E
ezkl2230
Guest
The self-defense shooting of 19 year old Renisha McBride in Dearborn, MI, is generating a bit of publicity in Michigan; the people responding to the article published on 11/16/13 by Guns.com about it are almost unanimous that Theodore Wafer, the shooter, broke the law. I'm interested to see what kind of response the situation gets here, but I'm going to present it a little bit differently. I have cut and pasted an edited version of my response to that article here (so if the font is screwed up, there isn't much I can do about it):
In July, 2001, a drunk, unarmed, hispanic male (he was 2 1/2 times the legal limit) banged on the doors of a home in Cedar Springs, MI, a low crime area (Crime rate in Cedar Springs, Michigan (MI): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers statistics), early in the morning. The home owner, knowing someone was outside his home, stepped out on his porch to confront the man (who was running from the police, although the homeowner did not know this), told him to leave the property, then went back into his home, got his gun, and shot him when he didn't leave. The county prosecutor said there was no evidence that the drunk intended to commit a burglary or a crime of violence, and "The tragedy is, had he [the homeowner] not gone outside to confront him, this kid probably would have simply staggered away. But there is nothing illegal about going outside your house...It is human nature to second-guess how this drunken kid might still be alive if Mr. Clarke hadn't stepped outside to confront him."
Nevertheless, despite the lack of evidence suggesting that the drunk intended to commit an act of violence, the homeowner was found to have acted in lawful self defense and was not charged.
Fast forward to Detroit.
A drunk 19 year old African-American woman (2 times the legal alcohol limit), covered in blood, bangs on the door of a home in Dearborn, a high crime area (Crime rate in Dearborn, Michigan (MI): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers statistics), in the early hours of the morning. She has been in an auto accident and is incoherent, apparently a combination of her drunken state and the injuries from her accident. All the homeowner apparently knows is that an incoherent person covered in blood is banging on his door; he takes Biden's advice and shoots through the door, hitting her in the face. As is the case in the incident listed above, the PA says there is no evidence that she intended to commit a violent act, and charges the homeowner with second degree murder, manslaughter, and a felony firearms charge. The PA observes, “There is no duty to retreat if you’re in your own home. Someone who claims lawful self-defense, must have an honest and reasonable — not honest or reasonable — belief of imminent death or imminent great bodily harm of himself or another person, and the use of force that’s used must be necessary to prevent that imminent death or great bodily harm of himself or another person.”
Does this situation comport with the precedent that was set in the 2001 case?
Not taking sides, just throwing this out for consideration regarding the legal precedent and its applicability in this instance. Is Theodore Wafer guilty of breaking the law, or is this race-baiting run amok again? The NAACP and Rev. Al are both trying to draw comparisons to the Trayvon Martin case - again.
In July, 2001, a drunk, unarmed, hispanic male (he was 2 1/2 times the legal limit) banged on the doors of a home in Cedar Springs, MI, a low crime area (Crime rate in Cedar Springs, Michigan (MI): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers statistics), early in the morning. The home owner, knowing someone was outside his home, stepped out on his porch to confront the man (who was running from the police, although the homeowner did not know this), told him to leave the property, then went back into his home, got his gun, and shot him when he didn't leave. The county prosecutor said there was no evidence that the drunk intended to commit a burglary or a crime of violence, and "The tragedy is, had he [the homeowner] not gone outside to confront him, this kid probably would have simply staggered away. But there is nothing illegal about going outside your house...It is human nature to second-guess how this drunken kid might still be alive if Mr. Clarke hadn't stepped outside to confront him."
Nevertheless, despite the lack of evidence suggesting that the drunk intended to commit an act of violence, the homeowner was found to have acted in lawful self defense and was not charged.
Fast forward to Detroit.
A drunk 19 year old African-American woman (2 times the legal alcohol limit), covered in blood, bangs on the door of a home in Dearborn, a high crime area (Crime rate in Dearborn, Michigan (MI): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers statistics), in the early hours of the morning. She has been in an auto accident and is incoherent, apparently a combination of her drunken state and the injuries from her accident. All the homeowner apparently knows is that an incoherent person covered in blood is banging on his door; he takes Biden's advice and shoots through the door, hitting her in the face. As is the case in the incident listed above, the PA says there is no evidence that she intended to commit a violent act, and charges the homeowner with second degree murder, manslaughter, and a felony firearms charge. The PA observes, “There is no duty to retreat if you’re in your own home. Someone who claims lawful self-defense, must have an honest and reasonable — not honest or reasonable — belief of imminent death or imminent great bodily harm of himself or another person, and the use of force that’s used must be necessary to prevent that imminent death or great bodily harm of himself or another person.”
Does this situation comport with the precedent that was set in the 2001 case?
Not taking sides, just throwing this out for consideration regarding the legal precedent and its applicability in this instance. Is Theodore Wafer guilty of breaking the law, or is this race-baiting run amok again? The NAACP and Rev. Al are both trying to draw comparisons to the Trayvon Martin case - again.
