Posted on 11/15/2013 9:19:59 AM PST by Uncle Chip
Isn’t there a principle called something like “relative culpability” in some cases, in which both parties are assigned some of the guilt? (Perhaps that is only in civil cases.) But it sounds like the woman broke at least three laws before she ever got to the man’s house. If SHE had broken no laws, the whole thing never would have happened.
I’m sure that’s how his attorney will argue it because she was certainly no girl scout.
The family has certainly not helped their cause with all the lies and accusations coming from them.
First they said that her body was “dumped” in Dearborn when they knew that is where she wrecked her car.
Then they said that she was just trying to get help but somebody at the scene called the police for her and advised her to wait for them — but she left the scene of an accident.
Then she shows up on his doorstep 2 hours later. His house was only 6 blocks away. What was she doing all that time???
And this was her 4th totalled vehicle and she is only 19.
Correct. I'm not arguing that.
DannyTN wrote about shooting through a locked door. In case he missed the point, I was clarifying that he shot through a locked SCREEN door, which I'm sure brought the groggy man face to face with a scary looking and possibly agitated individual at his door.
Closing the door should have been the first move, but the homeowner said that the gun went off "accidentally."
I agree that he should have closed the door, or better yet, not even opened it. But he chose poorly, which left him standing face to face with a bloodied and possibly agitated woman. He again chose poorly when he fired instead of closing the door (or by "accidentally" squeezing the trigger). He might have chosen poorly again regarding the 911 call.
Exactly. These prosecutor load up on the charges hoping to make one stick.
I am not sure the guy should be charged at all but overcharging is an old trick to get a win or a plea,when you really do not have a case.
hopefully the guy gets a fair trial, he does not have a fair prosecutor IMO.
I've seen this comment in the media, and I don't get it, as it implies somehow that people are not dangerous "at a distance". But that's self-refuting: the homeowner was obviously able to deal deadly force at a range of a few feet, as could any armed individual.
Not much of a stretch to imagine that his lawyer will try to make the case that he reasonably believed she was armed. There may well be evidence that was indeed the case.
Dunno though, wasn't there myself.
I don’t agree with the guy, but I don’t think he’s being unfair. Seems to me more revealing of inexperience or a gung-ho attitude.
That last charge was laughable IMO.
I do think the home owner brought this on himself, if the young woman was not entering his home. I wouldn’t kill someone for banging on my door. Start walking through it and it’s over, I don’t care what any other circumstance is short of a family member or something.
It’s in the hands of the court now.
We weren’t here we don’t know what happened, but I agree with you, No way would I shoot someone off my step unless terribly provoked or frightened.
That's what's getting national play. And it needs to be questioned because even now, with such limited information, it's clear that it's all a bunch of lies.
I do have some questions about that narrative: a) who, exactly, makes up this family, and what do they stand to gain by spreading their phony story? b) who is this lawyer, and how did he come to be associated with this case? Did he just prospect it up, or was he contacted by the family, or perhaps some other third party? (where's Al Sharpton, in other words?) c) Who is paying said lawyer? d) Who else stands to gain from this? And how? e) What other players are involved in disseminating this version of the narrative to the media? Who's paying them? And what do those people get out of it? I'm sick and tired of the corrosive, phony race-baiters and their enablers in the media.
Thanks Venturer. I agree that we don’t know everything yet. It’s hard to comment, but I try to explain my frame of reference. If the particulars are different, then of course my thoughts would morph as warranted.
I think you’ve identified why the story being told by the family was so expertly crafted. We’re all focusing on the aleged crime, and probably poor training and tactics of the homeowner. The story just resonates because we can all imagine ourselves in the same situation, and realize that we’d probably try to handle things differently.
But that just puts the focus on the shooter. He was, after all, minding his own business, presumably asleep in bed when all of this mess happened. He didn’t go out looking for trouble, but Ms. McBride’s friends and relations (who appear rather numerous) went out and hired a PR firm and a lawyer to basically slander Mr. Wafer before any facts at all were publicly available. Mr. Wafer will have his day in court, and is entitled to the same presumption of innocence that any criminal defendant would have. That, however, isn’t the story.
