand cause anyone who thinks they live someplace, you would call for someone, after awhile IMO. Maybe she did not, just common sense to me. Now as for her ending up at his door, that's my only logical explanation also, she may have thought she lived there.

I agree on the cell phone part, in the panic moment, u may not even think about it. But why did he aim for her head??? Why not below, legs etc. Come on wafer!!! We not stupid lol

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk now Free

Imo, he did not aim at all and that is why he struck her in the face. As a legal gun owner and one who carries a conceal permit we are always taught to aim at body mass (torso) to stop an intruder or someone you think is going to do you harm. Striking a part of the body that is much smaller like the head is much harder to do even when taking aim.

The reason it killed Renisha is she was just feet away from the barrel of the shotgun when it went off, imo. Close range shots are usually deadly no matter the weapon used. You can tell in the crime scene photo she was right up at his door.

But still they only found 17 pellets iirc which means most of the pellets didn't strike her.

When Mary Winkler shot her husband in cold blood at close range with a shotgun he had 77 pellets removed from his back at the time of autopsy.

IMO

 

[Sonya610]

I am more upset that I cannot watch this trial so I can see his demeanor and actions. But since the victim is dead, and as u said, will the jury believe his account and let him off...

You don't believe his account? You don't think he was terrified and defending his home?

Honestly what is the alternative, that he "lured" this poor teenager to his house so he could shoot her in the face? I don't think so.

There is a REASON the police did NOT charge him immediately or start to collect all of the evidence for several days, the police and d.a. DID believe him and they were NOT going to charge him until it turned into a political issue.

 

[Sonya610]

But still they only found 17 pellets iirc which means most of the pellets didn't strike her.

When Mary Winkler shot her husband in cold blood at close range with a shotgun he had 77 pellets removed from his back at the time of autopsy.
IMO

Do we know what type of shell he used? I have looked for that and didn't find it. The number of pellets depends on the type of shell (with buckshot there are very few balls/pellets, bird shot can be dozens of tiny pellets). Based on the autopsy report it seems to me she did absorb the full blast.

I agree though, if he was actually aiming he would have aimed at the center mass (chest).

 

[Sonya610]

But why did he aim for her head??? Why not below, legs etc. Come on wafer!!! We not stupid lol

You seem to think people calmly and rationally "aim" at moments like that. For the record I do think he probably fired by accident, he was nervous and when she appeared he had his finger on the trigger and that caused the shotgun to go off.

Why do the police shoot MULTIPLE times instead of just once? They have FAR more accuracy and experience than the average citizen but if they have to shoot a threat they general shoot MANY times and often empty their weapons before they stop. In the heat of the moment even trained professionals can't aim perfectly.

That is why people want clips that hold multiple rounds instead of just 1 or 2, it is NOT like being at the firing range and taking your time on perfect shot placement.

 

[ckrdpast]

Yes they could both be true. Example -- if a teenager snuck out of the house and then was shot upon returning because a parent thought it was an intruder it would be BOTH self-defense and an accident.

The initial shooting could easily have been in self defense as they thought a dangerous intruder was entering the house however when it turned out it was a member of the household then they would say it was an accident because while they meant to shoot an "intruder" and not their own kid.

(I am using the example of a shooters offspring because whenever I hear a case of someone "accidentally shooting their spouse" I always think that it probably was NOT an accident).

If you shoot an intruder, it may be self defense. But because it turns out to be a member of your household, you can't claim "accident". Your intent was to shoot an intruder.

There is no evidence, that Renisha, did anything more than knock, bang or pound on Wafers door. Knocking, banging, even pounding on a door is not illegal. Wafer grabbed his gun, opened the door, and shot Renisha in the face. He opened his door, a door that was protecting him from his perceived danger.

At first he said that he didn't know the gun was loaded. Why, if he is scared for his life, would he OPEN his door exposing himself to a threat, with a gun he didn't know was loaded?

Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[liljim]

^that usage of accident is just distracting, it is not what is claimed here tho i understood sonya's example.

the law protects him up until he discharged the weapon, if he is telling the truth.

and regarding him saying he didnt know it was loaded, we discussed that earlier and again it all comes down to whether or not you believe him. he could reasonably say that he didnt believe a round was chambered, and in defense of his property he only intended to see what the heck was going on and hopefully intimidate whoever it was into stopping and leaving. then he was startled etc

people stand up for themselves while scared all the time, the idea that because he opened the door he could not have been in fear is not true. it might be true in this case, depending of course on whether you believe his version of events, but it certainly isnt always true.

