Posted on 11/16/2013 11:20:18 PM PST by BunnySlippers
Ron Bretz, a Cooley Law School professor and former criminal defense attorney, says the case may boil down to a single word. "It's got to be reasonable," he said. "The question is: What would a reasonable person do in these circumstances?"
That may be the key question in determining Wafer's guilt or innocence, but much else is left unknown about a case that features legal and societal implications.
SELF-DEFENSE
Under a 2006 Michigan self-defense law, a homeowner has the right to use force during a break-in. Otherwise, a person must show that his or her life was in danger.
Defense lawyers are expected to argue that Wafer feared for his life when a drunken McBride _ toxicology reports put her blood-alcohol content at well above the legal limit for driving _ came to his door in the middle of the night hours after crashing her car blocks away in Detroit. Those factors contribute to Wafer's "very strong defense," said his lawyer, Mack Carpenter.
----
"You've got a gun. There's an unarmed young woman on your front porch," he said. "Is it reasonable to think that she's a threat to you? That's going to be a toughie. "Is it fair to feel scared when a stranger is pounding on your door at 4 or 5 in the morning? Hell, yeah. ... Don't answer the door," Bretz said.
----
Bretz said a potential defense argument is that McBride's extreme drunkenness posed a threat. "Was she acting crazy? If so ... this gave (Wafer) a greater right to be afraid," Bretz said.
(Excerpt) Read more at phillyburbs.com ...
people are not safe from some others types of people.....its just a fact....self preservation is inherent...
… and, in a court of law?
She was still outside, when he fired the gun.
Unless there is evidence to show that she was trying to break down the door, it would be tough to prove self defense.
They’re not going to let the defense introduce the evidence of the young lady’s drunkenness. They should, but they probably won’t.
I don’t think they’ll get away with that in a court in the US.
But, what may happen, is that the jury revolts and convicts.
Can the defense bring in that Homeland Security training target with a pregnant woman on it?
Seems to me that if the government is training its agents not to hesitate before shooting a pregnant woman a drunk and incoherent woman on your porch at 4 AM is just as threatening.
Plus, How is he supposed to know she is not armed? After the fact, it is easy, but while she is there, do you ask her to strip? Seems that would get you in trouble.
Would her drunkenness come up during Discovery anyway? I don’t see how “They” can keep that knowledge and factor of consideration from the jury, assuming this is not decided by a judge. I would not answer the door at that hour. If I thought someone was in real danger, I would phone 911 plus the police, to do the humane, Christian thing. But no, I would NOT be inviting her in for tea and crescent rolls at that hour. I figure the only active people out then, barring a real emergency, would be thieves, drug sellers and so called sex workers being watched by their doped up pimps. If there is such a thing a third degree manslaughter, this may fit the bill.
What if he perceived himself to be in danger? I think this was the point of the article.
I think that’s a fair judgement of the situation. But the law is different in some states. I’m sure somebody simply being on someone’s property and belligerent is considered sufficient provocation in some places, while in others one is required to retreat if the house has a second exit.
Did the State of Floriduh allow George Zimmerman to introduce the toxicology evidence from Saint Skittles Trayvon?
I don't know about Michigan law, but that usually has to be a reasonable perception of danger. Someone knocking on your door, even late at night, shouldn't be perceived as dangerous. Annoying and rude? Yes, but not immediately dangerous. Trying to kick in the door would be.
If I was on the jury with what I've heard so far of this case (and knowing how the press warps everything), I would be leaning towards a conviction. I could be convinced otherwise, but that perception of danger is going to be a pretty hard burden to prove.
I’m more inclined to wonder if this guy knew who he was shooting. I frankly do not think he clearly identified a person before he shot.
And … he said he did not mean to shoot.
But he has a hostile jury IMO in Detroit.
Whatever happened to his claim that the shooting was accidental? Has he dropped that? Or is the media simply ignoring it because self defense sells more papers?
That is still an element. I have to believe that it will have y=to be credible. IMO.
I think not.
If I had someone pounding on my door at 4 in the morning, likely angry and belligerent, and told them to go away and they got more angry and belligerant and pounding more and more you can bet I would grab my gun and be very fearful that this was ploy to get in the house...and bring others...no matter what sex or race they were.
Someone knocking on your door, even late at night, shouldn’t be perceived as dangerous.”
That might be the case in your neighborhood. But in my neighborhood anyone who knocks on a door late at night doesn’t belong there. Everybody knows everybody on the block and everyone has all their neighbor’s phone numbers so no reason to go visiting unannounced. Had this gal come into our neighborhood she would have been met by someone armed. Not sure anyone would have pulled the trigger but she certainly would have found herself tied up and detained while she wanted for the police.
You know, I’m throwing in the towel here. I agree with the both of you.
If this young woman had not set things in motion that night, she would be alive. She caused her demise, not the defendant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.