Even if you accept that that's true [[and we have only Mr. Wafer's word that it is), it still doesn't come anywhere near a justification for opening fire on someone, and certainly not for homicide. Which is why Mr. Wafer was convicted.
The reason the difference that iheartthed bring up matters is, of course, that actually breaking into the house might have given him some legal justification for his actions, but Ms. McBride didn't do that. So he really had none.
I'm not sure at all why you and Wesley keep grinding away at this particular ax. The main and largely undisputed facts of the case - unarmed person on porch shot and killed through open door and locked screen door of house - and all of the ancillary actions, lack of actions [[such as calling the police), and claims, were examined by a jury of his peers and he was found guilty and sentenced. Yet, I go away for a few weeks, and here you still are adamantly defending him with all sorts of excuses that do not, in fact, excuse the crime in question. What in the world is your interest in defending this man's clearly reckless, criminal, and ultimately tragic actions?
Bookmarks