 

[ckrdpast]

^that usage of accident is just distracting, it is not what is claimed here tho i understood sonya's example.

the law protects him up until he discharged the weapon, if he is telling the truth.

and regarding him saying he didnt know it was loaded, we discussed that earlier and again it all comes down to whether or not you believe him. he could reasonably say that he didnt believe a round was chambered, and in defense of his property he only intended to see what the heck was going on and hopefully intimidate whoever it was into stopping and leaving. then he was startled etc

people stand up for themselves while scared all the time, the idea that because he opened the door he could not have been in fear is not true. it might be true in this case, depending of course on whether you believe his version of events, but it certainly isnt always true.

Not saying he wasn't scared, I believe he was.

There was testimony in court, stating that the gun could NOT have been fired accidentally.

So they are claiming self defense.

A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self defense was justified.Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury.A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack.Non deadly force can be used to repel either a non deadly attack or a deadly attack.Deadly Force maybe used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Defense

I think he has to take the stand to explain.

 

[liljim]

"There was testimony in court, stating that the gun could NOT have been fired accidentally."

i dont think he is claiming that kind of accidental discharge, i thought i made that clear in my post. its not a "the gun just went off" claim, its a "i didnt intend to pull the trigger but i realize that i must have" claim.

self-defense varies from state to state and is much different when a person is inside their home as opposed to just two people meeting in public.

by the way, i would probably convict him of some form of manslaughter if the law allowed it, i do think he is guilty of some crime (not 100% certain).

i agree he should take the stand but i guarantee he is being counselled not to and almost certainly will not.

 

[islandmixed]

You don't believe his account? You don't think he was terrified and defending his home?

Honestly what is the alternative, that he "lured" this poor teenager to his house so he could shoot her in the face? I don't think so.

There is a REASON the police did NOT charge him immediately or start to collect all of the evidence for several days, the police and d.a. DID believe him and they were NOT going to charge him until it turned into a political issue.

I do not believe nobody's account if the story changes, I am sure if it was your daughter, your feel the same way. Of course I believe he was shaken up. But your speaking like she entered his home, she was outside banging bis door. You do not bring a gun loaded and fire until you truly know what's going on,point blank period. If you get it, you get it, if you don't, we'll than you just dont get it.

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk now Free

 

[islandmixed]

If you shoot an intruder, it may be self defense. But because it turns out to be a member of your household, you can't claim "accident". Your intent was to shoot an intruder.

There is no evidence, that Renisha, did anything more than knock, bang or pound on Wafers door. Knocking, banging, even pounding on a door is not illegal. Wafer grabbed his gun, opened the door, and shot Renisha in the face. He opened his door, a door that was protecting him from his perceived danger.

At first he said that he didn't know the gun was loaded. Why, if he is scared for his life, would he OPEN his door exposing himself to a threat, with a gun he didn't know was loaded?

Doesn't make sense to me.

RIGHT! I could careless if the roles were reversed and she shot him dead. I would feel the same way, you do not open your door and just fire a round when nobody entered your home. You can be as terrified as you want. You do not have the right to take someone's life like that.

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk now Free

 

[islandmixed]

Not saying he wasn't scared, I believe he was.

There was testimony in court, stating that the gun could NOT have been fired accidentally.

So they are claiming self defense.

A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self defense was justified.Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury.A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack.Non deadly force can be used to repel either a non deadly attack or a deadly attack.Deadly Force maybe used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Defense

I think he has to take the stand to explain.

Oh he must! LOL I need to be sure I understand his motives. Being terrified does not give you a golden ticket to shoot.

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk now Free

 

[Sonya610]

You seriously believe that wafer fired by accident? Hand on the trigger, never knew his gun was loaded but was terrified.

Yes I seriously do, and I don't know why others find that so unbelievable.

He likely heard someone continually banging at different doors AROUND the property and stupidly thought if they realized he has a shotgun, if they saw him with a shotgun, they would LEAVE.

He came out with his finger on the trigger, and when she suddenly appeared he "jumped" and the gun went off when he involuntarily squeezed the trigger. That is why folks are SUPPOSED to keep their finger OFF the trigger until they are ready to fire! For that very reason! In case they get nervous and accidentally squeeze the trigger!

Everyone has experienced being startled and "jumping" involuntarily, that is EXACTLY what can happen in a tense situation when you are holding a loaded firearm! That is also why you keep the weapon pointed up or down unless you are ready to shoot, if accidental discharge was "impossible" then gun owners, hunters, police officers etc...wouldn't worry about casually holding their weapons and letting them point at others.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Yes I seriously do, and I don't know why others find that so unbelievable.

He likely heard someone continually banging at different doors AROUND the property and stupidly thought if they realized he has a shotgun, if they saw him with a shotgun, they would LEAVE.

He came out with his finger on the trigger, and when she suddenly appeared he "jumped" and the gun went off when he involuntarily squeezed the trigger. That is why folks are SUPPOSED to keep their finger OFF the trigger until they are ready to fire! For that very reason! In case they get nervous and accidentally squeeze the trigger!