I want to know why the family and their lawyer can get away with telling their pack of lies to the press and not get called on it by ANYONE.
“She was injured in a car accident and was only asking for help”. Yeah, really? a) they couldn’t possibly know what she was doing, at best idle speculation. b) and the car crash occurred a half mile away and two hours in the past and c) she left the scene after witnesses offered assistance and told her that they had called 911.
She was fleeing the scene of a DUI T.C. is more like it. What possible help was she seeking? Only thing that makes sense to me is that she was trying to gain entry to the house in order to evade arrest for the two crimes she had just committed. I’m not saying that makes this homicide justified, by any means but it certainly doesn’t make Mr. Wafer a blood-thirsty murdering cracker, either.
I figure I have two choices: open the door and see if I can talk to her, or call 911. I THINK I'd call 911
Just remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. When the police finally arrive all they can do is draw a chalk line around your dead body. You should really rethink your decision to not own a gun.
From what I’ve read thus far it sounds like he likes to drink and he becomes a mean drunk. He might have been sleeping one off and didn’t appreciate being awakened in the midst of his hangover.
Vary the circumstances a bit, and a lot of crimes where the shooter is trashed, come under the same type of circumstances.
The shooter wasn't out looking for trouble. (I'm obviously referencing self-protection here.) Invariably though, these shooters are being evaluated based on an even playing field, when it isn't.
A bandit goes into a 7/11. He winds up dead. Then the cashier is treated as if he were the guy going out looking for trouble, just like the perp. It's ridiculous. You're driving along in your car. At a light someone walks up to your wife's window, breaks it, and starts pulling her through it. Bang. He's dead. Then you have to not only defend yourself for having a gun, you have to defend the use of lethal force. The perps say, "Aw we were just having some fun.", and the jury seems to identify with that. Say what?
My test is this. If you're going about your business, and someone interrupts you to create havoc, they're fair game. If there's a solid implication someone in your party may be seriously harmed or killed, I support blowing the perp away, no second thoughts.
IMO Zimmerman wasn't going out looking for trouble. He saw someone suspicious, and he did what he should have. Even if he challenged Martin, Martin could have simply stated, "Yes, well, my dad lives right there. I was just coming back from 7/11. Gotta go now..."
I think Martin jumped Zimmerman because he pegged him as a guy he could teach a lesson. WRONG!
Zimmerman used justifiable lethal force.
If you are going about your business, or you are doing something you have been authorized to do, then you should have some semblance of cover, and not be treated as if you were equals with the trouble-maker.
Theodore Wafer Arraignment Nov 15 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsC9Wq2tC68
Renisha McBride family presser Nov 15 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqWs12bMos
Interesting point. Wonder if or how that would be dealt with at trial. The law, after all, takes you as it finds you.
We’ll hear elements of the prosecution’s case first, since they have to charge him at the arraignment, and then present some evidence at his prelim. I’m sure that elements of the defense will include the so far uncontested fact that Mr. Wafer was really minding his own business and in no way sought contact with Ms. McBride, who was, in fact fleeing the scene of a crime, and possibly seeking to avoid arrest at the time she was trying to gain entry to Mr. Wafer’s house.
Hungover or not, the prosecution has to show that a reasonable person, with Mr. Wafer’s own particular set of training, skills, physical and mental abilities etc. could not have been reasonably in fear of his life at the time of the shooting. Mr. Wafer doesn’t need to prove anything.
It seems apparent that the homeowner overreacted. I wonder how much different this story would be if the shooting victim was white.
Of course not; blacks are out numbered 7 to 1 demographically, so it only stands to reason that 7 out of 8 of their victims would be non-black. /DU /Bleeding Heart Lib /Jessejackass
Of course, that doesn’t do anything to explain why 12 or so percent of the population commits 50-70 or so percent of violent crimes.
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.