Everyone has experienced being startled and "jumping" involuntarily, that is EXACTLY what can happen in a tense situation when you are holding a loaded firearm! That is also why you keep the weapon pointed up or down unless you are ready to shoot, if accidental discharge was "impossible" then gun owners and police officers wouldn't worry about casually letting their weapons point each other or at crowds "because they would know nothing can happen accidentally".

BBM

I believe you are correct. And the literature states the mere showing of a weapon by the homeowner or resident results in 92% of the legally armed citizens never having to fire their weapon when they point it at the person they see as a threat to them. I don't really think criminals are that stupid and are going to test someone out and make them prove the weapon pointed at them is really loaded.

The reason why the weapon doesn't even have to be fired most of the time to run away a criminal or intruder away or hold them at bay until the cops come is criminals don't care if they hurt others but being the lowlife cowards they are they themselves don't want to be hurt.

I don't think there is a criminal in the land who is going to say to the legal gun owner who is holding the gun "I don't believe your weapon is loaded, show me.' Not even if the thugs come from MO, the 'show me' state.

I see no motive for Mr. Wafer to intentionally kill Renisha and the state hasn't proved motive or intent, imo.

If the jury is fair and comes to a decision based on evidence, setting emotions aside, the most they will convict him of is IV which is more to do with recklessness and negligence in failing to control his weapon.

This sure isn't a 2nd Murder case and the state has not proved Mr. Wafer had malice in his heart when he shot Renisha. Accidentally, imo. A 6.5 pound trigger pull is not hard to do especially if someone became startled and their finger reflexed due to Renisha coming from out of his view to all of a sudden being right up at his door in front of him. I think that would have scared/startled anyone who was in the same situation Mr. Wafer found himself in.

This was a man who was inside his home asleep bothering no one. A man who had a DUI conviction over two decades ago and no further convictions of any kind since then. And they found no evidence of drugs or alcohol use in his home. It sounds like Mr. Wafer lived a peaceful law abiding life until Renisha came into the picture that morning.

IMO

 

[daisy7]

BBM

I believe you are correct. And the literature states the mere showing of a weapon by the homeowner or resident results in 92% of the legally armed citizens never having to fire their weapon when they point it at the person they see as a threat to them. I don't really think criminals are that stupid and are going to test someone out and make them prove the weapon pointed at them is really loaded.

The reason why the weapon doesn't even have to be fired most of the time to run away a criminal or intruder away or hold them at bay until the cops come is criminals don't care if they hurt others but being the lowlife cowards they are they themselves don't want to be hurt.

I don't think there is a criminal in the land who is going to say to the legal gun owner who is holding the gun "I don't believe your weapon is loaded, show me.' Not even if the thugs come from MO, the 'show me' state.

I see no motive for Mr. Wafer to intentionally kill Renisha and the state hasn't proved motive or intent, imo.

If the jury is fair and comes to a decision based on evidence, setting emotions aside, the most they will convict him of is IV which is more to do with recklessness and negligence in failing to control his weapon.

This sure isn't a 2nd Murder case and the state has not proved Mr. Wafer had malice in his heart when he shot Renisha. Accidentally, imo. A 6.5 pound trigger pull is not hard to do especially if someone became startled and their finger reflexed due to Renisha coming from out of his view to all of a sudden being right up at his door in front of him. I think that would have scared/startled anyone who was in the same situation Mr. Wafer found himself in.

This was a man who was inside his home asleep bothering no one. A man who had a DUI conviction over two decades ago and no further convictions of any kind since then. And they found no evidence of drugs or alcohol use in his home. It sounds like Mr. Wafer lived a peaceful law abiding life until Renisha came into the picture that morning.

IMO

Hi, Ocean -- Hope you are doing well!! :blowkiss:

I mostly agree with your post, though I have a few questions/comments in no particular order.

First, I haven't read the specific statutes on the different levels of manslaughter/homicide in MI -- does anyone have a link handy? I'm most familiar with FL laws and I can't see how Renisha's death would fit into our current statutes. Though, juries tend to do weird things in my state.

That 92% statistic you gave is the first time I ever heard this -- can you give a link?

IMO, I don't know whether or not Wafer had malice and I'm leaning towards not. The big red flag for me is that he opened his front door, because if he was so in fear for his life, why would he open the door?? Even if he was just brandishing his gun as a threat and Renisha was shot accidentally through a user-error in using his new gun, he needs to be punished and, IMO, harshly. Owning a gun is a huge responsibility that far too many gun-owners don't seem to understand.

MOO, IMO and all that.

 

[liljim]

WAFER IS TAKING THE STAND

sorry but i think that deserves all caps

wow i cant believe it, he is on the stand right now.